Billygoat
02-10-2006, 09:30 PM
Or lack of:
http://tinyurl.com/bn669
"Man Dies After Insurance Co. Refuses To Cover Treatment"
When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental."
...
"As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request.
"It's purely economical. You never see an insurance company try to block an inexpensive test," said William Soper."
...
"Even as he was dying, for more than a week, his insurance company denied him oral morphine, which had been prescribed to reduce his pain.
"That's unacceptable because in this day and age, no one should be in pain," Pierce said. "
My question to all of you is:
"Would you let someone die solely because you would not get money for it?"
These people did.
It's not like they didn't have the neccesary resources on hand to take care of this person, they just wouldn't get paid for it.
And why not? Most of you out there pay taxes to your governments, and a small part of those taxes go towards paying farmers not to grow crops.
Not because there is to much food in the world, but so they (the farmers) won't flood the market with foods and thereby bringing the price down to an unprofitable level.
http://tinyurl.com/75svg
"The all-time highest recipient of direct federal subsidies is the agricultural sector, which collected $114 billion from 1995 to 2002. (See the Environmental Working Group's website.) The WTO estimates crop and milk subsidies at $19.6 billion for 2003. Much of that has been used to prop up prices to farmers because there is too much product on the market. In some cases, farmers are being paid not to grow crops in order to limit supply and increase prices. A careful analysis of how tax dollars are flowing to farms may very well reveal that we could reapply the money, phasing out subsidies that are justified currently only because of overproduction, and using it instead to develop crops that supply fuel. . The argument against this approach is that it could cause a modest increase in food prices. We would argue that subsidizing a farmer is an inefficient way to lower food prices for those that otherwise could not afford food. It is much more efficient to financially assist those who need the money in order to eat."
Is that any different? Starving people instead of denying them treatment?
That has got to be the saddest commentary on Human Civilization yet. If you can call that being civilized.
http://tinyurl.com/bn669
"Man Dies After Insurance Co. Refuses To Cover Treatment"
When Flink talked to Tracy Pierce, his cancer was attacking his body. Despite being fully insured, every treatment his doctors sought for him was denied by his insurance provider. First-Health Coventry deemed the treatments were either not a medical necessity or experimental."
...
"As he waited, his doctors appealed again and again, including a 27-page appeal spelling out that Tracy Pierce would die without care. Coventry dismissed each request.
"It's purely economical. You never see an insurance company try to block an inexpensive test," said William Soper."
...
"Even as he was dying, for more than a week, his insurance company denied him oral morphine, which had been prescribed to reduce his pain.
"That's unacceptable because in this day and age, no one should be in pain," Pierce said. "
My question to all of you is:
"Would you let someone die solely because you would not get money for it?"
These people did.
It's not like they didn't have the neccesary resources on hand to take care of this person, they just wouldn't get paid for it.
And why not? Most of you out there pay taxes to your governments, and a small part of those taxes go towards paying farmers not to grow crops.
Not because there is to much food in the world, but so they (the farmers) won't flood the market with foods and thereby bringing the price down to an unprofitable level.
http://tinyurl.com/75svg
"The all-time highest recipient of direct federal subsidies is the agricultural sector, which collected $114 billion from 1995 to 2002. (See the Environmental Working Group's website.) The WTO estimates crop and milk subsidies at $19.6 billion for 2003. Much of that has been used to prop up prices to farmers because there is too much product on the market. In some cases, farmers are being paid not to grow crops in order to limit supply and increase prices. A careful analysis of how tax dollars are flowing to farms may very well reveal that we could reapply the money, phasing out subsidies that are justified currently only because of overproduction, and using it instead to develop crops that supply fuel. . The argument against this approach is that it could cause a modest increase in food prices. We would argue that subsidizing a farmer is an inefficient way to lower food prices for those that otherwise could not afford food. It is much more efficient to financially assist those who need the money in order to eat."
Is that any different? Starving people instead of denying them treatment?
That has got to be the saddest commentary on Human Civilization yet. If you can call that being civilized.