« How It Works | Main | Iraq Withdrawl Mendacity Watch »
July 28, 2007
The Waiting Debate Is Over
Faithful readers of this blog will be familiar with the long-standing debate about waiting times for medical treatment in public and private health care systems. Much of the debate consists in people trading anecdotes about how many weeks or months they or someone they heard of had to wait for medical care. After the most recent presidential debate, I think we have an anecdote about waiting times that will be really hard to top.
Ours is a health care system that makes people wait fifty years for surgery without which they cannot talk.
July 28, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Healthcare in the US exemplifies the Orwellian nature of our country. Otherwise, why do the republicans and corporate interests continue to scare folks about rationing? In fact, every argument against universal healthcare is already deeply rooted in the current system. The worst part is the MSM and DLC type-democrats are accomplices.
John Edwards is doing a fantastic job highlighting the difficulties of the most vulnerable.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 28, 2007 9:09:25 PM
Unless you outlaw private practice which will never happen, I'm not sure any of the plans mentioned would have helped this guy. The vast majority of plastic surgeons take no insurance at all. The case that Edwards is mentioning is more than likely a pro bono case.
Posted by: Dingo | Jul 28, 2007 9:53:25 PM
Cleft palates are not strictly considered simple plastic surgery, any more than missing limbs, if I remember correctly; so yes, under a regular insurance plan, this man would have had it corrected. Especially if it was so severe he couldn't talk.
What was striking about this clip is how much Edwards channeled a preacher at the end; that's exactly the kind of cadence I would hear on Sundays when the preacher wanted us to wake up and pay attention. Heh.
Posted by: emjaybee | Jul 28, 2007 10:14:40 PM
I think Edwards is finding is soul in this run. Whether or not he will suceed in todays America- I honestly don't know- but he gets it right.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 28, 2007 11:14:14 PM
Isn't there some skeptical right wing economist nearby to inquire as to whether the market has really been improved with this guy being now able to speak?
Posted by: El Cid | Jul 28, 2007 11:18:38 PM
Many plastic surgeons do things like cleft palate work - which at least has a moral decency element lacking from your average boob job - pro bono for charity cases, so color me a little skeptical that it took 5 decades to find a surgeon. Like many medical tales - including a substantial number of patient examples in Sicko - there's a lack of detail here that makes it virtually impossible to know the circumstances surrounding the man's condition or the lag (assuming all the elements here are accurate) to get help. Heart rending story to be sure; but I think it's yet another example of how the health care debate is especially susceptible to sad stories free of corroborating detail. I'd need more information to evaluate just what would improve for this man under the candidate health proposals, or what part of our current system kept him from getting care.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 28, 2007 11:56:09 PM
Operation Smile primarily works in underdeveloped countries where people either can not afford the surgery or there are not enough trained physicians to perform the procedure. In the US, Operation Smile provides a network of resources accessed through their web site to assist families with children born with facial deformities including a listing of Referral Web Sites.
Doesn't exactly sound like even an organization with the primary mission of fixing facial deformities have a history of providing free cleft palate surgeries to adults in Appalachia. But who knows, maybe this guy didn't want to talk for the first fifty years of his life so he didn't bother to get it fixed.
http://www.operationsmile.org
Posted by: "medical tales" | Jul 29, 2007 5:39:40 AM
to Medical Tales:
". . . didn't want to talk for the first fifty years . . . "
That's not amusing, and it tends to illustrate the unfeeling selfishness which permeates U.S. thinking on health care in general.
It's been said that we live in a "YO YO Society" (You're On Your Own"). Seems believeble to me -- --
Posted by: mel young | Jul 29, 2007 10:17:24 AM
"That's not amusing, and it tends to illustrate the unfeeling selfishness which permeates U.S. thinking on health care in general."
This is correct, but I would change it from "thinking" to "unthinking." At this point, considering the imperviousness to evidence to the contrary that people exhibit a lot of this is just about shutting one's brain down and enjoying the storm. I see this quite a bit. People are overwhelmed so they shut down and rely on comforting beliefs.
It's only natural and human to do this, but anathema to makign things better.
This reminds me of those people who say they didn't think something like 09/11 would ever happen. I always ask - why not? I mean these sorts of thing happen all the time around the world. So, what may you think America was immune. Deep down, although they can't answer, most people see America as exceptional.
It's the view of America as exceptional. As our way is the right way because it's American is what is own trial- at least in their mind. People will defend their myths, including quite a few people who think of themselves as progressives, because it feels safe. WB Reeves talked in another thread about tick tock arguments- I am sure you will see those on display here.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 11:05:32 AM
For weboy and any other "can't happen here" skeptics this is the story from Time magazine on James Lowe:
Lowe is 51 years old, a disabled coal miner from the hollows of Eastern Kentucky. He has never been one to get up in front of a crowd. Until last year, he wouldn't have been able to speak to the crowd even if he wanted to. He was born with a severe cleft palate; when he tried to talk he could not make himself understood, so after a while he stopped trying. He was one of 10 children, born to parents too poor to pay for the treatment he needed, and of course there was no insurance. Embarrassed by his condition, Lowe dropped out of school in fifth grade without learning to read or write, and eventually followed his father into the mines — and still couldn't afford treatment. Twenty-three years ago he was partially paralyzed in a mining accident and could no longer perform manual labor. That didn't leave him many options.
There are many great groups doing charity work out there, that's how Mr Lowe finally got his corrective procedure, but it's not enough. It's fantastic that Edwards forced the press out of their DC, NY, New Hampshire Diner axis that defines their entire understanding of this country.
Posted by: AJ | Jul 29, 2007 11:23:18 AM
Oh here's the link John Edwards Fires Up his Populism
Posted by: AJ | Jul 29, 2007 11:24:50 AM
But the market wil take care of it, right? 50 years is way too long, and it was not the market, it was charity.
We need universal healthcare now. I like the John Edwards plan.
Excellent post, Neil.
Posted by: Tom Wells | Jul 29, 2007 11:44:08 AM
Trust me, you won't have to wait long for anything should you sign you life and independence over to the government via the ICC(Incapacitated Child) plan. By law, I'm not able to earn a living wage, legally marry, own a house or car, or do anything else that would arouse suspicion in my purported full-fledged dependence or else my coverage is revoked and I'm sent packing to my eventual death. HOWEVER, as I said before, the waiting times are nonexistant and overall, the treatments are great(life saving, in fact). It's unfortunate that as a person afflicted with a chronic, terminal illness that I have to go to such measures just to assure that I'm kept ticking. With medical costs reaching 75k a month, there's really no other option. Unless I want to begin shopping for a coffin.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 29, 2007 11:54:57 AM
and which philosophy do you think created those limitations Stephen?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 11:57:20 AM
Oh, trust me, I wasn't railing against UHC in any shape or fashion. My point came across a little convoluted but it's exactly an effect of our terrible health care system that I'm even forced to sign away my rights just to have a shot at a normal, functioning and healthy life.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 29, 2007 12:09:29 PM
thats cool. I was making the point that often not only do the right in the use work to prevent even having programs, but once you do get them- the left gives so many concessions in terms of the rules that they weight them down
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 12:51:32 PM
A couple of points.
Medicaid was created when Mr. Lowe was 11 years old, we are to assume his family with 10 children were not eligible? Of note, if he were a child today, K-CHIP, would allow his family to make over 70,000 per year, and pay $20 a month for insurance for all the kids. (Not for each, for all of them). Assuming he never got insurance when he worked in the mine or never qualified for Medicaid when he was an adult, when he became disabled in the accident, wouldn't he qualify for Social Security Disability - where he would have gotten Medicare - that single payer panacea? FYI, cleft palates are more the domain of otolarygologists, not plastic surgeons.
Posted by: umbrelladoc | Jul 29, 2007 2:15:32 PM
A couple of points. Medicaid was created when Mr. Lowe was 11 years old, we are to assume his family with 10 children were not eligible? Of note, if he were a child today, K-CHIP, would allow his family to make over 70,000 per year, and pay $20 a month for insurance for all the kids. (Not for each, for all of them). Assuming he never got insurance when he worked in the mine or never qualified for Medicaid when he was an adult, when he became disabled in the accident, wouldn't he qualify for Social Security Disability - where he would have gotten Medicare - that single payer panacea? FYI, cleft palates are more the domain of otolarygologists, not plastic surgeons.
All intersting points but the fact remains that the man didn't get the necessary surgery for fifty years and then only through charitable means. FYI, no one but yourself has described Medicare as a panacea.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Jul 29, 2007 2:47:32 PM
If Edwards does get elected, I think his chance of implementing a UHC policy is the lowest of any of the big three. He has a huge perception problem. No matter what plan he puts forth Health care professionals are going to kill the messenger more than they would with Obama or even Clinton. He is seen as someone that got rich being part of the problem of driving up costs and making insurance unaffordable. No matter what he says or proposes he has zero credibility with providers and like it or not providers have to be on board with any system.
Posted by: Dingo | Jul 29, 2007 3:04:37 PM
Dingo- I was't sure until today- but you really have nothing do you?
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 3:30:53 PM
I guess the truth hurts. The answer is no, it takes time to turn over an OR room and the answer must be the same for you. You have 2 more posts than I do.
Posted by: Dingo | Jul 29, 2007 4:22:29 PM
Look, I'm neither trying to be callous or suggest - as several people seem to imply - that a fifty year wait for corrective surgery would be acceptable. All I'm saying is that we don't have the full story to draw a lot of conclusions here; the additional information from Time is interesting, but as someone notes, Medicaid was in place by the time this man was 10, and his family would qualify... so what happened then? What I suspect is that at some point, someone, possibly his parents, possibly he himself, made a decision to stop seeking correction for his condition, an "it is what it is" type of acceptance that kept him from seeking further help and without asking, such help was never offered, until much later. That, it seems to me, is also a consequence of our care system, and is indeed a problem that can and should be fixed... and doesn't necessarily speak to single payer issues, but to an overall approach by health care professionals to get people what they need, not just what they ask for. But again, such a conclusion is speculative; and we are substituting emotional reactions for more calm, reasoned assessments of what's wrong with healthcare and how best to fix it. And, in our attempts to be well meaning, we can, by going on emotion first, simply complicate things or make them worse. No one, I think, could or should call this man's long life with cleft palate appropriate or necessary; but in order to understood how this happened - and how best to address what should've happened instead - the story needs more facts to draw many conclusions. That's all I'm saying.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 29, 2007 5:46:46 PM
actually you do have the full story weboy- and yes you are being callous by saying you dont because it implies some sort of dublicity.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 7:42:03 PM
Dingo- I have no problem with truth. i have a problem with people living in delusional fantasies and subjecting the rest of us to what they think of as truth.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 7:43:06 PM
by the way- i have to see any of you who bitch about these things and are skeptical post your own proof refuting the overall points this site regularly makes. Your sole argument at this point is you don't believe the data. We get it. but it's equalent of saying you don't believe the earth is round. What you believe or don't believe is besides the point because it dosn't refute anything. It simply shows your own bias in assertaining facts.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 29, 2007 7:44:38 PM
