I am already under a "Death Panel" of sorts...

[WCGreen]

they will not give me, or anyone who needs two lungs, a transplant once I hit 60.

I can live with that since lung transplants are the least likely to survive. I understand.

There are all sorts of stop treatment protocols already built into the hodge podge of health insurance policies already dictating medical care.

Here's another one for you. I was discharged from the hospital after 19 days when I clearly wasn't well enough. Who made the decision? The Insurance company. When I was let go, they set up an at home drip for me so that I could administer my own IV's five times a day. But here is the rub, I have to pay the whole cost. Not only do I have to make sure my own medicine is administered, I have to pay $ 1,800.00.

(I'm not bitching, I have no problem with paying my fair share, or what is determined to be my fair share, of my over $100k bill.)

Who set up that protocol to determine why and when I should be released? Not government bureaucrats. Insurance company bureaucrats.

Nameless bureaucrats with a profit motive motivating them. No sense of altruism at all. Whether or not I needed to stay was irrelevant. I was out the door. Ready or not, here I come...

So tell me, who would you rather have making these potentially life threatening decisions on your behalf?

[Hekate]

1. You've hit that particular nail right on the head. "Government bureaucrats" are ultimately ...

... answerable to us via our elected representatives, if they are really civil servants and not some privatized outsourced scheme. Insurance company bureaucrats are answerable to NO ONE outside the corporation they work for, and the corporation is indeed driven by the profit motive.

I know which one I want administering my health insurance.

KnR.

Hekate

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. How outrageous...

You not only had to administer the IV meds, but you had to PAY the total cost too?

Insurance company bureaucrats are agents of the devil. Altruism does not apply to them at all.

I have no problem deciding who I want making these life threatening decisions on my behalf: my husband or whoever stands in his place should that be necessary.

K&R

[Jamastiene]

3. You make a very good point.

Insurance companies should not be allowed to regulate themselves, because that's what they'll do, what happened to you. They care more about $ than people.

[Goldstein1984]

4. I'd rather have government bureaucrats making the decisions

without regard to profit. But, now that his comes up, where health care is concerned I would want those government bureaucrats to be highly accountable.

What I do expect, though, is that decisions, while not made in regard to profit, may be made in regard to best use of limited resources. Some of those decisions, which should be made according to strict analytical methodology, are likely to be controversial when looked at through an emotional lens.

WCGreen, I hope you are doing well.

[WCGreen]

5. Thank you...

I am as well as I can be...

But this is the crux of the matter, insurance baccarats or governmental bureaucrats.

The reason the Democrats are probably ignoring this potentially potent weapon in their rhetorical arsenal is that they are beholden to the insurance industry.

[Goldstein1984]

6. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that

our elected representatives are purchased by Wall Street as soon as they arrive, if not before.

And I believe this holds true in all areas. We fight wars for "national interests." Since 1980, we've been cutting taxes, privatizing government services, deregulating business, and cutting social services.

It's pure social Darwinism.

The working class is being turned into the peasant class. Every one of us is one serious illness away from losing everything we've spent our lives accumulating.

[libodem]

7. Exactly

Glad to hear somebody come out and frankly say that. Me too. I'd rather have the government make the rules than the money grubbing million dollar CEO's. WCGreen, I'm sorry for all you have to go through. That's messed up, buddy. I have chronic condition and no insurance so I can empathize with all the expense of treatment just to survive.

[Goldstein1984]

9. I'm fortunate that I have insurance, but

I've been helping family members who do not, so I also understand what it's like not to have it.

[BP2]

8. All things being equal, I'd rather fight

a private company that makes these fateful decisions than the federal government.

At least I can sue Aetna or Wellpoint or stage a press event to "motivate" them to do the right thing. The media can move mountains when it comes to a company getting bad TV coverage because they're neglecting their customers.

OTOH, good luck suing the government or embarrassing a nameless federal bureaucrat in DC who denies you the care that you rightfully need.

[WCGreen]

10. Good luck suing them...

But you can shame a bureaucrat by contacting your congressperson...

[csziggy]

11. If you plan to sue a corporation these days, you'd better own a lawyer

Or better yet, an entire stable of lawyers. The insurance company does. The insurance companies keep the meanest, nastiest, least likely to negotiable attorneys that ever existed on retainer just to be ready for lawsuits. They don't have to have a good defense, they just have to have attorneys who know how to delay and how to use your attorney's time. Eventually, you will run out of money to pay your attorney - that is, if you had any left to hire one in the first place after paying for your deductible, copay and anything the insurance company refuses to cover.

If you have a life threatening illness, the insurance company attorneys will drag out the case until you are dead. Your heirs will not have the money or the energy to continue to pursue the case.

The insurance companies do not worry about damaging publicity - there are plenty of horrendous cases out there, but the mainstream media has not covered them, why should they get excited about one more death or charge of neglect at the hands of the insurance industry?

[WCGreen]

12. One of the main reasons they don't get too upset over the death of

people due to malpractice or insurance malfeasance is because the insurance companies are big time advertisers.

[csziggy]

16. Yup - besides, few really sick people are photogenic

Or famous.

I watched my brother-in-law literally work himself to death while battling pancreatic cancer. If he stopped working, he lost his insurance. And even with the insurance, paying for his treatment was very expensive. When he finally got so sick he no longer could work, he was pretty much done with life. He stopped treatment, since it was no longer doing him any good, and died less than two weeks after that. While his cancer was not discovered until it was stage four, I can't help but wonder how much better the treatment would have done if he could have gotten sufficient rest and had less to worry about.

Insurance companies have more than one way to impose a death sentence on their "customers".

Good wishes to you.

[1]

13. why is it?

"they will not give me, or anyone who needs two lungs, a transplant once I hit 60."

why is that?

[WCGreen]

14. The survival rate is not worth the trouble...

That is what my doctor told me right out of the chute.

[1]

15. wow. that sucks. sorry, my brother...