When it comes to health policy, I don’t agree with Matthew Holt very often. But when it comes to John Edwards’ exploitation of Nataline Sarkisyan, it is gratifying that someone from the left is calling him out on it.
As I’ve reiterated over and over and over again, any nationally-run, universal health care system would have to say no to some lifesaving procedures, just like CIGNA did.
John Edwards conveniently leaves this point out in his speeches. It’s deceptive, and his exploitation of the Sarkisyan family deplorable (emphasis mine):
John Edwards decided his campaign will be the voice of the girl’s parents, a fine idea for a politician seeking office. Lousy policy.One good reason to have a single payer system is to rationally decide what is paid for and what isn’t. Meaning that if Edwards’ ideas about health care are adopted and become law there may well be more people being denied last-chance, possibly life-saving operations than there are now.
All health systems and all societies everywhere somehow ration what’s available to patients . . .
. . . To some extent, this state of affairs is the result of the work that trial lawyers - like Edwards - have done on behalf of grieving families like the Sarkisyans. It’s been an effective cudgel but not particularly good medicine . . .
. . . So why did Edwards bring up this debatable case? I guess it’s just that he felt that he’d get a quick political score based on a dramatic case that fits into his anti-insurer mantra. But it doesn’t obviate the main issue which is that at some point it’s humane for both the patient and the society for someone to say, “no.”
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
This is a sad case but under pressure the insurance company did finally give-in(although too late). Also I would expect that litigation will follow. Do you think that under a government run universal system that the nameless, faceless government bean-counter will give-in to you when you are the one asking for the procedure? Do you believe that if this young women had been denied by such a system that she would have any realistic opportunity to bring the case to litigation and win? If you are on medicare and they refuse to pay for a treatment or procedure can you protest and put enough pressure on them to change their mind? We should all consider this. Be careful what you ask for.
The more you learn of the specifics of this case, the more you feel obliged to disagree with CIGNA. I don’t object to CIGNA’s denial of what most likely would have been a fruitless procedure. I object to their not keeping a principled stance and caving to public opinion. I have issues with managed care but this is not the battle you really want to fight. Sometimes you need to remember Rogers Rule: Know when to hold ‘em. Know when to fold ‘em.
It’s unfortunate that so many believe that universal health insurance, administered by the the government means you get everything you want, whenever you want. If Cigna is bad, we will all learn quite quickly that Edward’s types of solutions are the devil incarnate. Concerned about being denied today….just wait until you have to go up against Uncle Sam to get these types of authorizations. Even the legit ones will have patients dying, while the faceless, cash strapped bureaucracy churns.
But a government gnome wouldn’t have the guts to say no directly. Rather they will outsource it behind so many layers of contracts that the ultimate decision maker would be unaccountable.
Or they would strangle down payment for the procedure so much that few can afford to provide the service.
With the same end result of course.
This is not surprising. This is from the same guy that talks to dead babies and said that people like Christopher Reeve would be walking if he and John Kerry would have been elected.
Global warming is no doubt a thing of the past. As the cold slowly rises from the netherworld, we all better be prepared for some frosty times. I agree with Kevin; the furnaces of Hades are certainly on the fritz.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Edwards will be out of the public eye after early February.
Stances like this leave me further convinced that he’s all you’d expect from a trial lawyer and I don’t want him for President.
John Edwards dragged the sexuality of VP Cheney’s daughter into a debate. Of course he’s slimy enough to bring up Nataline Sarkisyan. Craven amorality is the very essence of the trial bar.
No one should have ever taken Edwards proposals for universal coverage seriously. What do he or his multimillionaire backers have to gain from that system? I’m sure they are quite happy with current affairs as no successfully functioning national or universal access system tolerates the tort exposure that is the norm in this country. It is unsustainable for the single payor or the govt. Anyway, who would the trial lawyers rather go up against - an liability insurer or the Federal Tort Claims Act? Any suggestion of universal coverage by Edwards was a crock from the start - he and his buddies get rich on the status quo.