« UPDATED: Grand Rounds #49, or the Carnival of the Caregivers | Main | Can't Resist: more to the story on obese woman vs. doctor »

August 30, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452353269e200d8348ced8f69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another heartbreaking case of too little coverage:

Comments

This will sound cold & heartless but that is not the intent.

People make decisions they later regret. The next step is to shift the blame to someone else.

PI #1 - We (the U.S.) have money to (insert your complaint here) but we lack the funds to (insert your personal plight here).

Personal choices were made here to purchase health insurance that is mostly for minor medical situations that occur within a specific time frame. The "it can't happen to me" syndrome kicked in and poor choices were made.

PI #2 - Again, very shortsighted.

We live in a country where elected officials are put in place to enact the will of the people. That does not mean everyone get's what they want, but the government acts on behalf of the majority for the benefit of all.

If they fail to live up to that charge they lose their job.

. . . The anger and frustration beats clearly in this article. The author has a forum and some who will listen and that is cathartic and provides some relief.

Much of life is not fair but the way you deal with crisis is telling about the person who is experiencing the conflict. This situation is sad, of that there is no question. The health issues are the real concern here, not the economics.

There is no injustice here. Merely a sad story about someone who failed to account for contingencies and then fails to take ownership.

Well, as I recall from my student days the health coverage provided by large schools isn't exactly full of choices. There's the student health plan and you take it. And since they're mostly designed for young students they're probably, as you say, designed for maintenance care. Sure, they could have thought "Hmmmm, I might need some supplemental insurance if something goes horribly horribly wrong", but honestly how many people would think to do that?

And I'm sorry, but I do think it's unjust that making under $600 per month in this country doesn't qualify you as poor enough to get disability. Where we draw that "poverty" line in this country is a joke. But you're right in that the *rest of us* obviously do not care about our poorer neighbors to elect officials who would care more for them.

If student health were the only choice, I would agree. But many carriers write individual major medical policies on children as young as 3 months old. Finding coverage at age 18 (or 34) is not an impossible task.

I agree that a $600 threshold for poverty standards is unreasonable. State programs for the poor and indigent vary greatly from federal programs. In addition, there are a number of folks who "qualify" for taxpayer supported programs simply on the basis of claiming they are poor without documentation. Here in GA I personally know people who have their children covered by the taxpayer funded health care program even though their income exceeds $100k . . . over 3x the qualifying guidelines.

As for the elected officials, let me suggest you look at the demographics on who votes, who doesn't. The majority of votes in almost any election do not come from rich, white folks. The last national election was determined mostly by the working, middle class with multi-ethnic backgrounds.

Those that are white, more highly educated, employed and with higher incomes turn out in larger proportion than those who are not, in every single one of those demographic slicings of the pie. Also, the older someone gets the more likely they are to turn out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501965.html?nav=rss_nation

Oh, and when I say that "the *rest of us*" are obviously not too preoccupied with the plight of the poor I include people like me...decidedly not rich. I include the middle class.

Proportions don't decide elections . . . those are decided by raw numbers. Perhaps things work differently in your part of the country, but not here.

When the polls close here, all votes count equally, no matter the color of your skin or economic class. The simple fact there are more people that are middle class (many of them one paycheck away from bankruptcy) carries no additional weight in the vote tally.

As Abe said, the good Lord must have loved the common man, that is why He made so many of them.

Sorry Bob, I was trying to make a quick and dirty point: whites are still the majority in this country, PLUS they showed up to the polls in higher proportion than other races, THEREFORE they were the majority of voters in the election.

So, to not be quick and dirty:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
-77% of the voters in the 2004 election were white.
-55% made over 50K
-74% had at least attended some college, with over 50% having graduated.

So, although I never actually brought up anything but "non-poor" voters (not race or even middle vs. upper class) the numbers tell their own story.

Bob is right,

These people got health insurance with a $100,000 max then the husband got liver cancer and their choice turned around and smacked them in the face. 34 years old is old enough to be smarter. Then instead of blaming themselves, this woman attacks the President of the United States, how disgusting. I would feel better in giving her money if she just explained that she was stupid. I bet she still has insurance on her 12 year old son that the child loses at a majority age if he becomes diagnosed. Then she will blame the President again.

Wow, you guys are all heart!

The whole start of my post is about how people don't think about the unthinkable. Not just teenagers, grown adults. I mean, you're offered your student health care plan. You take it. You feel like you got that covered. That is how many, many people think. No one is saying it's right or smart to take your health care for granted like that, but it's quite human.

If you two guys are insurance types who want to sell people the better, more thorough and comprehensive coverage they need, and if you are doing this not only as a business, but because you feel you are serving your community by doing so, which I'm more than willing to assume is part of why you do it...berating people in this way isn't going to send them walking through your door to work with you on that.

I'm not sure it's good marketing to dish out the completely anti-customer attitude that I see communicated on these (mine and other) medical blogs when consumers do actually read these things!

The comments to this entry are closed.