Norma Rae Dead

archer wrote: It's quite interesting that the righties will blame the Union for not doing something they should not be doing in the first place, but give a complete pass to the Insurance company that was being paid premiums to cover her and dragged their feet long enough so she dies. Is it any wonder that Insurance companies get away with this stuff all the time, they know that at least half the country will support their efforts to make as much money as they can while denying people the product those people paid for.

I do wonder if they would feel the same way if it was their mother, or sister who died because the insurance company failed to provide coverage in a timely manner.

The union isn't supposed to take care of its members? Really? I thought that was supposedly the primary purpose of the union. Their brother or sister comes down with a cancer and they can't reach into the dues money to make sure that treatment isn't delayed while they address the lack of coverage issues and get them straightened out? If you were sitting on a wad of cash and it was your brother or sister in that situation, wouldn't you make sure your brother or sister was taken care of first and foremost and worry about the money later? Why, that would seem to me to be what a union is all about if the primary purpose of the union is to look out for the best interests of the members of the union.

archer wrote: Blaming this on anyone BUT the insurance company is the cop out.......you just can't believe one of your precious companies might not have the best interests of their customer in mind when they make decisions. We pay insurance premiums on the expectation that they will be there when we need them........if they aren't, they have failed to live up to their contract. This is hardly an isolated incident....and Norma is not the first to die waiting on an insurance company to decide if they will cover life saving treatments.

Blaming it solely on the insurance company is naught but partisan hyperbole spewed forth with the hope that it will yield some political capital that can be spent in the furthering of a political agenda. Changing from private to public insurance will not protect anyone in the future from facing a similar fate as Ms Sutton did, regardless of what the "progressives" would like you to believe to the contrary. There are numerous cases each and every year that follow the same story line when it is a government that provided the insurance and/or the care.

But it does give the "progressives" an opportunity to make some political hay on the backs of someone's personal tragedy, doesn't it.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Blaming this on anyone BUT the insurance company is the cop out.......you just can't believe one of your precious companies might not have the best interests of their customer in mind when they make decisions. We pay insurance premiums on the expectation that they will be there when we need them........if they aren't, they have failed to live up to their contract. This is hardly an isolated incident....and Norma is not the first to die waiting on an insurance company to decide if they will cover life saving treatments.

Blaming it solely on the insurance company is naught but partisan hyperbole spewed forth with the hope that it will yield some political capital that can be spent in the furthering of a political agenda. Changing from private to public insurance will not protect anyone in the future from facing a similar fate as Ms Sutton did, regardless of what the "progressives" would like you to believe to the contrary. There are numerous cases each and every year that follow the same story line when it is a government that provided the insurance and/or the care.

But it does give the "progressives" an opportunity to make some political hay on the backs of someone's personal tragedy, doesn't it.

Once again, s-l-o-w-l-y.....why are you giving the insurance company a pass on this issue? Why should the union have to pay because the BIG corporation decided they didn't want to honor their contract with their customer. The lengths you will go to make black into white is amazing. There is no political hay here, there is a woman who died........but that doesn't seem of much concern to you as long as the corporation comes out on top, and you can try and twist this to be a story about the union (who, by the way, has NOTHING to do with this)...

That particular dog won't hunt.

The Union negotiates the contract with the ins. it should be up to them to READ the fine print and do what is right for the membership.

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Blaming this on anyone BUT the insurance company is the cop out.......you just can't believe one of your precious companies might not have the best interests of their customer in mind when they make decisions. We pay insurance premiums on the expectation that they will be there when we need them........if they aren't, they have failed to live up to their contract. This is hardly an isolated incident....and Norma is not the first to die waiting on an insurance company to decide if they will cover life saving treatments.

Blaming it solely on the insurance company is naught but partisan hyperbole spewed forth with the hope that it will yield some political capital that can be spent in the furthering of a political agenda. Changing from private to public insurance will not protect anyone in the future from facing a similar fate as Ms Sutton did, regardless of what the "progressives" would like you to believe to the contrary. There are numerous cases each and every year that follow the same story line when it is a government that provided the insurance and/or the care.

But it does give the "progressives" an opportunity to make some political hay on the backs of someone's personal tragedy, doesn't it.

Once again, s-l-o-w-l-y.....why are you giving the insurance company a pass on this issue? Why should the union have to pay because the BIG corporation decided they didn't want to honor their contract with their customer. The lengths you will go to make black into white is amazing. There is no political hay here, there is a woman who died........but that doesn't seem of much concern to you as long as the corporation comes out on top, and you can try and twist this to be a story about the union (who, by the way, has NOTHING to do with this)...

That particular dog won't hunt.

It's a deflection away from the issue at hand, which is that the insurance company took two months to determine if they would pay for the medication she needed. By the time they decided they would pay, it was too late.

This has absolutely nothing to do with unions. Unions were brought into the thread by PS as a debate deflection, since it is inexcusable and immoral for the insurance companies to be acting this way - essentially as a death panel. They could have chosen to pay for the medication and then decide later whether to keep paying, but they chose to evaluate long enough for the woman's cancer to spread, causing her death.

Kate wrote:

archer wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: Blaming this on anyone BUT the insurance company is the cop out.......you just can't believe one of your precious companies might not have the best interests of their customer in mind when they make decisions. We pay insurance premiums on the expectation that they will be there when we need them........if they aren't, they have failed to live up to their contract. This is hardly an isolated incident....and Norma is not the first to die waiting on an insurance company to decide if they will cover life saving treatments.

Blaming it solely on the insurance company is naught but partisan hyperbole spewed forth with the hope that it will yield some political capital that can be spent in the furthering of a political agenda. Changing from private to public insurance will not protect anyone in the future from facing a similar fate as Ms Sutton did, regardless of what the "progressives" would like you to believe to the contrary. There are numerous cases each and every year that follow the same story line when it is a government that provided the insurance and/or the care.

But it does give the "progressives" an opportunity to make some political hay on the backs of someone's personal tragedy, doesn't it.

Once again, s-l-o-w-l-y.....why are you giving the insurance company a pass on this issue? Why should the union have to pay because the BIG corporation decided they didn't want to honor their contract with their customer. The lengths you will go to make black into white is amazing. There is no political hay here, there is a woman who died........but that doesn't seem of much concern to you as long as the corporation comes out on top, and you can try and twist this to be a story about the union (who, by the way, has NOTHING to do with this)...

That particular dog won't hunt.

It's a deflection away from the issue at hand, which is that the insurance company took two months to determine if they would pay for the medication she needed. By the time they decided they would pay, it was too late.

This has absolutely nothing to do with unions. Unions were brought into the thread by PS as a debate deflection, since it is inexcusable and immoral for the insurance companies to be acting this way - essentially as a death panel. They could have chosen to pay for the medication and then decide later whether to keep paying, but they chose to evaluate long enough for the woman's cancer to spread, causing her death.

Do either of you pretend for a single instant that the same scenario won't be played out ever again if only we are willing to adopt single payer or allow ObamaCare to be implemented as written? Surely you are not that devoid of intelligence, are you? What then is the purpose of this exercise in hyperbole intended to sway opinion to adopt such measures if not to argue that we would be much better off in the hands of government than the hands of private insurance companies?

The purpose of this thread is to let it be known that death panels, which were a scare tactic of the right to impede health insurance reform, already exist in the form of insurance companies.

And they won't exist under ObamaCare Kate? It is the magic bullet to prevent such administrative decisions from ever again costing the life of someone? We both know better than that, don't we? If history is any guide, the situation will actually get worse rather than better if we socialize our medical care here.

In Canada, they even have a web page addressing wait times in the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency. I've included a couple of the FAQ's for your perusal:

What if I think my condition is getting worse while I am waiting?

If your condition changes while you are waiting, consult your family doctor or referring physician.

Can I get care sooner if I go somewhere else?

You will find that wait times exist in the healthcare system throughout Canada and in other countries as well. Your family doctor or surgeon can make a referral for you to go out of province for an appointment. If you see an oncologist out of province you will stay on the Agency’s wait list as we cannot begin transfer of treatment until you have had a new patient consultation with an Agency oncologist to review the suggested treatment course.

Occasionally patients may be referred out of country for treatment which cannot be provided in Canada, but prior approval from the Ministry of Health must be obtained. With prior approval, medical costs will be covered, but the cost of travel and accommodations remain the responsibility of the patient. Without prior approval from the Ministry of Health, none of the costs will be covered and the entire financial burden will be the patient’s.

http://www.saskcancer.ca/Default.aspx?D ... c7f447cf6e

So again I ask Kate, what is the purpose of the post? To convince us that we will only experience a delay of treatment under the private insurance model - delay that may ultimately end up proving to be fatal? That only greedy private insurance companies whose sole concern is for the bottom line make people wait to have their cancer treated? If that were the case, why does the government provided health care service in Canada for cancer patients have a FAQ page regarding wait times for treatment? That the only scenario under which a death panel will exist is the private insurance model?

Forgive me, but I am more than a little leery of moving to a system where the government has actually constructed a web page to try to convince me that the period of waiting between being diagnosed and treated that is causing me concern is SOP and that I shouldn't worry about it. It gives me the impression that the delay experienced by Ms Sutton is quite common for our northern neighbors.

Again, the purpose of this thread is to let it be known that death panels, which were a scare tactic of the right to impede health insurance reform, already exist in the form of insurance companies. Pretty simple to understand, isn't it?

J.P. Stevens textile mill is now closed. Textiles are now made in China. The closure had something to do with the cost of labor and lawsuits - I'm really not sure....