« NAACP Screeches From a Time Warp | Main | John McCain: A Musical Tribute »
January 11, 2008
John Edwards: Exploitative Threat to Medicine
John Edwards has been exploiting the case of Nataline Sarkisyan to advance his cause of destroying American medical care and replacing it with the socialized medicine that has proven so ineffective and economically unsustainable in other countries. As when he was an ambulance-chaser, and used medical tragedies to enrich himself, the facts are not on his side, as pointed out at the Wall Street Journal.
Supposedly Nataline died because CIGNA dragged its feet on paying for an experimental transplant procedure. In reality, transplants normally take place as soon as an organ is available, with insurance details worked out afterwards. As for the Breck Girl's plans to impose European-style socialism:
A study published in 2004 in the journal Liver Transplantation compared the relative severity of liver disease in transplant recipients in the U.S. and U.K. The results were striking. No patient in the U.K. was in intensive care before transplantation, one marker for how sick patients are, compared with 19.3% of recipients in the U.S. Additionally, the median for a score used to assess how advanced someone's liver disease is, the "MELD" score, was 10.9 in the U.K. compared with 16.1 in the U.S. — a marked gap, with higher scores for more severe conditions. Both facts suggest even the sickest patients are getting access to new organs in the U.S.
On the whole, the U.S. also performs more transplants per capita, giving patients better odds of getting new organs. Doctors here do far more partial liver transplants from living, related donors, but also more cadaveric transplants (where the organ comes from a deceased donor). In 2002 — a year comparative data is available — U.S. doctors performed 18.5 liver transplants per one million Americans. This is significantly more than in the U.K. or in single-payer France, which performed 4.6 per million citizens, or in Canada, which performed 10 per million.
What about the differences in outcomes between ours and single-payer systems, an issue Mr. Edwards hasn't directly addressed? One recent study found that patients' five-year mortality after transplants for acute liver failure, the type from which Ms. Sarkisyan presumably suffered, was about 5% higher in the U.K. and Ireland than the U.S. The same study also found that in the period right after surgery, death rates were as much as 27% higher in the U.K. and Ireland than in the U.S., although differences in longer-term outcomes equilibrated once patients survived the first year of their transplant.
These findings aren't confined to transplanted livers. A study in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation compared statistics on heart transplants over the mid 1990s. It found patients were more likely to receive hearts in the U.S., even when they were older and sicker. The rate was 8.8 transplants per one million people, compared to 5.4 in the U.K. Over the same period, about 15% of patients died while waiting for new hearts in the U.K. compared to 12% in the U.S. In 2006, there were 28,931 transplants of all organ types in the U.S., 96.8 transplants for every one million Americans. There were 2,999 total organ transplants in the U.K., 49.5 transplants for every one million British citizens.
What about Mr. Edwards's implicit thesis, that U.S. organ allocation is dictated by someone's ability to pay? When it comes to livers, the majority of U.S. transplants are for chronic liver disease, usually resulting from hepatitis C or alcoholism. These are diseases disproportionately affecting lower-income Americans who predictably comprise a comparatively higher number of people getting new organs.
Patients are no better off having unnecessary cesarean sections to protect doctors from lawsuits — a result of Silky Pony's career as a legal brigand. Neither will care be improved if freedom is removed from the medical field, and hospitals are run like the Post Office.
On a tip from Varla.
Posted by Van Helsing at January 11, 2008 7:56 AM
Comments
I'm probably like most people that pay for insurance..a little confused with health insurance. As I understand it Cigna and its peers act only as an administrator with corporation clients that are self insured. I'm sure the relationship is deeper than just a clearinghouse but bottom line the employer uses it's own assets to pay for the medical bills of it's employees as well as the surprises that come along with the rest of the family. Further, laws force the company to pay the medical bills for the depedants and spouses regardless and it's illegal to make an employment decision based on expenses inherited with the dependents such as chemo, dialysis etc. which can easily result in 30K incomes receiving 100's of thousand of dollars in benefits. In other words Cigna's money isn't at stake its the employer and they use Cigna for guidance. Which to me means Cigna is an irrational target for those angry...am I wrong ? I'm married to someone that signs those checks daily and she just roles hers eyes when she listens to people like Edwards more or less fib. She doesn't say much other than "that' not the way it is". So what's the story is it's big bad greedy Cigna or a Corporation trying to stay and employer while under a growing burden of family medical bills? My family spends about 12 Grand/year for our PPO and normally use's very little on the other hand we've had years that cost someone 60K plus while my premiums stayed the same....I think I come out way ahead generally....where am I wrong here ?
Posted by: Mike K at January 11, 2008 9:42 AM
I am one of those that signs the check you speak of also. What your wife didn't tell you is that the majority of the fund we distribute do in fact go to the lower level employees and their dependents. Of course we have far more mid-level and lower level employees than in upper management but on average in my company they have far higher dependent expenses than our managers. When the expense for a employee reaches a certain level we have alternative...other forms of insurance we have to help defer the burden but in a nut shell yes we pay not the insurance co we employ.
Posted by: Rob Peter at January 11, 2008 11:22 AM
It is strange how Kerry doesnt support the Breck Girl. Hmmm...
Posted by: Freedom Now at January 11, 2008 3:26 PM
Cigna is definitely an irrational target for anger here. What about the hospital??? There doesn't seem to be any question that the hospital told the family very clearly either CIGNA comes through with the money or we don't operate. Well why not? Hospitals treat uninsured people all the time and then pass the cost on to the insured patients! And they don't let delay transplant operations waiting for insurance when an organ is available. The truth here is that this young girl was far too ill to be helped by a transplant. The hospital knew this and didn't want to further add to their uninsured costs with a patient whose outcome was doubtful. It doesn't make any sense at all that the family is taking this out on Cigna.
Posted by: Greg at January 11, 2008 5:30 PM
Typical day in the life of John Edwards on the campaign trail:
Appearance 1:
Speech 1:
"There are two Americas. My daddy worked at a
mill." "Bush is an asshole."
"Are there any questions?"
............
............
"OK, Thanks."
Appearance 2:
Repeat Speech 1.
Appearance 3:
Repeat Speech 1.
Etc...etc...etc...
Posted by: Eneils Bailey at January 13, 2008 12:41 PM
What this weak commentary and 'scientific investigative report' doesn't mention is how many of the 40+ million uninsured American citizens never are diagnosed before they die of liver disease. Keep spreading the fear of 'socialized medicine' so more people can die while insurance company CEO's get obscenely rich. It's a fair trade, don't you think?
In the meantime, up here in Toronto, I'll go get my FREE wellness check. Eat your heart out America!
Posted by: R Watson at January 16, 2008 7:05 AM
How's the taxes up there Watson?
Nothing is for free...
Posted by: Freedom Now at January 17, 2008 5:38 PM
