Beurocratic "Death Panel" opts to let 14 yr old die...

[Norris]

And part of what she's spending her borrowed time on Earth doing is protesting the practices that put profits before people.

As Miran Istina puts it, she has been living on borrowed time since she was 14. Diagnosed with cancer, she was given just months to live after her health insurer refused to provide her with life-saving surgery.

Now 18, Istina, from the city of Sisters in Oregon, has spent the past three weeks living in a tent at the Occupy San Francisco protest and says she will stay there indefinitely, despite her illness.

She was inspired to take part in the protest by the refusal of her insurance company to pay for treatment for her chronic myelogenous leukaemia.

She said: "They denied me on the terms of a pre-existing condition. Seeing as I had only had that insurance for a few months, and I was in early stage two which meant I had to have had it for at least a year, they determined it was a pre-existing condition and denied me healthcare."

And here I thought it was public healthcare that was going to do that.

 

[Hailey Knight]

In before steinman "why should people get healthcare just to live?"

 

[Jay]

You know... there's medicine that can take care of that with an extremely high survivability rate (aka normal life expectancy with 90% + survivability rate ) . So what I understood about that article is basically, "LOLz get your shit together Americanas?"

 

[Norris]

You know... there's medicine that can take care of that with an extremely high survivability rate (aka normal life expectancy with 90% + survivability rate ) . So what I understood about that article is basically, "LOLz get your shit together Americanas?"

Pretty much. Sadly, four years of unchecked cancer growth has likely left he beyond any of help currently available, but that just makes her message more important.

 

[strawman]

In before steinman "why should people get healthcare just to live?"

"corporate greed is going to cost me my life."

Cancer is going to cost you your life. Your inability to find some insurer to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars, and your parent's inability to keep you fully insured so you didn't hit the preexisting clause and your decision to not live your life in debt and the gov't inability to provide universal healthcare has prevented you from obtaining treatment.

Fortunately Obama's healthcare plan, as inadequate as it is will prevent this from occurring in the future assuming it survives to be fully enacted. It forces your parents to give children adequate healthcare insurance, and adults to privde themselves health insurance and eliminates most preexisting clauses.

But, you know, pretending a death panel and/or corporate greed is the cause of your incipient death is probably comforting, so let's go with that.

 

[strawman]

I guess what gets me about this case is that the parents are ultimately responsible.

She was 14 when she was diagnosed. They decided that they couldn't afford it, so rather than go into debt (the hospital couldn't refuse treatment in this case) they decided to allow her to die. She was fourteen. She could have requested that a judge place her in state's care since her parents were not treating a life threatening condition that had a viabvle treatment, and the state would have covered the insurance. There are a dozen other ways to "play the game" and get the care you need if you understand the system.

But she was 14 - she didn't know better, and she depended on her parents to make correct decisions.

But even if there was no way to play the game - I would go into millions of dollars of debt if my child was sick. Even if it meant I'd be in such a state of debt after they died.

Ultimately I blame the parents - they failed this child.

The system failed the parents - there are a lot of things that could have gone better. A good doctor would have told the parents ways to get the care they needed.

Who knows what culture or system of beliefs they have. Perhaps they didn't have the tools, or perhaps they chose to take this course of action due to their own belief system.

They're going to lose their daughter because of it.

 

[strawman]

I'm still irritated. There are lots of families in the same situation. They start fundraisers, get friends and family to help, at least with the initial treatments. Find sponsors. They work with medical professionals to lower their costs, usually by half or more, while still getting the same quality of care. They get second and third jobs. They declare bankruptcy if needed.

She shouldn't have to die just for a lousy few hundred thousand dollars that would have helped if applied four years ago.

On the other hand, I don't know them, and I wouldn't cosign loan applications, or even donate unless I knew them.

But if it were anyone in my extended family or close friends I would treat their children the same way I would treat my own child and give every little bit that I could.

I just can't fathom the decisions her parents took when she needed their support.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Are you responding to someone who deleted their posts or triple-posting?

I know I didn't block anyone.

 

[strawman]

No, I really did post three times in a row without replying to any particular posts.

 

[Krisken]

Heh, that was a little confusing.
Added at: 21:22

No, I really did post three times in a row without replying to any particular posts.

You can't be dead inside. You have a balloon.

 

[Dave]

Neither I nor my family have health insurance because we can't afford it and mortgage. Tell me where this is right.

 

[Krisken]

Neither I nor my family have health insurance because we can't afford it and mortgage. Tell me where this is right.

Apparently that makes you a failure as a parent. Bastard.

 

[strawman]

Neither I nor my family have health insurance because we can't afford it and mortgage. Tell me where this is right.

You are probably glad to know that under the new healthcare plan you will be required to carry health insurance even if that means you can't afford your mortgage.

 

[Krisken]

Link?

 

[Hailey Knight]

He's correct; you're legally required to have health insurance or else something happens on your taxes. Get less back or something.

Now, the government is supposed to provide a health insurance plan alternative to the companies, but that's the next step...

 

[Krisken]

I'm not saying he isn't correct, I want the details.

 

[strawman]

Google "Individual Mandate":

11. A new tax on individuals who don't obtain adequate health coverage by 2014 -- this is often referred to as the individual mandate.. The tax is to be phased in over three years, starting at the greater of $95, or 1% of income, in 2014, and rising to the greater of $695, or 2.5% of gross income, in 2016.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessre.../health-care-reform-tax-hikes-on-the-way.html

However you may receive tax credits which may cancel out some or all of the tax costs above based on your family size and income - these credits only apply, however, if you do purchase health insurance:

Starting in 2014, if your income is less than the equivalent of about $88,000 for a family of four today and your job doesn’t offer affordable coverage, you may get tax credits to help pay for insurance.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/individuals.html

I do appreciate how the official website regarding the healthcare reform doesn't mention the individual mandate. You have to go somewhere else to figure out what happens if you choose not to participate in the healthcare plan.

You are going to pay either way. The new health insurance exchanges will make many plans available to you that are cheaper than what you might be looking at now, and it may be possible to find a plan that is cheaper than the taxes levied for not having a plan, especially once you take tax credits for having a plan and being low income into account.

Also note that

- Many preventative services are going to be fully covered under any plan - including major medical plans
- Children cannot be held to pre-existing condition clauses

 

[Krisken]

Ok, found a better website that goes into better detail on the individual mandate.

The approved measure provides hardship exceptions for those individuals and families whose incomes are too small to be able to afford the premiums required to pay for a basic insurance policy. More specifically, individuals or families who find that the least expensive policy available requires more than 8% of household income would be exempted from the mandate.

Keep in mind also that programs like retiree plans, veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), and insurance for active military members qualify.

 

[strawman]

Ok, found a better website that goes into better detail on the individual mandate.

Keep in mind also that programs like retiree plans, veterans programs, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), and insurance for active military members qualify.

Sure, but the problem is that there's a crack, which Dave appears to exist in, between the low income families which get federal and state aid, and the middle class which can afford housing, medical, food, utilities, etc.

There's a whole bunch of people that don't qualify for the free or low income options, but still can't afford it.

However, the health insurance exchanges should have cheap major medical plans which will qualify as health plans and eliminate the taxes, and should be cheaper than the taxes. Further, parents can insure their children on the cheapest plan available, and upgrade when they have cancer or some other problem requiring more resources, then downgrade when the problem is resolved. They'll have paid a fraction of what the treatment costs, and they can't be denied coverage because preexisting clauses can't be used against children.

Also, nice link. Thanks, that's a good bit of detail.

 

[Krisken]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother with a link.

The Act creates a credit that would be used to reduce health insurance premiums for low- and middle-income Americans who purchase coverage through the Exchange. The amount of a credit an individual or family might receive will depend on family size and household income. Family size and income will be compared with the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and the credit computed based on those two factors.

As a rule of thumb, families can anticipate that the greater their income, the less the credit; the larger their family, the greater the credit. FPL rises based on size of family. Hence, the poorest, largest families will receive most premium credit. The credit will phase out at 400 percent of FPL. Under current law, an individual with income up to $43,000 and a family of 4 with up to $88,080 of income can receive some premium credit.

More specifically, taking the affordability credits into consideration, the maximum proportion of income that individuals will pay for health insurance increases with income, on a sliding scale:

Up to 133% FPL — 2% of income
133 – 150% — 3% - 4%
150% - 200% — 4% - 6.3%
200% - 250% — 6.3% - 8.05%
250% - 300% — 8.05% - 9.5%
300% - 400% — 9.5%

Added at: 22:58
I'd like to add that I'm against the individual mandate. Just want to make things easier for Dave and help him find all the options available to him before he gets taxed a crap load with no benefit.

 

[strawman]

Yes. So if Dave has 3 dependents, and makes $88,080 per year, then he will pay no more than about $1,760 per year for health insurance. If he is making only $43,000 then he will pay no more than $860 per year. If he is making less than $43,000 then he will have some state aid covering some or all of his family's insurance needs.

Therefore families of four between 43k and 88k who currently CANNOT afford insurance (perhaps they live in LA or New York - keep in mind that the FPL doesn't account for cost of living) will HAVE to buy between $800 and $1,700 of insurance that they do not have to purchase now.

(I screwed the numbers above up - it would actually cost more. The $88k example only gets credits if they are paying more than 9.5% of their income to insurance, so it's actually much, much worse for this group of people)

The section of people who are hurting now - too much income to get state health insurance, too little to buy a good plan) - will still be required to buy health insurance.

The healthcare plan's answer to them are that 1) employers now have a greater responsibility to provide health coverage options to people they didn't previously have to offer them (they don't have to pay for the healthcare, just provide it as an option) and 2) states and insurance companies now have to provide health care exchanges which, in theory, should provide low cost health insurance plans to everyone.

Since 100% of people are supposed to be either covered or taxed, in theory the health care exchanges should be able to provide very low cost options.

 

[Krisken]

Which is what was proposed but killed in legislation as "big government". Don't know if you realize this, Stienman, but I'm for Health Care Exchanges.

This also means that if you start allowing insurance to be sold across state lines, you will have to have better national requirements to prevent companies from just relocating to states with lax requirements.

 

[strawman]

Which is what was proposed but killed in legislation as "big government".

What was killed? I'm missing something here...

/me recounts his marbles...

I'm guessing healthcare exchanges don't go as far as you would like: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/exchanges/index.html

The really are glorified information centers, aren't they. Bummer, I didn't realize that was gutted.
Added at: 00:22
A few new parts of the reform took effect last month - but only if you enroll in a new plan (old plans are grandfathered in and aren't required to meet the new requirements).

I don't know nearly enough about the act, so I may be spouting some stuff incorrectly - I strongly encourage everyone to read about it and understand it now, especially if you think it doesn't make a difference in your situation. It probably will change your health plan, and will affect you in some way.

 

[Norris]

and your parent's inability to keep you fully insured so you didn't hit the preexisting clause

I take issue with that. If one of her parents switched jobs, or their job changed health care providers, she could end up in this situation through no fault of anyone in the family.

And as far the parents go, they were presented with a choice - lose their daughter or financially ruin their family for (potentially) the rest of all their lives. Article says several hundreds of thousands of dollars. And there is no guarantee that, after putting themselves in a Marianas Trench of debt (potentially: losing their house, losing their cars, going bankrupt, not being able to send any of their kids to college, et al), it would do any good. Ruin the family indefinitely, lose their daughter to cancer. I'd call that Sophie's fucking choice right there.

She shouldn't have to die just for a lousy few hundred thousand dollars that would have helped if applied four years ago.

You mean a "lousy" several times the median yearly income for someone with a doctoral degree?

 

[Hailey Knight]

I don't think a loan provider would've given them several hundred thousand dollars for that.

Basically the only way they were getting it for their daughter was to have her immigrate to Canada or get into a John Q type of situation.

 

[Frank]

Users found this page by searching for: die miran.

Keepin' it classy.

 

[Necronic]

Actually I think that's because of Miranda Lambert's song "I wanna die"

It's what the autocomplete gives you if you type in Miranda Die

 

[North_Ranger]

Somehow - I wonder why? - this makes me very happy to live in what some people might call a pinko socialist country with well-funded public healthcare system that only charges me about $50 a day I spend in the hospital, and lets me get $1,000-a-pop white blood cell boosters free of charge. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got chemo in two days.

 

[LittleSin]

Here, here N_R!