Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment

[Political Junky]

My parents are 86 and 81, both suffer physical problems. Mom has severe rheumatoid arthritis and has been on Remicade (among other treatments) for years. Dad suffers compressed nerves in his back and sees a chiropractor for some relief. I can't imagine what the quality of their health care would be if uncle ran the show. Well, after reading this article . . . . maybe I can.

Are they not on Medicare?

Medicare doesn't control the Doctors like Sweden undoubtedly does or places an age restriction which would be funny since seniors are the bulk of those on Medicare.

They're still on a government plan [Medicare], very similar to what Obama wants for any of us to choose. We can still keep out bloated private plans if we want.

 

[auditor0007]

Skogh has suffered from pain and numbness in her legs since 2004....Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment - The Local

American Health Care Insurance Corporations tell 17,000 people a day they are too unemployed for health care.


Clearly, based on that counter-headline we ought to completely socialize medicine, right?

Yeah, that's right, now something like 17,000 people a day are losing their HC coverage, Ozz.

Based on that dismal figure your point (while valid) probably isn't going to get much political traction in here in this brave new America we're creating.

Are they losing their coverage because they lost their job?

Why is health insurance tied to employment anyway? Why isn't it more like car insurance, where you can shop around for the company that provides what you need at the price you can afford? That way even if you lose your job, you'd still have your health insurance. Or am I being too naive here to think this is an option that would work?

I think having health insurance provided by employers is one of the main reasons costs are spiraling out of control. Then again, under current rules, if you have private insurance and develop any type of pre-existing condition, then you will be denied coverage through any other insurance company. Actually, the same company will deny you coverage or triple your rates if you move to another state.

 

[Political Junky]

Skogh has suffered from pain and numbness in her legs since 2004....Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment - The Local

American Health Care Insurance Corporations tell 17,000 people a day they are too unemployed for health care.


Clearly, based on that counter-headline we ought to completely socialize medicine, right?

Yeah, that's right, now something like 17,000 people a day are losing their HC coverage, Ozz.

Based on that dismal figure your point (while valid) probably isn't going to get much political traction in here in this brave new America we're creating.

Wow, that is some strange website. Everything in it is negative. Is it from some wingnut source?
Sweden has a great thing going ... very high standard of living.

 

[Care4all]

My parents are 86 and 81, both suffer physical problems. Mom has severe rheumatoid arthritis and has been on Remicade (among other treatments) for years. Dad suffers compressed nerves in his back and sees a chiropractor for some relief. I can't imagine what the quality of their health care would be if uncle ran the show. Well, after reading this article . . . . maybe I can.

uncle DOES run the SHOW, it's called MEDICARE and tax payers pay for it!

I'm honestly glad they like it and it is GOOD for them zoom!

care

No, that's just it. Uncle isn't telling them who they can and cannot see . . . uncle is not refusing treatment for them because they are too old . . . uncle is not telling them too bad, you can't have this surgery, go home and suffer till you die.

Uncle Sam is running the show with MEDICARE and they chose NOT to tell 'them' how to be doctors or be involved in your personal care, otherwise they would have and could have stuck their noses in to it and dictated it down to the T....because it is uncle sam's government program....

and honestly, I am not so certain MEDICARE doesn't have some kind of cutoff for certain treatments or certain medicines?

seems like they would? like 105 yrs old, wanting chemo to kill colon cancer that came merely from being old and cells falling apart? does Medicare still pay for this....? Maybe they do, if the doc thinks they can live to 115 with the chemo?

 

[geauxtohell]

Skogh has suffered from pain and numbness in her legs since 2004....Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment - The Local

The thing is, no where in the article does it state that shes was denied for surgery for financial reasons. The patient inferred it, but the hospital denied it:

But despite the lengthy wait for the diagnosis, Skogh was then told that, even though the ailment was treatable, she was too old for the surgery.

In addition to Skogh's age, the fact that she had previously undergone heart surgery also made her ineligible for the operation, doctors explained.

Being 83 makes a person a poor candidate for a major surgery, especially with other risk factors. Obviously her age didn't preclude her from heart surgery (assuming the surgery was recent). Socialized medicine is often blamed for this, which conveniently overlooks the medical decision process that is made by the Dr. An individual Dr. has the latitude to deny or accept a patient for surgery based on what they think the outcome will be. That in itself is not an exact science.

Furthermore, this is hardly an issue that exists only in socialized medicine. I had a relative with insurance that was turned down for open heart surgery at Mayo, because they were too old. The risk of them dying in surgery far outweighed any benefits from the surgery.

 

[johnrocks]

Are they not on Medicare?

Medicare doesn't control the Doctors like Sweden undoubtedly does or places an age restriction which would be funny since seniors are the bulk of those on Medicare.

They're still on a government plan [Medicare], very similar to what Obama wants for any of us to choose. We can still keep out bloated private plans if we want.

Only about 8% have private plans,most have ridiculous group insurance.

 

[geauxtohell]

True, there are many complications to consider when one is older. But according to the article, the woman - who decided for herself that she wanted/needed the surgery - didn't have complications, she was just refused the surgery because she was too old. It was decided for her that is was better (and cheaper) to send her home to suffer for the remainder of her life.

Who said 'we should not have health care for Americans'? It's the government run part that is objectionable.

Actually, that was the patient's opinion. The hospital denied that she was refused the surgery simply for being too old.

Furthermore, her situation wasn't an "either/or" meaning that it was either the surgery or suffer. I'd imagine the Drs. that turned her down felt she could manage the pain with analgesics at a lower risk to her than the surgery.

 

[johnrocks]

American Health Care Insurance Corporations tell 17,000 people a day they are too unemployed for health care.


Clearly, based on that counter-headline we ought to completely socialize medicine, right?

Yeah, that's right, now something like 17,000 people a day are losing their HC coverage, Ozz.

Based on that dismal figure your point (while valid) probably isn't going to get much political traction in here in this brave new America we're creating.

Are they losing their coverage because they lost their job?

Why is health insurance tied to employment anyway? Why isn't it more like car insurance, where you can shop around for the company that provides what you need at the price you can afford? That way even if you lose your job, you'd still have your health insurance. Or am I being too naive here to think this is an option that would work?

I think having health insurance provided by employers is one of the main reasons costs are spiraling out of control. Then again, under current rules, if you have private insurance and develop any type of pre-existing condition, then you will be denied coverage through any other insurance company. Actually, the same company will deny you coverage or triple your rates if you move to another state.

I detest group health,everything you said about them is true,imho, however incentives need to be in place I think,like ,what makes so many uninsurable? I think that most can be attributed to our lifestyle choices that result in things like obesity,diabetes and cardio diseases personally. The ones who;no fault of their own,like babies being born with uninsurable diseases or someone left uninsurable due to the actions of others;like a drunk driver leaving them paralyzed;are the ones I feel for.

 

[Zoom-boing]

uncle DOES run the SHOW, it's called MEDICARE and tax payers pay for it!

I'm honestly glad they like it and it is GOOD for them zoom!

care

No, that's just it. Uncle isn't telling them who they can and cannot see . . . uncle is not refusing treatment for them because they are too old . . . uncle is not telling them too bad, you can't have this surgery, go home and suffer till you die.

Uncle Sam is running the show with MEDICARE and they chose NOT to tell 'them' how to be doctors or be involved in your personal care, otherwise they would have and could have stuck their noses in to it and dictated it down to the T....because it is uncle sam's government program....

and honestly, I am not so certain MEDICARE doesn't have some kind of cutoff for certain treatments or certain medicines?

seems like they would? like 105 yrs old, wanting chemo to kill colon cancer that came merely from being old and cells falling apart? does Medicare still pay for this....? Maybe they do, if the doc thinks they can live to 115 with the chemo?

Correct. I believe that if health care were 'socialized' (or whatever term) that uncle would be telling patients, especially older patients, what was and wasn't acceptable treatment, options, etc. It would be coming from some 'government health care specialist' through to your doctor, but it would not be a choice you and your doctor would make together. It would come to governemnt dictating it down to a T . . . or as close as they could get. Call me a crazy right-wing loon for thinking this. I don't trust Obama or his administration and I sure don't think government running the health care business is the right way to fix the problem.

How's Medicare working out? I heard they will be belly up in 10 years or so. Government running it will just create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more cost, more, more, more. It always does. And I don't buy Obama's 'it's this (gov't health care) or the status quo'. Who says there are only two ways to skin a cat?

 

[Zoom-boing]

American Health Care Insurance Corporations tell 17,000 people a day they are too unemployed for health care.


Clearly, based on that counter-headline we ought to completely socialize medicine, right?

Yeah, that's right, now something like 17,000 people a day are losing their HC coverage, Ozz.

Based on that dismal figure your point (while valid) probably isn't going to get much political traction in here in this brave new America we're creating.

Are they losing their coverage because they lost their job?

Why is health insurance tied to employment anyway? Why isn't it more like car insurance, where you can shop around for the company that provides what you need at the price you can afford? That way even if you lose your job, you'd still have your health insurance. Or am I being too naive here to think this is an option that would work?

I think having health insurance provided by employers is one of the main reasons costs are spiraling out of control. Then again, under current rules, if you have private insurance and develop any type of pre-existing condition, then you will be denied coverage through any other insurance company. Actually, the same company will deny you coverage or triple your rates if you move to another state.

Then why aren't they addressing this instead of trying to put it into the control of the government? If they really wanted to reform health care why don't they change the rules/ways the health insurance companies provide their services? Why don't they try and fix what is already in place and is already working (to a large extent) instead of having yet another government controlled program?

 

[Modbert]

Skogh has suffered from pain and numbness in her legs since 2004....Docs tell 83-year-old Swede she's 'too old' for treatment - The Local

Ignorance is bliss huh? Another link from Ozz filled up bullshit.

In addition to Skogh's age, the fact that she had previously undergone heart surgery also made her ineligible for the operation, doctors explained.

He told the Östgöta Correspondenten that county health official don’t prioritize patients based on age, but that age can play a factor if it is deemed the patient is unable to handle a course of treatment.

No matter how old she got, she wasn't going to get the surgery anyway because of the health surgery.

 

[Zoom-boing]

True, there are many complications to consider when one is older. But according to the article, the woman - who decided for herself that she wanted/needed the surgery - didn't have complications, she was just refused the surgery because she was too old. It was decided for her that is was better (and cheaper) to send her home to suffer for the remainder of her life.

Who said 'we should not have health care for Americans'? It's the government run part that is objectionable.

Actually, that was the patient's opinion. The hospital denied that she was refused the surgery simply for being too old.

Furthermore, her situation wasn't an "either/or" meaning that it was either the surgery or suffer. I'd imagine the Drs. that turned her down felt she could manage the pain with analgesics at a lower risk to her than the surgery.

That's not how I read the article, I read it as 'surgery or go home and suffer'. I'm sure the docs felt she could go home and mange her pain . . . it wasn't the docs that were suffering.

I've encountered too many situations and too many docs to believe that they always know what is best for the patient. Sometimes the patient knows best but the docs refuse to listen. BTDT.

 

[Luissa]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

geez because they don't have patient neglect in the united states. How about having the wrong leg cut off, or scissors left inside of you, how about the wrong dose being given to the twins of a celebrity and almost killing them.
How about a man who is 40 years old who is young and expected to recover but is sent to a privately run nursing home and is neglected so bad he later slips into acoma and dies due to infections he developed from bed sores.
Oh! wait all that shit happens in the United States! We are also rated something like 30th or 34th in the world with the current system we have in health care.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's not how I read the article, I read it as 'surgery or go home and suffer'. I'm sure the docs felt she could go home and mange her pain . . . it wasn't the docs that were suffering.

If her pain could effectively be managed by narcs, then should wouldn't be suffering. That wasn't an outcome that was acceptable to the patient, so she sought a second opinion. However, I suspect the Dr. that denied her for surgery felt that the risk of serious complications secondary to the surgery outweighed simple pain management.

Again, no where in that article was it ever illustrated that this situation is unique to socialized medicine and this scenario happens all the time in this nation.

There is no getting around the fact that an 83 year old woman with a previous heart condition is a risky candidate for back surgery.

I've encountered too many situations and too many docs to believe that they always know what is best for the patient. Sometimes the patient knows best but the docs refuse to listen. BTDT.

Well, it's not like you get an M.D. out of a crackerjack box. Too many patients don't want to hear a Drs. advice, because it doesn't gel with their plans. However, the Dr. is giving you what they feel is the best option based on their training and expertise.

Every patient has the right to autonomy, and you can always seek a second opinion.

 

[Luissa]

oh! yeah and since that guy's insurance didn't pay all his medical bills they are now going after the business he left to his mother for the bill. I wonder if she will be able to pay them there 100,000 dollars?

 

[Old Rocks]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

Crap. And how many times are similiar errors made here in the US? Even to the point of people having the wrong limb amputated.

You mean to tell me that the people in Europe and Asia are told that they must have procedures by the government? Get real.

 

[johnrocks]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

geez because they don't have patient neglect in the united states. How about having the wrong leg cut off, or scissors left inside of you, how about the wrong dose being given to the twins of a celebrity and almost killing them.
How about a man who is 40 years old who is young and expected to recover but is sent to a privately run nursing home and is neglected so bad he later slips into acoma and dies due to infections he developed from bed sores.
Oh! wait all that shit happens in the United States! We are also rated something like 30th or 34th in the world with the current system we have in health care.

Our health system sucks and no wonder,government already directly provides either the healthcare like VA or provides the insurance or means to pay for it like Medicare,Medicade,Tricare etc. 60% of the time, the lion's share of the rest is fucked up group while only 8% has private health insurance like health savings accounts that have been pretty stable in premium cost and FTR, I would sue the fuck out of a Doctor who cut the wrong leg off or was neglectful in other areas,I oppose tort control.

 

[Old Rocks]

Medicare has different problems, Physicians opting out of Medicare and a 30 trillion dollar unfunded liability that will be hitting it in a few years if nothing is done about it.

Easy to fix. Medicare now has for clients the people that are most likely to require care, the old and disabled. So require all Americans to have Medicare. Then we would have many that do not use the system for years at a time, other than preventive checkups.

 

[johnrocks]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

Crap. And how many times are similiar errors made here in the US? Even to the point of people having the wrong limb amputated.

You mean to tell me that the people in Europe and Asia are told that they must have procedures by the government? Get real.

I oppose tort control,don't throw me in the same basket as some of the other "right wing" sheep. That happens what,1% of the time or less?

 

[Luissa]

See those other three articles.
* Swedish hospitals fail to report patient injuries (13 Jul 09)
* Patient dies due to improper IV administration (6 Jul 09)
* Swedish clinic sterilises wrong patient (30 Jun 09)

That's the way it is when government is in charge,glad she could pay herself to get it done and I gotta admit,I as a taxpayer,don't want to pay for unneeded care that spends millions to extent life a few months and things like that but those things should be a personal choice,not government's,imho anyway.

geez because they don't have patient neglect in the united states. How about having the wrong leg cut off, or scissors left inside of you, how about the wrong dose being given to the twins of a celebrity and almost killing them.
How about a man who is 40 years old who is young and expected to recover but is sent to a privately run nursing home and is neglected so bad he later slips into acoma and dies due to infections he developed from bed sores.
Oh! wait all that shit happens in the United States! We are also rated something like 30th or 34th in the world with the current system we have in health care.

Our health system sucks and no wonder,government already directly provides either the healthcare like VA or provides the insurance or means to pay for it like Medicare,Medicade,Tricare etc. 60% of the time, the lion's share of the rest is fucked up group while only 8% has private health insurance like health savings accounts that have been pretty stable in premium cost and FTR, I would sue the fuck out of a Doctor who cut the wrong leg off or was neglectful in other areas,I oppose tort control.

My other problem is if you do have good insurance they think of shit for them to do. When I was on my dad's dental which one of the best programs you can get the dentist was always having to do work. I think he hated the fact I didn't need braces or never had cavities. Everytime I would go there would be something I needed to come back for.