It's like a story straight out of the movie SiCKO.
A pretty 17-year-old California girl needed a liver transplant, but her insurance company, CIGNA (based right here in Philadelphia), said they would not pay for it.
The public caught wind of this, and the public protested. As a group of nurses and other citizens rallied outside CIGNA's office in Glendale, California, on December 20, the company decided to reverse its decision.
But it was too little, too late.
Nataline Sarkisyan died just a few hours after CIGNA's reversal, after having spent weeks of her short life in a vegetative state.
Now Nataline's family is planning to sue CIGNA, as well they should. They have hired superstar attorney Mark Geragos, who plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against CIGNA in this case.
Ironically, CIGNA uses the slogan "A Business of Caring" in its advertising and on its website. But they didn't seem to care much about whether Nataline lived or died.
As this case demonstrates, and as filmmaker Michael Moore illustrated through several similar cases in SiCKO, the U.S. health insurance industry is more concerned with their own profits than they are with the health of their subscribers. If people must suffer and die so that their insurers can make money, then so be it.
It's no coincidence, then, that the United States ranks 37th in the World Health Organization's rankings of the world's health systems (below Malta, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, and numerous other countries that might surprise you). Yes, apparently you can get better health care in the United Arab Emirates than you can in the good ol' USA.
We've got good medical technology. We've got good hospitals. We've got good doctors and nurses. But the insurance companies get in the way.
This is not just a medical issue or a political issue. It is a human rights issue. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
Got that? Medical care, and security in the event of sickness or disability. But not for Nataline Sarkisyan. Because CIGNA needs to make big money.
CIGNA yielded $16.5 billion in revenue in 2006 (yes, that's "billion" with a "b"), but they couldn't afford to give Nataline a new liver when she needed it.
The U.S. is considered the richest country in the world. Clearly those riches are not distributed in interest of the common good.
And, given Congress's lack of a backbone with which to stand up for the rights of the non-rich and non-powerful, I don't hold out much hope for change. And I wonder how many more Natalines will have to die so that corporations can continue to rake in their obscene, bloody profits.
###
http://www.maryshawonline.com
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views appear regularly in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and websites. Note that the ideas expressed here are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty International or any other organization with which she may be associated.
This is the best reason I know of to do away with the health care insurance industry. Now even the medicare recipiants are facing cuts in coverage, what next? Perhaps all of us need to fire our doctors and get a herb practioner?
by
Robert N Smith (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 112 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 9:02:28 AM
As long as we allow political bribery in the form of campaign contributions, health insurance is what we are going to get. Even John Edwards has a platform that keeps health insurance companies in business. Americans pay more for less than any country in the world.
by
Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 359 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 10:56:55 AM
robert n smith--you are righter than you think. what we do need are holisitic practitioners. we need free and full access to all forms of healing--that is what freedom health access is all about. it guarantees all practitioners the right to practice and all people the right to chose those practices.
ron paul is a disaster dispite his support of freedom of health access. but his motives are wrong. the insurance industry supports big pharma with its drugs, and surgery, but only in limited amounts, just enough to keep the public hooked in co-dependcy with that industry. however, the medical system promoted is so flawed and unhealthy that it kills more than it saves. with minimal reporting, we still get numbers that say that allopathic drugs legally administered in hospitals is the 3rd biggest cause of death each year in the usa! if mandatory reporting became required and all adverse effects of drugs like vaccines were recorded, allopathic medicine would clearly be the biggest cause of death each year. so why are people fighting for access to this system. it is beyond me. i do not have health insurance and use my money to pay for the services that i feel most useful: they are all holistic. and i also assume the responsibility for my health which means i take the time to research any health conditions that concern me and mine. that is where we need to move and put the insurance business in its place.
as for ron paul or any other politician, non of them will really attack the insurance companies or big pharma. there is too much money from these people. so Clean Elections needs to be fought for to get corporate money out of politics. then we may see some effort to provide for people.
by
tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 2:43:22 PM
Socialized edcation,ambulances,fire, police, prisons, prosuecutions,water, power, Centrally controlled elections Commission which is independent of the executive.
Commerce has no place in the "Basics of modern life" (human rights).
It can be argued that the US took a "right turn" somewhere and lost the plot ( the all too real tragedy of that young girl). I am absolutely sure that she was simply the photogenic/ media example of a squillion of others who suffer as a result of an absurd system.
Mary, I am a little worried about your source material though.
- It is irrelevant how much the HMO gained in revenue from that one needs to subtract outgoings eg if they got in $16.5 billion in and paid out $16.2 billion then arguably it isn't a high yeilding business unless it's all about cash flow over night money markets etc. I have no doubt that their profits will be significant ant executive bonuses bordering on obscene but the case must be stated.
Next the WHO report you quote is 7 nearly 8 years out of date. There has been dramatic changes since then in Australia's Medical services.
Next of concern are the criteria used for example (Australia) has universal coverage.... the young girl who died would not have done so in Aus (screw ups asside)the govt would have picked up the tab. Private insurance here is optional ( encouraged). The poin is there is no 40Million incl childsen uncovered yet we are 3 places above US.
All this asside the thrust of your argument highlights a situation that isnothing short of a National Disgrace. That a 1st world country affords its most vulnerable a 3rd world system.
It is time the US woke up to the fact that unbridled capitalism is not in the nation's or people's interests and that some things are just better handled by the body corporate throgh a centralizded public service who answes to the people independent of party ideologies.
Likewise the health and wellbeing of our Aboriginals is our National Disgrace which has more to do with cultural issues.However this is not an excuse. Your turn to yell at me.
by
Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 3:17:59 PM
You can blame any target you want, and you can wish for any solution you wish, but as long as decent people allow sociopaths (no empathy and no conscience) to control life and death decisions, this poor girl is what you will get. She could be my daughter, your daughter, anyone's daughter, any place in the world. Just like CIGNA, all large corporations have become plantations, with a simple plantation manager under direction from foreign absentee owners. That's why they can NOT make quick, important, sensible decisions. Just take a look at CIGNA here:
You will see that the TOP 10 [less than 2%] of the Major Holders control almost 40% of CIGNA. That leaves 500 to divvy up the other 60%. You will see that over 20% is controlled outside our country. Australia, being part of the United Kingdom, is already completely controlled by these same groups.
99% of the people are NOT sociopathic. Why do we let these 1% control us? We've got to see thru the facade, that they lie, steal and murder to maintain that control. When is enough, enough? Do you really want Universal Health Care, which means that almost everybody is going to suffer. Just like 'No Child Left Behind,' which really means that ALL the children are going to be left behind. Be careful what you wish for.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 3:41:39 PM
Our health care system is a national disgrace. We are 37th in the world in caring for our citizenry ( Cuba, a third world nation, is 39th). Many good decent folks believe the industry propaganda about the govt controlled health care systems of Great Britain, Canada, Germany, France and Italy yet they all beat us soundly in the statistics.
We have 47 million Americans who had no health care this entire year, eleven million of them children. We are 13th in the world in infant mortality for gosh sakes, 13th! Wake up folks, it aint communism to promote govt sponsored care, and if health care is not the responsibility of our government what the hell is?
Some things should not be for profit, health care is definitely among them.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 6:37:17 PM
I absolutely agree, which is why in the past the local community supported the local health care providers directly. It's only now, when the corporate owners of HMOs, the corporate owners of hospitals, the corporate insurers, the corporate labs, the corporate malpractice insurers, the corporate drug manufacturers, the corporate drug distributors, the corporate pharmacies like Walmart, Walgreen, etc., all answer to the same common group ownership, that we have the problems we have now. Who do you REALLY think wants one-payer healthcare? Who do you think wants to eliminates EVERY step between us and their profits? Who do you think spends millions every year to move us closer to their goal? Who do you think REALLY wants to decide whether you live or die? The same sociopaths who think there's too many of us around right now.
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 7:15:33 PM
What kind of a country has this become to let a 17 year old kid die in order to increase corporate insurance profits? I have medicare which is disgusting as well. I now pay $96 per month plus deductibles for coverage which is barely there and can't afford all the additional premiums for RX coverage, Medigap, etc. Of course there is no dental so my molars are falling apart. My doctor stopped accepting medicare so now I just see a naturopathic chiropractor and pay for it myself. She gives me a discount and doesn't participate in HMO's. I never use the Medicare because it is such a hassle but if I drop it the government will charge me a huge penalty plus 10% of my social security check if I ever need it back. It's $96 in blackmail every month for nothing, already 10% of what I get to live on. Wish I was a French or Scandanavian senior citizen instead of American. They treat their seniors much better.
by
memary (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 7:02:10 PM
They should have her liver sauteed with onions served to that CEO.
I was unemployed and uninsured in Phoenix when I was hit by a car that ran the red light. The ride to the hospital cost just over $400 and it was about one half mile. If I'd known that, I'd have waited for a taxi. I got to wait in the ER like I'd come in with a cold and they had to perform that stupid blood oxygen test. I called a friend who helped me get my bicycle and I back to my apartment. The hospital called Friday morning to inform me I had a few fractured ribs, but since I was uninsured, nobody bothered to count them and what's more, they couldn't have cared less. Monday morning, the driver's insurance company tried to get me to admit I was at fault, even though I had the green light and waited a few extra seconds before heading across the street. You are either insured, or you are hosed, because you are dealing with a health care industry that only cares about your money than your health. His recovery was miraculous, what a coincidence his money ran out at the same time!
by
Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 136 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 8:28:19 PM
Certainly agree. We could call it "Institutionalized Extortion." The sickest joke played on the Russian people was the hammer and sickle flag. It didn't mean agriculture nor factory. It meant law and finance.
We're hammered by the law, and cut down by the sickle of finance. They're simply doing it here in America more than ever before.
The sickest joke on the American people was using the same corporate flag of the British East India Corporation. The same sociopaths that finance Putin and gang also finance Cheney and gang. Bush Jr. is just along for the ride. Noticed how they smiled when they were together recently at Daddy Bush's Boston area's vacation spot?
by
Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 10:34:47 PM
Should never forget that the government knows best, and is always effiecent and capable of taking care of it's citizens. Mother Russia did a wonderful job, now didn't it comrades?
Oh yes, I remember now... They too had socialized medicine... What ever became of that?
And I am sure the government in no way supports the behavior of the insurance companies, no no, of course not...
by
Julian Eleftheria (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 11:30:23 PM
You blame government becauseits easier than thinking hard about the problem. Government is necesary, government controls on health care is evidently very necesary. Better yet, as medicare is the most efficient form of helath care in this nation ( only 3% spent on overhead) government run health care is a far better choice.
Before any know nothing wacko seeks to post the formulaic lies from the industry about long lines, no service and no expensive diagnostic equipment in those nations that have such government care I tell you they are false, untrue, stupid lies from people who know nothing.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 9:51:24 AM
IKNOW HOW WE AS A NATION CAN SOLVE THIS VOTE D-E-N-N-I-S K-U-C-I-N-I-C-H. SINGLE PAYER NOT-FOR- PROFIT HEALTHCARE. THE ONLY CANDIDATE RUNNING WHERE THERE WILL BE CARE FOR ALL NO MORE CO-PAY, DEDUCTIBLES, ALL CARE COVERED. MEDICARE FOR ALL FROM THE WOMB TO THE TOMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE KUCINICH
by
oceanlite (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 12:05:30 AM
In countries where you have socialized medicine, it is the government, not you, and not your doctor who decides which conditions get treated and which ones don't. They tell you which procedures and medications they will pay for and which ones they won't. There could be better treatments and medications available but if the government does not want to pay for them, then you get third rate health care because it is cheaper. In the UK, they will not pay to incubate premature infants anymore because it is too expensive. If you want your preemie to live, you have to dig deep into your pocket to pay for it yourself. There are many drugs that you cannot get because the government says they are too expensive even though they are more effective. And if you think your health insurance premiums are expensive now, just wait until the government levies a tax against your wages to pay for a socialized system. Socialized medicine is NOT free, they tax you for it. In the UK they had to raise to minimum wage to around $11/hr just so they could collect enough money from everyone to pay for the healthcare they receive or else they would receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes and the system would go broke. This may sound good but the worker still takes home less money even though they get paid more. The difference goes to fund the NHS and the million other cradle to grave social programs they have there. This is reflected in higher prices for everything they buy and the same would happen here. Socialized medicine would destroy the economy. Also, it can take weeks or months to get a hospital bed or doctor appointment in countries that have socialized medicine because everytime someone gets a case of the sniffles, they run down to the doctor. They are paying for it, so they figure they better get their money's worth. You could die waiting for an appointment with a surgeon to operate on you. The government also does not pay doctors what they would get in private practice which means there would be a shortage of qualified medical personel in our public hospitals. Besides, do you really want your healthcare in the hands of someone who is only getting paid the minimum wage for doctors or someone who actually has a financial incentive to get you well?
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 6:40:14 AM
but it isn't the doctor or the patient who decides what care will be provide in this land of HMO's, it is the bean counters. Take it from someone who has managed a clinical practice and dealt with the HMOs. They even have the nerve to ask when cancer patients are expected to die before they give approvals. And this is better than Universal Health Care?? Also we can't forget that you can just go off and drop dead if you don't have health insurance and happen to have $2000 or more in assets, including your old beater car and/ or the little house you are struggling to pay the mortgage on. I left my good job in the medical field because I COULDN"T STAND THIS ANYMORE.
by
memary (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments)
on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 9:03:16 PM
As some one from a country where socialized medicine exists I totally agree that it (or an equivalent) is necessary. And I have no problem beating up on Insurance companies for their many instances of bureaucratic stupidity. I also work in health care and can rant up a storm about its awfulness on a day to day basis.
However, there are other issues at play in this particular situation.
1. Was this young woman realistically a candidate for a liver transplant? Given that her health was fragile and that a transplant involves immuno-suppressive drugs for life. Not always appropriate for someone with an existing serious illness.
2. Assuming that she was a candidate the waiting list for livers is long - very long. And all of those who are transplanted are as sick, or almost as sick, as this young women. The availability of organs - or lack there-of- is an important issue. Every day people who are great transplant candidates die because of a lack of available organs.
Organs pretty much only become available if someone else dies! A sad and simple fact. Live transplants involve many other issues and for livers are a fairly new procedure, and far from risk free. The process is at present:
a) a death through illness or trauma. That person is assessed. If they have already agreed to be a donor then it is a relatively easy route to follow. If they have not then relatives have to make the decision. That means convincing them the person will not recover and that "harvesting" their organs is a good idea!
b) If the answer is yes then anything harvested (organs, tissues, bone etc) has to examined and be disease free. Another tough call when organs are short in supply.
There is an alternative. Instead of America's Opt-in process (you sign ahead agreeing that all of your parts can be used if appropriate) have an opt-out process. This would assume consent unless the individual has specifically said they do not want their parts donated. Spain uses this system and so do other countries. No waiting lists there for matches.
Create the availability of organs for transplant in a timely fashion so that candidates are not so sick that their recovery is often doubtful anyway! This increases the success rate of transplants, removes them from the experimental category and becomes another weapon in dealing with insurance companies.
And now let's hear it for Universal Health Care!!
by
Pam Ladds (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 8:08:57 AM
Is it true that America, the land of unfettered capitalism, the land of money and profit worship, the land of deep hatred of socialism as a failed ideology, the land of mighty corporations conquering the world, the land of $500B annual military budget and $1B bomber, is considering universal health care??!!
OK I rub it in a bit, albeit very deserving.
Universal health care has worked in many countries, but will not work in the US. That's because of the following:
1) During the past few decades, the American public has been brainwashed to understand that government is always the 'the problem', that private sector is always superior. That wasn't so when the brainwashing started some 25 years ago, but the country proceeded to downsize, dumb down, tax cut and corrupt the politics driven by that belief, thus producing a self-fulfilling reality. Today, the US federal government is the most incompetent and corrupt in the free world. It can't manage anything. Asking it to manage universal health care is doomed to complete failure. Other countries in the free world obviously did not share the belief and operate fairly competent and honest governments, one which manage universal health care with a better effectiveness than the private sector.
2) Health care in the US is only one of the lastest example of America getting a teste of what it's government and multinationals has been dishing out to the world for a long time. As excellently written by Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine, US foreign policy, economic policy, military doctrine, and trade policy has been instrumental in reaping huge profits from many countries, not by democrcy and 'free trade' (the big illusion), but by imposing devastating shock treatments on them. The end result of such shocks is alwasy privatization, with Wall Streets and US big biz picking up the pieces of shoke-up and downsized governments and quasi-state assets at firesale prices. Recently, the shock doctrine has been applied to Iraq to destroy it then privatize it for plunder. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon also applied it to privatize and outsource the military for huge profits by the likes of Blackwater and Halliburtan. Now, of course, it is applied with the greatest strength to the medical and healthcare sector, to ensure it will always be under the control of big biz. That's why the chance of universal health care in the US is nil.
3) It is true the US has be most advanced but most expensive health care in the world. It only means health biz and professionals are reaping rich rewards. When you have such a large population of elites laughing to the banks, talking 'socialism' to them is like giving Hawaii to the Japanese and pretent they won WW2.
When can such a system change? When you have a civil war, enough people die, and the big bucks are no longer being made by the same people. But the shock doctriners are not dumb - they will ensure their health treatments will render a population not capable of starting a revolution in the first place!
by
TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments)
on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 at 5:14:45 PM
18 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
