My first thought was ‘Death panels,’ too…

[shagdrum]

My first thought was ‘Death panels,’ too…
posted by Moe Lane


…as per the first comment in this Hot Air post about Kent Pankow. But that’s absurd: we’ve been told by all sorts of people that such things could never, ever, ever happen under a government-run universal health care regime.

Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. for lifesaving surgery — at a cost to family and friends of $106,000 — after the health-care system in Alberta left him hanging in bureaucratic limbo for 16 crucial days, his tumour meanwhile migrating to an unreachable part of the brain, while it dithered over his case file, ultimately deciding he was not surgery worthy.

Now, with the Mayo Clinic having done what the Alberta Cancer Board wouldn’t authorize or even explain, but with the tumour unable to be totally removed, the province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size — despite the costs of the drug being totally funded by the province for other forms of cancer.

Kent Pankow, as it turns out, has the right disease but he has it in the wrong place.​

And why would it never happen? Because the Master loves us and would never hurt us… look! A squirrel!

 

[shagdrum]

Another tale of government-run health-care success
by Ed Morrissey

How will our health-care system run once the government is in charge of it? People who have VA or Medicare already know the answer to that — and so do the people of Canada, whose model received warm praise from Barack Obama and leading Democrats early in the ObamaCare campaign. The Toronto Sun reports the story of Kent Pankow, whose brain cancer spread while their medical system tried to decide whether surgery fit within their comparative effectiveness models, and who ended up here in Minnesota in an effort to save his life. Now Canada won’t fill his prescription for a drug that they supply for other patients (via Newsalert):

Kent Pankow lives in Edmonton, in a province and a country that is trying to either kill him or bankrupt him.

No sense mincing words.

Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. for lifesaving surgery — at a cost to family and friends of $106,000 — after the health-care system in Alberta left him hanging in bureaucratic limbo for 16 crucial days, his tumour meanwhile migrating to an unreachable part of the brain, while it dithered over his case file, ultimately deciding he was not surgery worthy.

Now, with the Mayo Clinic having done what the Alberta Cancer Board wouldn’t authorize or even explain, but with the tumour unable to be totally removed, the province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size — despite the costs of the drug being totally funded by the province for other forms of cancer.

Kent Pankow, as it turns out, has the right disease but he has it in the wrong place.

Had he lung cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer, then the cost of the drug — $4,555 per treatment, two times a month — would be totally covered by Alberta’s version of OHIP.​

Let’s see if we can’t tally up the scandals in this story. First, instead of rushing Pankow into surgery, doctors waited more than two weeks to decide whether he was “surgery worthy.” Obviously, this was not a medical decision, as the Mayo Clinic didn’t take two weeks to make a medical decision on Pankow.

Next, Pankow returns to Canada to continue his treatment, having saved Alberta the $106,000 cost of surgery by bearing it himself, and asks for a cancer drug that is fully covered for other forms of the disease. In his case, though, the government won’t provide it. Why? Not because doctors don’t believe it to be safe or effective, but because government bureaucrats decided to leave it off the list. Nor is that the end of bureaucratic bungling. After CTV aired a segment on the plight of the Pankows, the Federal Health Minister claimed that Health Canada wasn’t the problem, while Alberta’s provincial health minister insists that the problem is at the national level. Instead of treating Pankow, he’s getting the bureaucratic runaround.

Some will say that the runaround happens in America, too, with private insurers. And they’d be right. However, people in America have the ability to move to different insurers when they get lousy service, and still get treatment in their own country. They don’t have to flee across an international border to get medical attention.

Kent Pankow wants to fight his cancer so that he can survive. Unfortunately, he’s having to fight a two-front war, with his own government trying their level best to help the cancer succeed. Maybe when Obama offers up the sob stories on the ObamaCare stump, he might consider discussing the Pankows and why people come to the US for lifesaving treatment. In the meantime, let’s remember this as an object lesson in who says no in a government-run health-care system.

 

[foxpaws]

Another tale of government-run health-care success
Some will say that the runaround happens in America, too, with private insurers. And they’d be right. However, people in America have the ability to move to different insurers when they get lousy service, and still get treatment in their own country. They don’t have to flee across an international border to get medical attention.

Ed got it half right - this runaround happens in America, with private insurance.

The half he didn't get right - this person wouldn't be able to move to another insurer - he has a pre existing condition. Every insurance company will turn him down.

 

[fossten]

Ed got it half right - this runaround happens in America, with private insurance.

The half he didn't get right - this person wouldn't be able to move to another insurer - he has a pre existing condition. Every insurance company will turn him down.

But he can still get care. Under Obamacare, he won't be able to even get treatment.

 

[foxpaws]

But he can still get care. Under Obamacare, he won't be able to even get treatment.

There is a section about nationalizing the hospital system? Where is that part foss?

You will still be able to go into any hospital and plunk down the money honey. That 100k 'out of pocket' will still buy you what you want, cancer surgery, plastic surgery, boob jobs (you know those won't be covered under obamacare - right, but do you think they will be going away? )

Why would you think that option is going away?

 

[shagdrum]

Ed got it half right - this runaround happens in America, with private insurance.

The half he didn't get right - this person wouldn't be able to move to another insurer - he has a pre existing condition. Every insurance company will turn him down.

You are convinently missing some key points...

• he went to a private business in America because that was his only option to receive care
• government bureaucracy drug its feet (unlike a private insurer) and cost this man his life. Now they are not responsible afterward and won't even pay for his meds. If an private insurer did this, there would be civil liability; they would be held accountable...

Also, you are equating health insurance with health care.

Ignoring that distinction and ignoring those points from the posts demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to decieve...

 

[shagdrum]

There is a section about nationalizing the hospital system? Where is that part foss?

Like most liberals you are intentionally ignoring the consequences of policies. How will incentive structures change due to this flawed law? How will people's behavior change?

I know as a liberal, consideration of these things is a waste of time to you, but if you are not willing to look at these these realistically then your views are worthless to anyone not sharing your willful naivety...

 

[foxpaws]

You are convinently missing some key points...

• he went to a private business in America because that was his only option to receive care
• government bureaucracy drug its feet (unlike a private insurer) and cost this man his life. Now they are not responsible afterward and won't even pay for his meds. If an private insurer did this, there would be civil liability; they would be held accountable...

Also, you are equating health insurance with health care.

Ignoring that distinction and ignoring those points from the posts demonstrates intellectual dishonesty and an attempt to decieve...

Shag - I was using Ed's own words (look at the pull quote I used please) - he was talking about health insurance - that you could just go to another health insurer. He admitted that private insurance companies drag their feet when approving certain procedures. And, private insurers do this all the time, and they aren't found liable, it is written into their policies - they have covered themselves and wrapped themselves up in a contractual legal blanket.

 

[fossten]

There is a section about nationalizing the hospital system? Where is that part foss?

You will still be able to go into any hospital and plunk down the money honey. That 100k 'out of pocket' will still buy you what you want, cancer surgery, plastic surgery, boob jobs (you know those won't be covered under obamacare - right, but do you think they will be going away? )

Why would you think that option is going away?

Because Obama wants single payer. He has admitted this and so have the Democrats. You're either a liar or a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance for not acknowledging this.

This has already been discussed ad nauseum and isn't worth going into again.

The bottom line is that the majority of the country DOES NOT WANT THIS BILL. Obama is pushing this through in the face of the citizens using thug tactics.

Electing him was a mistake and you'll never admit it because you are too prideful and/or dogmatic.

 

[foxpaws]

Like most liberals you are intentionally ignoring the consequences of policies. How will incentive structures change due to this flawed law? How will people's behavior change?

I know as a liberal, consideration of these things is a waste of time to you, but if you are not willing to look at these these realistically then your views are worthless to anyone not sharing your willful naivety...

Do you think that this is the road to the nationalization of the health care system shag, and that optional procedures will no longer be available to anyone with a blank check to fill out? That is what you are stating - correct?

I really would like to know where in the world you would get this idea.

More likely than not Pankow would have been denied or delayed treatment by his health insurer if he lived in the US, and at the Mayo. It is very unlikely that any regular insurance here in the US would pay for treatment there.

So, the only difference - he wouldn't have had to left his country - he still would have forked over the money-after the insurance company denied or delayed a decision on his options.

The idea that if you have the money - you can get what you want isn't going to change under Obama's plan, the health care system will not be nationalized.

Or are you saying it will - I am really interested in this weird idea.

And, you seem to be able to see into the future shag - who wins in 2012?

 

[fossten]

And, you seem to be able to see into the future shag - who wins in 2012?

Why don't you tell us, hypocritical lying race baiter - since you predicted Sarah Palin will run.

 

[foxpaws]

Because Obama wants single payer. He has admitted this and so have the Democrats. You're either a liar or a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance for not acknowledging this.

This has already been discussed ad nauseum and isn't worth going into again.

The bottom line is that the majority of the country DOES NOT WANT THIS BILL. Obama is pushing this through in the face of the citizens using thug tactics.

Electing him was a mistake and you'll never admit it because you are too prideful and/or dogmatic.

The glittering jewel thing foss-you keep repeating it - why?

Electing him was not a mistake, I made the correct choice. We aren't getting single payer, and the health care system is not going to be nationalized.

Your scare tactics are getting old foss.

 

[fossten]

The glittering jewel thing foss-you keep repeating it - why?

Electing him was not a mistake, I made the correct choice. We aren't getting single payer, and the health care system is not going to be nationalized.

Your scare tactics are getting old foss.

Interesting that you don't object to being called a hypocritical lying race baiter - your silence is tacit approval.

Keep whining. The Death Panel debate is long over, and you lost it. The American people don't want this bill or any like it. Palin cleaned your clocks - deal with it.

Obama has already nationalized GM, Chrysler, a bunch of banks, and the student loan program. Why wouldn't we think he aims to nationalize healthcare? It's on his resume.

And since you're so into asking questions, why don't you answer some.

If the healthcare bill is SO GOOD, a) why can't Obama get it passed and b) why did the Dems have to put it together behind closed doors?

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I was using Ed's own words (look at the pull quote I used please)

No, you were shifting the focus to health insurance as a proxy for health care; something Morrissy was not doing. In fact, his comment actually drew a distinction between the two...

Some will say that the runaround happens in America, too, with private insurers. And they’d be right. However, people in America have the ability to move to different insurers when they get lousy service, and still get treatment in their own country. They don’t have to flee across an international border to get medical attention.​

To equate health insurance with health care in the manner you have is dishonest.

...private insurers do this all the time, and they aren't found liable, it is written into their policies

Examples?

Of course insurers can drag their feet on certain procedures (cosmetic and other non-life saving procedures), but unless you can show that they do so on life saving procedure resulting in a death sentence, you are misleading. Again...

And even if you can find that; is the patient prohibited from paying for care themselves? This guy had to come to America; to the private sector.

You could say that costs are prohibitively expensive in America (an arguable proposition), but the reason for that is due to government distorting the market in a myriad of ways. You think actual costs are any less in Canada?

 

[fossten]

To equate health insurance with health care in the manner you have is dishonest.

Hey, give her the benefit of the doubt - she might not be lying. She might just be a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

 

[shagdrum]

We aren't getting single payer, and the health care system is not going to be nationalized.

If Obamacare is not passed, that is true. If it is passed, that is the logical result. You really need to start looking at the consequences of policies...

 

[fossten]

Notice that fox hasn't even attempted to refute the FACT that Obama and the Democrats have openly stated their desire to get single payer.

 

[foxpaws]

And maybe you have forgotten over and over again I don't like single payer - and have worked hard to make sure it isn't in these bills (which it isn't).

 

[foxpaws]

Interesting that you don't object to being called a hypocritical lying race baiter - your silence is tacit approval.

Keep whining. The Death Panel debate is long over, and you lost it. The American people don't want this bill or any like it. Palin cleaned your clocks - deal with it.

Obama has already nationalized GM, Chrysler, a bunch of banks, and the student loan program. Why wouldn't we think he aims to nationalize healthcare? It's on his resume.

And since you're so into asking questions, why don't you answer some.

If the healthcare bill is SO GOOD, a) why can't Obama get it passed and b) why did the Dems have to put it together behind closed doors?

Odd you won't respond to the debate that it won't nationalize healthcare, and that if you want you can still buy anything you want under Obama's plan.

Why he can't get it passed - because it is too big, includes too much crap and has been misrepresented by the right, and Nancy and Frank have turned it into a circus.

It should be a 200 page bill, no single payer, insurance reform and state line removal, no denial, employer penalties, ability to collect for not having insurance yet using the system for 'free'.

I am disappointed in Obama on this - he should have stuck to what he said he wanted in the campaign - and gone for that. He bowed to Nancy and Frank, and has now lost the American people on this (he had them with his plan during the election - he could have held the people if he would have held to his plan).

It is at this point moot - it won't get passed, and it will fade away, just like it did during Clinton - and we will be stuck with 17.3% of our GNP going toward health care with it rising every year (estimate 20% by 2020). Our health care costs will bankrupt our country, we can't afford to have 1/5 of our GNP tied up in health care costs - it is killing our ability to compete in the world marketplace, it drives jobs overseas, and is creating a have/have not caste system.

 

[fossten]

Odd you won't respond to the debate that it won't nationalize healthcare, and that if you want you can still buy anything you want under Obama's plan.

I respond to far more than you do. You've no room to talk about not responding. I just don't see the point in rehashing an old debate that has already been decided.

Why he can't get it passed - because it is too big, includes too much crap and has been misrepresented by the right, and Nancy and Frank have turned it into a circus.

Yeah, reading parts of the bill out loud really 'misrepresented' it. By the way, which bill are you talking about?

I am disappointed in Obama on this - he should have stuck to what he said he wanted in the campaign - and gone for that. He bowed to Nancy and Frank, and has now lost the American people on this (he had them with his plan during the election - he could have held the people if he would have held to his plan).

He didn't 'bow' to Nancy and Frank, he delegated to them. And if he wasn't such a filthy lying coward, he wouldn't have lost the people. He lied about transparency, and he lied about what was in the bill. He lied about being bipartisan, and he used Chicago thug tactics to ram it down the throats of the Congress and the people.

It is at this point moot - it won't get passed, and it will fade away, just like it did during Clinton - and we will be stuck with 16% of our GNP going toward health care with it rising every year (estimate 20% by 2020). Our health care costs will bankrupt our country, we can't afford to have 1/5 of our GNP tied up in health care costs - it is killing our ability to compete in the world marketplace, it drives jobs overseas, and is creating a have/have not caste system.

This has to be the single dumbest post I've read in months. Now look who's fearmongering.

 

[foxpaws]

I respond to far more than you do. You've no room to talk about not responding. I just don't see the point in rehashing an old debate that has already been decided.

by you...

Yeah, reading parts of the bill out loud really 'misrepresented' it. By the way, which bill are you talking about?

Death Panels - Single Payer - show me those foss... please... in either bill.

Now look who's fearmongering.

Not fear-mongering - the truth. Show me where those figures are wrong, and show me how the US can survive while dedicating 20% of the GDP to health care. We can't.

 

[fossten]

by you...

Death Panels - Single Payer - show me those foss... please... in either bill.

Which bill? You don't even know how many bills there are. And you haven't addressed the point that I made about Obama's EXPRESSED intentions to bring about single payer. Nor have you addressed Shag's point that the current bills will eventually RESULT in single payer. Moreover, you're ignoring the point I made about Obama's track record of nationalizing several of our private industries ALREADY. In short, you're just whining and posturing. You're not really interested in discussion.

Not fear-mongering - the truth. Show me where those figures are wrong, and show me how the US can survive while dedicating 20% of the GDP to health care. We can't.

The old Mary Mapes defense, eh? Sorry, the burden of proof is on you to show why they are right. Never mind that your prediction is absurd. Show me how the US can survive with another $10 trillion in debt.

 

[Calabrio]

Foxpaws, are you arguing that the bill specifically doesn't immediately create a single payer system? That would be accurate. It doesn't do that in a single step.

But are you going to argue that the bill won't to lead us, force us, into a single payer system within a few years?
And why don't you support a public option or the single payer system? Because you oppose it on principle or because you recognize the political liability that doing such a thing overtly would be.

By the way, where does the federal government get the constitutional authority to impose Obamacare (as you understand it, no one really knows everything about the bill... it even includes elements and government exansion outside of health care).

 

[fossten]

Hey fox, since you're so fond of the 'prove me wrong' Mary Mapes strategy, why don't you prove me wrong when I say that Obamacare will result in single payer eventually, when businesses offload their private carriers who are unable to compete due to the higher taxes and restrictions.

We know you can't argue the point - you can only assert that I'm wrong. But you have nothing with which to back that assertion. All you have are talking points, no real understanding.

 

[hrmwrm]

Our health care costs will bankrupt our country, we can't afford to have 1/5 of our GNP tied up in health care costs - it is killing our ability to compete in the world marketplace, it drives jobs overseas, and is creating a have/have not caste system.

they're already bankrupting your healthcare system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/jackson-health-miami-hosp_n_493096.html