18 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

*nobody but those two even care*

Well, I mean, if you don’t understand the argument, yeah. 

9 minutes ago, Bill said:

Well, I mean, if you don’t understand the argument, yeah. 

I'm sure I could if I cared enough to read all of that. 

14 minutes ago, Bill said:

Well, I mean, if you don’t understand the argument, yeah. 

That's how I feel in the crypto thread. 

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

That's how I feel in the crypto thread. 

Yeah, I feel that way in wgb's "Skee-Lo Appreciation" thread, and also in KZ's "My Secret Life as a Democrat" thread. Like WTF is going on here?

9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

That's how I feel in the crypto thread. 

Just to close the loop, thank you for sharing the sources and indulging my follow on questions. 

Just to add a personal example to the issues with insurance companies denying claims and coverages:

 

I have a cousin whose daughter was just diagnosed with cancer for the third time. This girl is 23 years old. Through the last bout of cancer several years ago, the treatment was so toxic and strong that it nearly killed her. But she survived and fought through it, and was cancer free until a recent regular scan she has every few months for the rest of her life. Her doctors have indicated that the caught it very early and the diagnosis/prognosis has been favorable and they’ve been working to begin treatments as quickly as possible before it has a chance to grow or spread. The insurance has just denied coverage of the chemo pill the doctors want to put her on. This will, at-best, delay her treatment plan and could, at-worst, prevent her from getting the treatment that she needs to fight off this nasty and terrible disease. 
 

Situations like this are why people have an issue with the massive profits these insurance companies make - they’re literally making life or death decisions for people based on what will line their pockets the heaviest. 

7 minutes ago, BBE said:

Just to close the loop, thank you for sharing the sources and indulging my follow on questions. 

Anytime. Always good to have defend your own stances now and again just to keep yourself honest. 

8 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

Just to add a personal example to the issues with insurance companies denying claims and coverages:

 

I have a cousin whose daughter was just diagnosed with cancer for the third time. This girl is 23 years old. Through the last bout of cancer several years ago, the treatment was so toxic and strong that it nearly killed her. But she survived and fought through it, and was cancer free until a recent regular scan she has every few months for the rest of her life. Her doctors have indicated that the caught it very early and the diagnosis/prognosis has been favorable and they’ve been working to begin treatments as quickly as possible before it has a chance to grow or spread. The insurance has just denied coverage of the chemo pill the doctors want to put her on. This will, at-best, delay her treatment plan and could, at-worst, prevent her from getting the treatment that she needs to fight off this nasty and terrible disease. 
 

Situations like this are why people have an issue with the massive profits these insurance companies make - they’re literally making life or death decisions for people based on what will line their pockets the heaviest. 

I'm really sorry to hear that and hoping for the best for your cousin's daughter. Are they calling the medication "experimental"? That seems to be what a lot of cancer patients are dealing with from these insurance companies.

24 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

Just to add a personal example to the issues with insurance companies denying claims and coverages:

 

I have a cousin whose daughter was just diagnosed with cancer for the third time. This girl is 23 years old. Through the last bout of cancer several years ago, the treatment was so toxic and strong that it nearly killed her. But she survived and fought through it, and was cancer free until a recent regular scan she has every few months for the rest of her life. Her doctors have indicated that the caught it very early and the diagnosis/prognosis has been favorable and they’ve been working to begin treatments as quickly as possible before it has a chance to grow or spread. The insurance has just denied coverage of the chemo pill the doctors want to put her on. This will, at-best, delay her treatment plan and could, at-worst, prevent her from getting the treatment that she needs to fight off this nasty and terrible disease. 
 

Situations like this are why people have an issue with the massive profits these insurance companies make - they’re literally making life or death decisions for people based on what will line their pockets the heaviest. 

I'm so sorry to hear about that. Cancer regimens are generally pretty standardized and protocolized in kids too which makes situations like this even more absurd. How some paper pusher can determine what's necessary to treat cancer over trained oncologists is infuriating to say the least. 

11 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I'm so sorry to hear about that. Cancer regimens are generally pretty standardized and protocolized in kids too which makes situations like this even more absurd. How some paper pusher can determine what's necessary to treat cancer over trained oncologists is infuriating to say the least. 

She's 23 so maybe that changes things?

6 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

She's 23 so maybe that changes things?

Maybe.  Still wrong on many (read almost all) levels. The doctor's should be able to practice medicine to their full capacity. 

21 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

She's 23 so maybe that changes things?

Usually they stay in a survivorship clinic well beyond 18. But where I trained and where I am now have huge academic oncology groups associated with them so maybe that's not the norm. 

16 minutes ago, BBE said:

Maybe.  Still wrong on many (read almost all) levels. The doctor's should be able to practice medicine to their full capacity. 

I don't think the insurance companies are impeding their abilities. They aren't paying for all of them.

1 minute ago, lynched1 said:

I don't think the insurance companies are impeding their abilities. They aren't paying for all of them.

Depending on the insurer there are lists of treatments drugs.  In most cases it has little to do with efficacy and often is more cost driven. Which indirectly limits the doctor's options based not on the patient's individual health status but on cost/ability of patient to pay.  Pure cost driven medicine by a facilitator of care is ethically problematic.

A young individual whose cancer was diagnosed early should have access to most available treatments.  I can argue exception of experimental therapies.

 

9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Usually they stay in a survivorship clinic well beyond 18. But where I trained and where I am now have huge academic oncology groups associated with them so maybe that's not the norm. 

The ability to get long term longitudinal study data on outcomes is important data. 

16 minutes ago, BBE said:

Depending on the insurer there are lists of treatments drugs.  In most cases it has little to do with efficacy and often is more cost driven. Which indirectly limits the doctor's options based not on the patient's individual health status but on cost/ability of patient to pay.  Pure cost driven medicine by a facilitator of care is ethically problematic.

A young individual whose cancer was diagnosed early should have access to most available treatments.  I can argue exception of experimental therapies.

 

I would place cancer treatments well above most if not all  juvenile sex hormone therapies but that's me.

1 minute ago, lynched1 said:

I would place cancer treatments well above most if not all  juvenile sex hormone therapies but that's me.

Why are you bringing that up?  That is a completely different issue with its own issues.

16 minutes ago, BBE said:

Why are you bringing that up?  That is a completely different issue with its own issues.

Because he's a dipsh**

4 hours ago, BBE said:

Why are you bringing that up?  That is a completely different issue with its own issues.

It's an issue of cost.

We don't have "health" insurance.

We paying for "lifestyle" insurance.

4 hours ago, Paul852 said:

Because he's a dipsh**

Stfu you inbred turd blossom.

14 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

I'm so sorry to hear about that. Cancer regimens are generally pretty standardized and protocolized in kids too which makes situations like this even more absurd. How some paper pusher can determine what's necessary to treat cancer over trained oncologists is infuriating to say the least. 

Depends what they want to use. She may have already hit a lifetime max. But they should go directly to the company that makes it, as they have tons of patient access assistance, generally

8 hours ago, lynched1 said:

It's an issue of cost.

We don't have "health" insurance.

We paying for "lifestyle" insurance.

No, we're really not. We're interested in actually fixing a problem not filling out your FoxNews bingo card.

14 hours ago, BBE said:

Maybe.  Still wrong on many (read almost all) levels. The doctor's should be able to practice medicine to their full capacity. 

They can prescribe her anything, generally

its the costs and who pays 

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Depends what they want to use. She may have already hit a lifetime max. But they should go directly to the company that makes it, as they have tons of patient access assistance, generally

Lifetime maximums apply to cancer patients?

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Lifetime maximums apply to cancer patients?

I thought they applied in general but i will dig around and see what i can find. May depend on the policy