Twelve-year-old dies from infected tooth as result of being too poor to treat it

[The Man]

Originally Posted by thekingoftheempire

Anyway, what I meant is that no one in this thread cares what happen to that kid. Its meaningless to them.

o rly?

Originally Posted by Ssj7Crono

feel bad about the 12 year old. stuff like this shouldnt even happen. even if there isnt any universal health insurance at the moment at least any others should be affordable.

Originally Posted by Rogers

This is one of the proofing factors that democrats are the way to go. I am tired of going to wars (and not caring for people like Deamonte), rather then caring for ourselves, like our neighbors up north.

Originally Posted by Dragonsoul

This kind of **** never fails to piss me off. Why teeth aren't considered a part of the medical services covered (at least in places like Canada) is beyond me. It's still your health and, as shown, it can do serious harm and even cause death. It seems to me that this is one of the many flaws in the system and one that the government wouldn't be too eager to fix. *sighs*

Originally Posted by anintendo_evafan

Oddly enough I do agree with The Man. If we just poored more money into health research programs and health treatment programs we might not see a definite change in treatment. But health care would be more readily available to the masses.

Still though. This is yet another sad day in American History *sigh*.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I am actually for a universal health care program. If we funneled as much money into defense spending as we did in health care the kid would still be around. Yet this problem also lies in poverty too.

Originally Posted by ECCENTRICHOCOBO

I'm almost convinced the American government only wants there to be two kinds of people in this world--the ones who join the military to fight the leaders' wars, and the good civilians who spend money to maintain the economy...so that we can spend more money on military, of course! Everyone else is useless to them, I fear.

Originally Posted by The Man

Stories like this one explain why I find it impossible to comprehend how anyone can be against universal health care unless they simply hate the poor.

Uh. What were you saying again?

Originally Posted by thekingoftheempire

they don't want it to happen to them.

Well, duh. That's called "not being suicidal." It's the natural state of mind for humanity.

[itcouldbesweet]

Universal healthcare is definitely something to avoid in the future. It will only destroy the systems of triage and degrade the urgency of severe medical situations. These things happen when everyone is made equal.

In regard to the story it's easy to blame healthcare in this situation but I personally frown upon the mother. It's not like her child went from a tooth problem to immediate death. She had to see him slowly deteriorate over time and should have taken the proper steps to seek treatment. Go to the emergency room. It doesn't have to be a dentist. The fact that her other child has 6 rotting teeth shows me she is harboring neglect.

[The Man]

Er. In properly managed systems of universal health care, order of response to cases is based entirely on urgency. Under a system of universal health care, if a kid and a rich 70-year-old both need the same kidney transplant, the kid will get it first because he has far more years to live. That's the reason so many rich old people from Europe come to the U.S. to get treated: The U.S. is virtually the only country with a health care system that will treat them.

And have you ever been poor? I bet you haven't. When you're as dirt-poor as this family, you're lucky if you can afford a toothbrush, much less dental care.

[itcouldbesweet]

Originally Posted by The Man

Er. In properly managed systems of universal health care, order of response to cases is based entirely on urgency.

The problem is not in the matter of urgency in which they are treated but the mass amounts of money that will be garnered and ultimately wasted on the useless. I know that sounds cruel but think about this scenario which is very real in the elderly and will become more intense with the homeless. A lot of homeless people get sick easily living on the streets. Whatever funk they have obviously can in most cases be treated with medication. Under universal healthcare they will receive treatment no different than what they get now. Their medications will be provided. The problem is. The homeless have no place to go and will most likely not keep up with the timed intake of the medications. Without the medications they will quickly slip further into sickness seeking medical care once more. If they don't go back to the same hospital they attended before? There lies the problem my man. There are no official records up to date to notify other places of what treatment they have been prescribed. They will receive once again probably more medication after being brought back to a grand health. Now no one plays the part of a fool twice I'm sure. Not even the homeless. They'd take the medication as told and now you have a deadly combination because in their uneducated minds they could very well take both medications as told without using logic and deciphering okay I should take this and stop taking this.

And of course if universal healthcare is enforced they very well may seek medical services to get out of the cold and get food to bring them back up to nourishment. This may have not been witnessed yet in places where universal healthcare is given like Canada and UK but we're talking a grand scale here. Their populations don't compare to ours in the slightest. And like you said people come here from the UK for surgeries so they can be treated. It should be even more of a red flag that as good as the system sounds it's not properly managed and even if it begins managed will ultimately shudder back into failure.

I still disagree about the child's situation. It's hard to accept help when you're poor. To answer your question I have been poor before.Even worse I lived in Germany where my parents didn't own a vehicle. With what little money my dad earned we couldn't read the labels of food in foreign text. So I do understand what that lifestyle is like but once again you can seek help and receive funding. Yes it takes some work and is stressful but if you really cared about your kids you'd get off your ass and handle that business. And continue working until you have enough money to get off that system.

[The Man]

Eh. The elderly are generally considered to be least urgent for treatment. Which seems kind of cruel but since they wouldn't have much time to live anyway, from a utilitarian standpoint it makes the most sense.

As for the homeless, I agree that what you describe could be a problem, but the homeless generally need a lot more than just health care. The fact that homeless people even exist points to flaws in our society that have nothing to do with health care and desperately need fixing. Also, if the health care system were properly funded (which, given our politicians, it probably wouldn't be, but that's a rant for another day), a certain amount of inefficiency wouldn't be a problem because the system would be large enough that it could handle that volume of relapsed cases.

As for always being able to get help, that's obviously not true, since there are plenty of people who cannot afford health insurance and yet do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. When you're working two jobs and still barely able to afford the rent, as plenty of families in this country are, dealing with a deliberately overcomplicated government bureaucracy is the last thing you'll want to do. I recommend reading Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed. It opened my eyes to just how bad the problem of poverty has gotten in this country.

[itcouldbesweet]

That's what I'm saying. "As for always being able to get help, that's obviously not true." Actually it is true. It's unlawful for them to deny you treatment. You may get a massive bill from it but if it's something severe that would ultimately lead to demise you can get help. Do you think that mother could afford 6 weeks and 2 surgeries that child underwent in the hospital? Of course not. But they got it. They got it..

[The Man]

My point is that if people were always able to get help for everything, they would've been getting dental care the whole time and this would never have become a problem. But obviously, they couldn't afford it. The way things are set up now, the system only accommodates the poor who can't get Medicare/Medicaid when their issues become massive problems, and by then it's often too late to do anything for them.

[itcouldbesweet]

Originally Posted by The Man

My point is that if people were always able to get help for everything, they would've been getting dental care the whole time and this would never have become a problem. But obviously, they couldn't afford it. The way things are set up now, the system only accommodates the poor who can't get Medicare/Medicaid when their issues become massive problems, and by then it's often too late to do anything for them.

And I still disagree with you because they can get help and I'm not sure how else to say this. And I'm not talking down to you but I know this because I'm involved in healthcare and the payment methods are all the same. You get a bill now and you can file it through your insurance or you get a bill mailed to you and you can set up a payment plan. If she's having issues with medicaid she should have just gotten the treatment and found a way to pay the bill off however insane it may be. Who cares? What can they do to you, really..? The only thing they can do is settle for a payment plan but ultimately the child could have received treatment. Now onto my opinions of the mother.

I personally believe this mother is highly to blame for a lot of this situation. After reading the story a few times over it says the first set of treatments were discontinued because the boy "squirmed too much in the chair". This means her child(ren) had to be receiving treatment at one point but she failed to see it stay on course. I would not settle for that kind of outcome. If I had to sit in that office and comfort my child through something like that I would. If she settled for anything less than that which certainly seemed like she did, that's horrible parenting and a catalyst behavior of what lead to her other child's imminent death. About the impending surgery she had to "cancel"? Bad move. She didn't have to cancel that. She should have followed that through as well. There's a point where you look at this situation from her view and you realize upfront there is no way possible she can pay for any of this without some kind of insurance right? Then don't worry about that. You do the best you can to make the payments you can. She stopped pushing and let the homeless shelter organizer make dozens of calls for her? That disappoints me to. You can't depend on people to take care of your kids for you. And even after that they found help for her. And as said earlier she cancelled that surgery after the treatment sought because she found out the medicaid flopped. I just can't believe that really. How you could settle for that. Unbelievable.

In all the system can accommodate for people willing to pay the money. Upfront or billed it doesn't matter. The only difficulty you would definitely experience is buying prescription medication because that is something you must pay upfront for. But any help none the less, especially in dire situations like this are pertinent to the child.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

And I still disagree with you because they can get help and I'm not sure how else to say this. And I'm not talking down to you but I know this because I'm involved in healthcare and the payment methods are all the same. You get a bill now and you can file it through your insurance or you get a bill mailed to you and you can set up a payment plan. If she's having issues with medicaid she should have just gotten the treatment and found a way to pay the bill off however insane it may be. Who cares? What can they do to you, really..? The only thing they can do is settle for a payment plan but ultimately the child could have received treatment.

If the family wanted to lose their house they could have, because that's obviously the only way they could have paid off the payment plan with no insurance and no Medicaid. I don't think you appreciate just how bad some poor families have it in this country. I recommend reading Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed. The woman is an investigative journalist who tried living a working-class lifestyle for a couple of years, with no dependents and a PhD. She tried in three different places to maintain an economically sustainable lifestyle, and failed in all of them, even with working two full-time jobs.

I'm not saying the parents are faultless here, but they didn't have nearly as many options here as you're making out.

[itcouldbesweet]

This is not about how poor people are. She had 2 jobs at one point. She should have been working on getting a job that has insurance for her family and taking advantage on what was provided to her. She was socially weak in the advantages that she did have. That is no one's fault except her own. These insurance plans are in place for you to get back on your own feet. It's sad but I don't have much sympathy for people who sit back with a silent lips when it comes to the well being of their children. There are people in 3rd world countries living in much worse conditions and they were able to get by.

But I suppose it really doesn't matter because I'm quite sure the story is much much different than what is written in that article. Probably much more fortunate in her situation but being milked for a good stance.

[Words of Ivory]

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

This is not about how poor people are. She had 2 jobs at one point. She should have been working on getting a job that has insurance for her family and taking advantage on what was provided to her. She was socially weak in the advantages that she did have. That is no one's fault except her own. These insurance plans are in place for you to get back on your own feet. It's sad but I don't have much sympathy for people who sit back with a silent lips when it comes to the well being of their children.

Regardless of who is to blame, there is no excuse for not giving help to the girl, especially if help was looked for due to the severity of her condition. It was a dental issue, for crying out loud.

And if the mother refuses treatment, that is no excuse either. If a case is serious and life threatening, a child can be forced into medical care here to treat it. This idea that universal healthcare will "degrade the urgency of severe medical situations" has absoutely no basis in fact, unless you're going to tell me that this kid wasn't a "urgent case" and shouldn't have been treated against the parent's wishes.

Just out of curiosity LyingEyes, what's your view on Utilitarian Bioethics?

Thank god I don't live in America. In this country, we prefer not to let people die on our hospital doorsteps just because they're not "informed" enough, don't have enough money, or are too busy already dying from the free healthcare medication that's supposed to help cure them in the first place.

[itcouldbesweet]

Yea how about you read some posts before replying. I never stated anywhere that the child doesn't deserve treatment. I disagreed with Aaron on the fact that I believe the mother had a lot more options to take to ensure the child got proper treatment. In your comment about patient refusal if you read my posts once again I said it's unlawful for them deny treatment in life threatening situations further more showing me you didn't read anything.

It's pretty annoying when people like yourself come into threads just randomly bashing when you haven't read a word of what anyone was saying. Thank someone you don't live in America. With that kind of attitude it's no wonder that not many people enjoy your company.

My stance on your bioethics question? Being a student and working in emergency care I've been educated to treat patients under utilitarian protocol. You do the best for the greatest good. But once again people must get paid too. It's nice to think about saving and treating people who are sick but the first priority is your own safety and well being.

[Words of Ivory]

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

I never stated anywhere that the child doesn't deserve treatment.

Not once did I even say that you did, because, shock of horrors, my points were not all directed at you, but at the healthcare system's mindset.

You have clearly stated on a number of ocassions that the fault lies with the people, not the medical care system, and that it is the parent's fault for simply not doing what was needed, instead of putting the blame on a healthcare system that could have done something about if it wasn't run under such ****ed up rules.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

I disagreed with Aaron on the fact that I believe the mother had a lot more options to take to ensure the child got proper treatment.

I'm aware of that. The stupidity of the parent is still no excuse for the healthcare system not to do something.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

In your comment about patient refusal if you read my posts once again I said it's unlawful for them to deny treatment in life threatening situations further more showing me you didn't read anything.

Lets not ignore the fact that I didn't say this either. Please do read my posts more carefully. I said "And if the mother refuses treatment, that is no excuse either. If a case is serious and life threatening, a child can be forced into medical care here to treat it". I.E. the child should have been treated regardless of the parent's opinion on the issue.

Your entire argument is based on the completely misinterpretation of that fact.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

It's pretty annoying when people like yourself come into threads just randomly bashing when you haven't read a word of what anyone was saying.

Ironic.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

Thank someone you don't live in America.

I do. Myself. I've lived there, and it's not something I care to ever do again. I've also had numerous friends die thanks to your ****ed up healthcare system, who would have had no problems had they been under the roof of most other's country's healthcare system.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

With that kind of attitude it's no wonder that not many people enjoy your company.

Moot point, irrelevant to argument, and based on so much tunnel vision logic that it's barely comprehensible, unless you possess some sort of psychic link into my daily life, both online and off, that I'm not aware of.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

My stance on your bioethics question? Being a student and working in emergency care I've been educated to treat patients under utilitarian protocol. You do the best for the greatest good.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you what you stance was on Utilitarian Bioethics - the weighting of the value of saving a person's life over their potential future 'usefulness' to society, and acting accordingly to determine whether they will be treated.

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

But once again people must get paid too. It's nice to think about saving and treating people who are sick but the first priority is your own safety and well being.

In the mind of any decent doctor, the first priority is saving a person's life regardless of the circumstance. Thankfully, there are some who still value this mindset. Also, try telling that reasoning to the soup kitchens workers, the people who walk streets at night to feed the homeless, Mother Teresa, and countless other millions who don't put money before human life.

[itcouldbesweet]

I've never said the child should be denied treatment. I'm not arguing that if the mother denied treatment that the child shouldn't be treated. You should really read the posts between myself and Aaron instead of being ignorant. You're just repeating yourself and not even understand what I'm saying to him.

[Words of Ivory]

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

I've never said the child should be denied treatment. I'm not arguing that if the mother denied treatment that the child shouldn't be treated

Originally Posted by Words of Ivory

Not once did I even say that you did.

But you are attempting to justify the healthcare's lack of blame in the situation, which is what I said right at the beginning, which you would have seen if YOU had read the posts properly. As you feel the need to preach about reading things before commenting to them, might I suggest you try doing the same?

Especially when you're getting defensive towards remarks that weren't even directed at you.

[itcouldbesweet]

Originally Posted by Words of Ivory

Regardless of who is to blame, there is no excuse for not giving help to the girl, especially if help was looked for due to the severity of her condition. It was a dental issue, for crying out loud.

The child was given help if you actually read the article.

[Words of Ivory]

Originally Posted by LyingEyes

The child was given help if you actually read the article.

Long after it first should have been.

[Larsa]

All I'm going to say about this is that the government MUST do something about this and this is murder by government.