PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Poor guy has to die over money


Bump
08-08-2011, 10:31 PM
The evil, evil, evil healthcare industry will just let this man die because of money. Something's gotta change and soon.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/08/sc-pushes-for-medicaid-overhaul-after-man-denied-breast-cancer-coverage/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews

South Carolina health officials are petitioning the federal government to overhaul its "discriminatory" Medicaid rules after a local construction worker was denied coverage for breast cancer treatments because he is a man.

Raymond Johnson, 26, found out about his cancer last month. He visited the emergency room after a pain in his chest became unbearable. He already knew he had a lump there but, "being a male," assumed it was a cyst.

When the tests came back, "I found out I had cancer."

Thoughts flashed through his head, he told FoxNews.com. "Is this gonna be it for me? Am I gonna die?"

He stepped outside, he said, and "talked to the Lord." He resolved to do what had to be done to deal with the disease.

But when Johnson, who is uninsured, applied for Medicaid, he was swiftly rejected. The reason? He is a man.

"To me it's really dumb. ... It's not as common as a woman having breast cancer, but we do have it," Johnson said.

The state of South Carolina agrees with him. Since Johnson applied for coverage, the state Department of Health and Human Services has been in talks with federal Medicaid officials about the possibility of changing the rules. Tony Keck, director of the state health department, said in a statement that the federal position is "discriminatory" and urged the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to show some flexibility.

"This is a very clear example of how overly rigid federal regulations don't serve the interests of the people we're supposed to be helping," Keck said.

CMS said Monday that it is weighing its options.

"We are working with the [Centers for Disease Control] and South Carolina to see what options may exist to address this situation," CMS spokesman Brian Cook said. "We are committed to ensuring that all individuals who should be eligible for this program have coverage."

CMS has argued in the past that it would take an act of Congress to allow men to be covered for breast cancer visits. The problem has to do with a discrepancy between two laws.

In a 2009 letter in response to a prior attempt by South Carolina to cover a male patient, the agency said a 2000 law creating Medicaid coverage for breast cancer patients did not explicitly exclude men. That law, however, provided coverage only to those screened under a program which, according to a separate law, is meant for women.

As a result, men with breast cancer are the only class of patients barred from Medicaid coverage by their gender. At the time of the 2009 letter, CMS said Congress would have to pass an amendment in order to extend coverage to men.

The statement Monday left open the door to the possibility of acting without Congress.

Though breast cancer afflicts women the most, men are susceptible to it because they also have breast tissue that can develop cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, more than 2,100 cases of invasive breast cancer in men are expected to be diagnosed in 2011. Though breast cancer is about 100 times more common in women than men, the group estimated that about 450 men will die from the disease this year.

"It's a lot more rare, but it does happen," said Jeff Stensland, spokesman with the South Carolina health department. He said state officials hope the federal government can find the wiggle room in the law to change the guidelines to include men.

"I think they've been sympathetic to our argument. Whether that means they're going to change their minds or not, I don't know," he said.

Stensland noted that it was a state Medicaid office that turned Johnson down because it had to follow federal guidelines.

"He was otherwise eligible," Stensland said.

Meanwhile, Johnson is continuing to seek treatment, as well as the money to pay for it. He said churches and other organizations have helped pay the bills so far, and that he's still trying to get insurance coverage.

But Johnson, who had to go on medical leave from his construction job, said he hasn't had any luck. "I'm still looking," he said.

He's gone through two rounds of treatment and has another set up for late next week. He said he hopes the federal government changes its policy not just for him, but other men with breast cancer.

"Hopefully they'll change or look at it or something," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/08/sc-pushes-for-medicaid-overhaul-after-man-denied-breast-cancer-coverage/#ixzz1UVEeg9Ec

Ace Gunner
08-08-2011, 11:03 PM
Even people with good coverage can wind up spending their life savings on treatment.

Taco John
08-08-2011, 11:36 PM
It blows my mind that the healthcare industry would be called evil, evil, evil, when this has to do with the government regulations denying this guy coverage that he'd otherwise be eligible for.

Mr. Kotter
08-08-2011, 11:46 PM
It blows my mind that the healthcare industry would be called evil, evil, evil, when this has to do with the government regulations denying this guy coverage that he'd otherwise be eligible for.

Government regulations? Seriously? That a company can NOT, of it's own volition, over-ride? Seriously?

You ignore the real greed, yet wanna bag on "regulation" to save tax dollars? Heh. Nice.

LMAO

CrazyPhuD
08-08-2011, 11:49 PM
You know part of me says this is a personal responsibility issue too. He was young and employed so I'm guessing he felt, well I'm healthy I don't need insurance. There are many people that make that gamble. He lost that gamble and now he is responsible for that choice. I actually think I'd have an issue if medicaid did take him. He made a choice not to have insurance and the he got sick and said whoops looks like I should have had insurance...... Like big banks or individual people, we have to let people be responsible for their own choices(or not allow them to make the choice in the first place).

Mr. Kotter
08-08-2011, 11:54 PM
You know part of me says this is a personal responsibility issue too. He was young and employed so I'm guessing he felt, well I'm healthy I don't need insurance. There are many people that make that gamble. He lost that gamble and now he is responsible for that choice. I actually think I'd have an issue if medicaid did take him. He made a choice not to have insurance and the he got sick and said whoops looks like I should have had insurance...... Like big banks or individual people, we have to let people be responsible for their own choices(or not allow them to make the choice in the first place).

Philosophically, I agree. Since, companies want to put the blame on big-bad-gub-ment, in situations like this...screw them: they should just man-up and do the RIGHT thing. Otherwise, "ObamaCare" is utterly and completely justified as in the best interests, of the majority...period. End of story.

:shake:

CrazyPhuD
08-09-2011, 12:06 AM
Philosophically, I agree. Since, companies want to put the blame on big-bad-gub-ment, in situations like this...screw them: they should just man-up and do the RIGHT thing. Otherwise, "ObamaCare" is utterly and completely justified as in the best interests, of the majority...period. End of story.

:shake:

Yes this is part of what bothers me, everyone is harping on medicaid(really legitimately for having a stupid rule), BUT he wouldn't even have had to fight the rule if he had bought health insurance. The problem is no article is allowed to mention that because they'd get yelled at for being insensitive! Really the article needs to be medicaid is dumb for having the rule, but he's just as dumb for not buying insurance.

Taco John
08-09-2011, 12:15 AM
Government regulations? Seriously? That a company can NOT, of it's own volition, over-ride? Seriously?

You ignore the real greed, yet wanna bag on "regulation" to save tax dollars? Heh. Nice.

LMAO

Hard to decipher anything of worth out of anything you said. Not sure what company you are talking about. The story is about a guy who was denied Medicaid due to regulations that they won't pay for breast cancer for me. Did you even read the story, or did you go "OH! OH! Taco John posted! I need to jump in and make an ass of myself in front of everyone!"

spammy3
08-09-2011, 02:22 AM
That only shows that health is wealth.

FishingRod
08-09-2011, 06:50 AM
Well this would tend to support the liberal view that the Government needs to take care of and make all the Adult decisions for our fellow citizens because we won’t take responsibility for our own. When I was in my early twenties I was too old to be on my parent's insurance so I paid for Major med out of my own pocket. Being 24~ it was pretty cheap. I will take issue with Medicaid deciding on the eligibility of coverage on the basis of the person’s sex.

Cannibal
08-09-2011, 07:14 AM
You know part of me says this is a personal responsibility issue too. He was young and employed so I'm guessing he felt, well I'm healthy I don't need insurance. There are many people that make that gamble. He lost that gamble and now he is responsible for that choice. I actually think I'd have an issue if medicaid did take him. He made a choice not to have insurance and the he got sick and said whoops looks like I should have had insurance...... Like big banks or individual people, we have to let people be responsible for their own choices(or not allow them to make the choice in the first place).

Agreed. Let him die.

Bump
08-09-2011, 07:41 AM
well it shouldn't cost millions on dollars in the first place IMO. EVIL.

Jaric
08-09-2011, 07:47 AM
Most of us learned that life isn't fair when we were teenagers.

He's the one who decided not to get health insurance. Why should I cry big salty tears because now that decision is yeilding consequences?

Bump
08-09-2011, 07:49 AM
Most of us learned that life isn't fair when we were teenagers.

He's the one who decided not to get health insurance. Why should I cry big salty tears because now that decision is yeilding consequences?

yup, if he's not rich enough, he deserves to die. After all, nobody but the top 1% matters anyways.

Jaric
08-09-2011, 07:50 AM
yup, if he's not rich enough, he deserves to die. After all, nobody but the top 1% matters anyways.

This might shock you, but I'm not rich yet I magically have heath insurance.

Do you know why?

Because I decided to take it out when my company offered it to me. This guy did not.

Again, why should I cry big salty tears because some guy made a bad decision?

Donger
08-09-2011, 07:50 AM
"We all gotta die sometime, Red."

http://i2.listal.com/image/502154/600full-tom-berenger.jpg

Jaric
08-09-2011, 07:52 AM
I'd also like to point out, that the type of insurance this guy should have taken out, does not cost that much.

He's young. He needs basically catastrophe insurance. In case something really shitty happens (like say, getting cancer)

BucEyedPea
08-09-2011, 07:58 AM
well it shouldn't cost millions on dollars in the first place IMO. EVIL.

Well, you can blame rising costs on govt policy which turned our healthcare system into a corporate one where both doctors and patients are unhappy.

Bump
08-09-2011, 07:59 AM
I'd also like to point out, that the type of insurance this guy should have taken out, does not cost that much.

He's young. He needs basically catastrophe insurance. In case something really shitty happens (like say, getting cancer)

there is no guarantee that he'd be covered anyways even if he had bought insurance. It shouldn't be like this.

Cannibal
08-09-2011, 08:06 AM
there is no guarantee that he'd be covered anyways even if he had bought insurance. It shouldn't be like this.

Oh you can bet your ass that the insurance company would do everything they could to get out of paying. That's what they're in business for, to deny coverage. That's exactly how they make profit.

LOCOChief
08-09-2011, 08:08 AM
there is no guarantee that he'd be covered anyways even if he had bought insurance. It shouldn't be like this.

This is true. Less and less proceedures and treatments are available.

LOCOChief
08-09-2011, 08:11 AM
I heard that for every member of the house and senate there are something like 15 lobbyists for medical insurance alone.

BucEyedPea
08-09-2011, 08:36 AM
If we just followed the Constitution there'd be far less need of lobbyists.

evenfall
08-09-2011, 08:47 AM
well it shouldn't cost millions on dollars in the first place IMO. EVIL.

You should ask someone from the government why they have been driving costs up for 40 years.

Saul Good
08-09-2011, 09:05 AM
Oh you can bet your ass that the insurance company would do everything they could to get out of paying. That's what they're in business for, to deny coverage. That's exactly how they make profit.

So true. Like all companies in a capitalistic society, they make money by offering the worst possible product thus discouraging people from purchasing from them.

People are seriously ripping insurance companies in a thread about a guy with no insurance. Way to show your asses, libs.

Jaric
08-09-2011, 09:07 AM
there is no guarantee that he'd be covered anyways even if he had bought insurance. It shouldn't be like this.

Like what? Where people have to take consequences for their actions?

Jaric
08-09-2011, 09:08 AM
So true. Like all companies in a capitalistic society, they make money by offering the worst possible product thus discouraging people from purchasing from them.

People are seriously ripping insurance companies in a thread about a guy with no insurance. Way to show your asses, libs.

Well be fair.

It's not like an insurance policy is a legally binding contract or anything.

johnny961
08-09-2011, 09:29 AM
This might shock you, but I'm not rich yet I magically have heath insurance.

Do you know why?

Because I decided to take it out when my company offered it to me. This guy did not.

Again, why should I cry big salty tears because some guy made a bad decision?

Not all employers offer health insurance. And, I have seen extenuating circumstances where a person could barely afford their next meal, much less an insurance policy. I'm not disagreeing with your position on individuals taking responsibility for their decisions, as that is a large problem with society today IMO. But too many facts are missing from this story to come to the conclusion that this guy is a deadbeat that made a series of bad decisions.

Jaric
08-09-2011, 09:34 AM
Not all employers offer health insurance. And, I have seen extenuating circumstances where a person could barely afford their next meal, much less an insurance policy. I'm not disagreeing with your position on individuals taking responsibility for their decisions, as that is a large problem with society today IMO. But too many facts are missing from this story to come to the conclusion that this guy is a deadbeat that made a series of bad decisions.

I'm not saying he's a deadbeat.

I'm saying he made a bad decision. A decision that now has consequences.

johnny961
08-09-2011, 09:44 AM
I'm not saying he's a deadbeat.

I'm saying he made a bad decision. A decision that now has consequences.

My point being that there may be a logical explanation for this guy not having health coverage. You could be very right in that this guy made a bad decision and is paying the price. But this story imo is missing too many facts about this guy and his particular situation to jump to that conclusion.

FishingRod
08-09-2011, 10:02 AM
Not all employers offer health insurance. And, I have seen extenuating circumstances where a person could barely afford their next meal, much less an insurance policy. I'm not disagreeing with your position on individuals taking responsibility for their decisions, as that is a large problem with society today IMO. But too many facts are missing from this story to come to the conclusion that this guy is a deadbeat that made a series of bad decisions.

Actually that is fair but, likewise there is also no evidence ,as suggested in the title, he is poor. Depending on what he does in construction, how much he works, what other kind of responsibilities he has, he could have more discretionary income than any one of us. Again if a woman under the same circumstances would be covered by a federally funded program then so should a man. IMO right now we are at a crossroads and getting the worst of both worlds. We have an industry trying to make money while jumping through one Government hoop after another and being told what they must cover. I assume that at some point we will have a version of socialized medicine while the majority of us will have lesser quality coverage probably for more money but everyone will be covered.

CrazyPhuD
08-09-2011, 10:16 AM
My point being that there may be a logical explanation for this guy not having health coverage. You could be very right in that this guy made a bad decision and is paying the price. But this story imo is missing too many facts about this guy and his particular situation to jump to that conclusion.

And you're 100% right and if it was a case of a guy doing everything right but really struggling to where he had to choose between buying health insurance and eating then I would support showing him considerable sympathy. However if it's a guy who's got a nice flat screen, and xbox360 and lives in a good sized apartment then the argument of him eating versus paying for health insurance doesn't hold water.

There are a number of people struggling, but there are also a number of people who aren't struggling as badly because they focus on spending the money they have on what they NEED versus just what they want.

Hydrae
08-09-2011, 10:29 AM
yup, if he's not rich enough, he deserves to die. After all, nobody but the top 1% matters anyways.

Yep, if the government doesn't pay for it, he has no chance.

Meanwhile, Johnson is continuing to seek treatment, as well as the money to pay for it. He said churches and other organizations have helped pay the bills so far...

johnny961
08-09-2011, 10:47 AM
Actually that is fair but, likewise there is also no evidence ,as suggested in the title, he is poor. Depending on what he does in construction, how much he works, what other kind of responsibilities he has, he could have more discretionary income than any one of us. Again if a woman under the same circumstances would be covered by a federally funded program then so should a man. IMO right now we are at a crossroads and getting the worst of both worlds. We have an industry trying to make money while jumping through one Government hoop after another and being told what they must cover. I assume that at some point we will have a version of socialized medicine while the majority of us will have lesser quality coverage probably for more money but everyone will be covered.

Unfortunately, yeah, its looking more and more like we are headed the socialized medicine direction. I don't think that its necessarily a bad thing to strive for some type of limited basic coverage for all, depending on the details of the coverage and how its funded and implemented, but on the flip side of that coin I also don't beleive that a person should be limited in their insurance choices if they have the financial means and desire to seek more complete, comprehensive coverage if they wish. Nor should a person be restricted to a one size fits all healthcare if their financial situation allows them to afford something more suitable to their needs/preferences.

johnny961
08-09-2011, 10:51 AM
And you're 100% right and if it was a case of a guy doing everything right but really struggling to where he had to choose between buying health insurance and eating then I would support showing him considerable sympathy. However if it's a guy who's got a nice flat screen, and xbox360 and lives in a good sized apartment then the argument of him eating versus paying for health insurance doesn't hold water.

There are a number of people struggling, but there are also a number of people who aren't struggling as badly because they focus on spending the money they have on what they NEED versus just what they want.

Very well put.

spammy3
08-11-2011, 12:01 AM
Thought its more common in women, men can develop breast cancer. While male breast tissue is not quite as complex and specialized as female mammary glands, malignant tumors can still grow in the breast and metastasize. Raymond Johnson, 26, of South Carolina knows this all too well and his Medicaid wont cover treatment.

Breast cancer is cancer originating from breast tissue, most commonly from the inner lining of milk ducts or the lobules that supply the ducts with milk. Cancers originating from ducts are known as ductal carcinomas; those originating from lobules are known as lobular carcinomas. Breast cancer is a disease of humans and other mammals; while the overwhelming majority of cases in humans are women, men can also contract breast cancer.

HonestChieffan
08-11-2011, 04:56 AM
Too bad he didn't qualify for the help just announced for illegals and migrants. Obamacare. That will fix stuff.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 06:45 AM
Government regulations? Seriously? That a company can NOT, of it's own volition, over-ride? Seriously?

You ignore the real greed, yet wanna bag on "regulation" to save tax dollars? Heh. Nice.

LMAO

:facepalm: I see you didn't read the article.

This is all about government regulations. This is the government death panel in action.

Garcia Bronco
08-11-2011, 06:59 AM
It's a violation of the 14th amendment.

eazyb81
08-11-2011, 07:12 AM
So do we want to save everyone for as long as possible and jack up the price of healthcare across the board, or are we trying to lower healthcare costs because it will eventually bankrupt our country?

It is one or the other. Make up your fucking minds people.

patteeu
08-11-2011, 07:25 AM
So do we want to save everyone for as long as possible and jack up the price of healthcare across the board, or are we trying to lower healthcare costs because it will eventually bankrupt our country?

It is one or the other. Make up your ****ing minds people.

While this is true, I don't think it's particularly applicable in this case. This is a young man with a presumably treatable form of cancer. If he had been responsible enough to carry catastrophic health insurance, his case appears to be an example of a case where it makes sense to treat him (modest cost to achieve a high probability of success). The cases where it doesn't make sense are cases that require top-end treatments with a low-probability of success.

NaptownChief
08-11-2011, 07:27 AM
And you're 100% right and if it was a case of a guy doing everything right but really struggling to where he had to choose between buying health insurance and eating then I would support showing him considerable sympathy. However if it's a guy who's got a nice flat screen, and xbox360 and lives in a good sized apartment then the argument of him eating versus paying for health insurance doesn't hold water.

There are a number of people struggling, but there are also a number of people who aren't struggling as badly because they focus on spending the money they have on what they NEED versus just what they want.


Agreed...When I first got out of college I had a few job options and the one that paid me the most didn't offer health insurance. Being 22 years old and in good shape and single it was tempting but at the end of the day you have to make the best long term decision and not the quick easy path while looking to dump your responsibility on somebody else. After talking with my parents and others I remember one of them saying "if you get seriously sick or injured you don't want to be one of THOSE people trying to dump your responsiblity on everyone else". They were right and I took about a $5k annual paycut to have full benefits.

There are a lot of people that do this everyday...refuse to take a lower paying job with benefits because they want the immediate gratification of higher pay. I understand but you usually have to make sacrifices in life to do the right thing.