child dies after workers refuse to fix his medicaid record

[Rat in the Hat]

If a pharmaceutical company can't employ educated decision-makers on the issue of how critical asthma can be nor know the medical laws that guaranteed this mother's child to medicine as needed, a lot more people will die. We should not have to wait until the mayor's kid dies before we make sure the one-parent child doesn't die. If government workers' incompetence is causing people to have to sue in order to make sure this kind of travesty never happens again, and the fed is content to let needless deaths ride, the courts will merely have to kick the government's ass until it corrects itself.

This lawsuit couldn't be righter for that reason.

The drug company had nothing to do with it.and the government workers should not have the lives of mama's and babies in there hands, and the one child's parent should actually have been a parent and gone after the meds her child needed. There are over 100 clinics in the Denver area she could have gone to. It is not the city, state or feral governments job to make sure a parent gets meds for her child. The woman had her options, SHE decided to do nothing. SHE is guilty of neglect as it was pointed out ware I posted and linked to what constitutes child abuse/neglect. She by rights should be prosecuted, instead she will get paid.

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

 

[NGSamson]

The drug company had nothing to do with it.and the government workers should not have the lives of mama's and babies in there hands, and the one child's parent should actually have been a parent and gone after the meds her child needed. There are over 100 clinics in the Denver area she could have gone to. It is not the city, state or feral governments job to make sure a parent gets meds for her child. The woman had her options, SHE decided to do nothing. SHE is guilty of neglect as it was pointed out ware I posted and linked to what constitutes child abuse/neglect. She by rights should be prosecuted, instead she will get paid.

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

They are not even included in the court action. This is a case ware a lawyer encouraged the woman to sue. I posted the filing all parties are named.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

They are not even included in the court action. This is a case ware a lawyer encouraged the woman to sue. I posted the filing all parties are named.

I agree. It's an ambulance chaser and a do nothing mother looking for a payday. I'm just curious as to how freedombecki thinks the drug company was involved in the boy not getting the meds.

 

[NGSamson]

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

They are not even included in the court action. This is a case ware a lawyer encouraged the woman to sue. I posted the filing all parties are named.

I agree. It's an ambulance chaser and a do nothing mother looking for a payday. I'm just curious as to how freedombecki thinks the drug company was involved in the boy not getting the meds.

Don't know. Same with the Pharmacy. Imagine if they just gave over the drugs and the boy died any way.

 

[kwc57]

Mom sues Denver, three workers over child's death - The Denver Post

but as we know, america has the best health care system in the world!

If only this 9 year old had worked hard in school, got a real job, etc then he wouldnt have been in this position!

If only his mother hadn't relied on the government to meet her medical needs.

 

[NGSamson]

Mom sues Denver, three workers over child's death - The Denver Post

but as we know, america has the best health care system in the world!

If only this 9 year old had worked hard in school, got a real job, etc then he wouldnt have been in this position!

If only his mother hadn't relied on the government to meet her medical needs.

Says in the article "several months" without the meds.

 

[freedombecki]

The drug company had nothing to do with it.and the government workers should not have the lives of mama's and babies in there hands, and the one child's parent should actually have been a parent and gone after the meds her child needed. There are over 100 clinics in the Denver area she could have gone to. It is not the city, state or feral governments job to make sure a parent gets meds for her child. The woman had her options, SHE decided to do nothing. SHE is guilty of neglect as it was pointed out ware I posted and linked to what constitutes child abuse/neglect. She by rights should be prosecuted, instead she will get paid.

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

Thank you, Rat in the Hat. The thread parent opened this one with this link that I gathered a certain impression from and have based my responses on:

A Denver mother whose son died after she was unable to fill his multiple prescriptions because pharmacists kept telling her he was not eligible for Medicaid — even though records proved he was — has filed a lawsuit against the city and county of Denver.
Zuton Lucero-Mills said she called Denver County Human Services several times a week in the spring and summer of 2009 after she tried to get 9-year-old son Zumante's asthma medications at Walgreens and was told he wasn't eligible for Medicaid.
No one resolved the computer glitch. Most of Lucero-Mills' calls weren't returned.

That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

The above link continues with the following assessment:

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.
The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.
State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.
"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

That's why I'm on this poor woman's side. If you have ever seen a child suffering with mild wheezes and it becomes an issue of him not being able to do more than gasp for air, in spite of his young age, he can become the victim of a heart attack. My friend's son was on the verge of death, she was surprised to find out, when she took him to the hospital er with just such a complaint. Both she and her husband have above-average intelligence, and they had no idea how close to death he was, just a gut instinct.

This never should have come to an issue of why a child in America could not get care. He was eligible all along, and in spite of the mother's plea, the pharmacy told her at each time she visited he was ineligible.

That's why I think pharmacies if they are speaking in behalf of a government agency might consider going proactive in the behalf of a person could die if the government agency persisted in denying the child care.

And I think a whole lot more, but I have no proof.

People do not know what the hell they're dealing with the first time they see their child gasping for air. In actuality, a sane, highly intelligent person might think a good-natured child is pretending, but just as real, that kid is gasping for his very life.

Asthma can fool even a rocket scientist. That's what my friend's husband was.

 

[bill5]

You humiliate your girlfriend by exposing her private area to prove what a jock you are, now you wish to brutalize a poor woman who lost her precious son too?
I'm not buying it.

Please do not feed the trolls.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

Thank you, Rat in the Hat. The thread parent opened this one with this link that I gathered a certain impression from and have based my responses on:

A Denver mother whose son died after she was unable to fill his multiple prescriptions because pharmacists kept telling her he was not eligible for Medicaid — even though records proved he was — has filed a lawsuit against the city and county of Denver.
Zuton Lucero-Mills said she called Denver County Human Services several times a week in the spring and summer of 2009 after she tried to get 9-year-old son Zumante's asthma medications at Walgreens and was told he wasn't eligible for Medicaid.
No one resolved the computer glitch. Most of Lucero-Mills' calls weren't returned.

That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

The above link continues with the following assessment:

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.
The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.
State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.
"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

That's why I'm on this poor woman's side. If you have ever seen a child suffering with mild wheezes and it becomes an issue of him not being able to do more than gasp for air, in spite of his young age, he can become the victim of a heart attack. My friend's son was on the verge of death, she was surprised to find out, when she took him to the hospital er with just such a complaint. Both she and her husband have above-average intelligence, and they had no idea how close to death he was, just a gut instinct.

This never should have come to an issue of why a child in America could not get care. He was eligible all along, and in spite of the mother's plea, the pharmacy told her at each time she visited he was ineligible.

That's why I think pharmacies if they are speaking in behalf of a government agency might consider going proactive in the behalf of a person could die if the government agency persisted in denying the child care.

And I think a whole lot more, but I have no proof.

People do not know what the hell they're dealing with the first time they see their child gasping for air. In actuality, a sane, highly intelligent person might think a good-natured child is pretending, but just as real, that kid is gasping for his very life.

Asthma can fool even a rocket scientist. That's what my friend's husband was.

Oh yes, the Walgreens pharmacy could have done more in this situation. But they are not the drug company who made the drug, only the middleman in selling it.

And I also wonder why mom's suit didn't include the pharmacy.

 

[bill5]

Ok, for you simple folk so you under stand.

...said the pot.

Yes we heard you the first time. It's still irrelevant because SHE TOOK ACTION. Numerous times.

Did you even read the article?


I don't know. Do you? Of course not. And that's relevant because-?

bill5, keep the emotion out of your post. It makes you look stupid.

Try to keep stupid statements out of yours. It makes you look far more stupid. There was/is precious little emotion in my stating so; rather a statement of IMO rather obvious fact.

Try bringing some facts with yours.

I was going to respond with "try actually addressing my points," but realized what a foolish request that would be, since you've clearly demonstrated you cannot and not are capable of a rational discussion/debate, at least not on this topic.

 

[bill5]

Did someone promise you an error free world or else everyone who makes a mistake will be tossed in prison?

No, I simply have this crazy idea that people should be held accountable in this world - doubly so when it costs an innocent person their life. I know that's a terribly radical and unpopular viewpoint these days, but that doesn't make it any less logical IMO.

Sorry I didn't read the rest of your extremely lengthy post; don't have time or frankly inclination offhand as I suspect it's a very long way of basically going "she's at fault, not the people who screwed up and refused her son the medication!" Agree to disagree.

You tend not to read much. You still have not brought any facts to the thread. Only emotion.

Your responses only get more idiotic and childish as you go, which speaks for itself. I'm not replying to you further until you actually say something worth replying to. I'll hold my breath waiting.

 

[boedicca]

Mom sues Denver, three workers over child's death - The Denver Post

but as we know, america has the best health care system in the world!

If only this 9 year old had worked hard in school, got a real job, etc then he wouldnt have been in this position!

One nine year old kid in Denver dying does not in any way, shape, or form mean the U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world. Best does not mean perfect and people in Europe with socialist health care die all the time, but you already knew that.

If the moron who started this thread had actually read the article, he would have seen that it was three government employees who denied the child health care coverage.

Now, multiply that by the entire population being subjected to the ObamaCare panels, and think of the implications.

 

[bill5]

Oh yay, I was wondering when we'd get around to digressing this into a wingnut cat fight. Took longer than usual.

 

[freedombecki]

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

Thank you, Rat in the Hat. The thread parent opened this one with this link that I gathered a certain impression from and have based my responses on:

That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

The above link continues with the following assessment:

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.
The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.
State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.
"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

That's why I'm on this poor woman's side. If you have ever seen a child suffering with mild wheezes and it becomes an issue of him not being able to do more than gasp for air, in spite of his young age, he can become the victim of a heart attack. My friend's son was on the verge of death, she was surprised to find out, when she took him to the hospital er with just such a complaint. Both she and her husband have above-average intelligence, and they had no idea how close to death he was, just a gut instinct.

This never should have come to an issue of why a child in America could not get care. He was eligible all along, and in spite of the mother's plea, the pharmacy told her at each time she visited he was ineligible.

That's why I think pharmacies if they are speaking in behalf of a government agency might consider going proactive in the behalf of a person could die if the government agency persisted in denying the child care.

And I think a whole lot more, but I have no proof.

People do not know what the hell they're dealing with the first time they see their child gasping for air. In actuality, a sane, highly intelligent person might think a good-natured child is pretending, but just as real, that kid is gasping for his very life.

Asthma can fool even a rocket scientist. That's what my friend's husband was.

Oh yes, the Walgreens pharmacy could have done more in this situation. But they are not the drug company who made the drug, only the middleman in selling it.

And I also wonder why mom's suit didn't include the pharmacy.

Lawyers worth their salt generally go with information upon which they can base a case. A poor person calling from several pay phones when she has an issue may have zero records, and pair that with a language barrier issue, that gets compounded. People in one country have a tendency to disbelieve foreigners, which may be another consideration the lawyer has to deal with. If he wins his case on factual information, he doesn't have to get into the lugubrious details of she-said he-said, and vice versa. That's just my guess.

Funny how one bit of info can go unnoticed by one, but clobbers another directly in the face. I wouldn't have said anything here, except for my dear friend whose son was so sick years ago, and she couldn't appreciate it until the doctor told her exactly what his chances were and how getting him to the hospital timely prevented him from whatever it is they call it when the brain doesn't get enough air and dies. Anoxia? (just guessing off the top of my head)

 

[NGSamson]

The drug company was in the big middle of it. This isn't about what should be, it's about what is in place, and how error killed this child in spite of his mother's concerted efforts to get him medicine that was prescribed and by law, he was entitled to receive. This is a matter for a court of law, not the kangaroo court of public opinion.

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

Thank you, Rat in the Hat. The thread parent opened this one with this link that I gathered a certain impression from and have based my responses on:

A Denver mother whose son died after she was unable to fill his multiple prescriptions because pharmacists kept telling her he was not eligible for Medicaid — even though records proved he was — has filed a lawsuit against the city and county of Denver.
Zuton Lucero-Mills said she called Denver County Human Services several times a week in the spring and summer of 2009 after she tried to get 9-year-old son Zumante's asthma medications at Walgreens and was told he wasn't eligible for Medicaid.
No one resolved the computer glitch. Most of Lucero-Mills' calls weren't returned.

That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

The above link continues with the following assessment:

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.
The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.
State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.
"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

That's why I'm on this poor woman's side. If you have ever seen a child suffering with mild wheezes and it becomes an issue of him not being able to do more than gasp for air, in spite of his young age, he can become the victim of a heart attack. My friend's son was on the verge of death, she was surprised to find out, when she took him to the hospital er with just such a complaint. Both she and her husband have above-average intelligence, and they had no idea how close to death he was, just a gut instinct.

This never should have come to an issue of why a child in America could not get care. He was eligible all along, and in spite of the mother's plea, the pharmacy told her at each time she visited he was ineligible.

That's why I think pharmacies if they are speaking in behalf of a government agency might consider going proactive in the behalf of a person could die if the government agency persisted in denying the child care.

And I think a whole lot more, but I have no proof.

People do not know what the hell they're dealing with the first time they see their child gasping for air. In actuality, a sane, highly intelligent person might think a good-natured child is pretending, but just as real, that kid is gasping for his very life.

Asthma can fool even a rocket scientist. That's what my friend's husband was.

Had the pharmacy handed out the drugs, and the boy died any way, they would then have been named in the law suet, and liable. It is a shitty messed up deal, the boy should NOT have died in this country, in this day and age from asthma. We agree on that. I also think we can agree on the fact that some goof ball at a desk messed up causing the boys death. All the rest is arm chair quarter backing about who should have done what. This article was posted (I assume) to support universal health care, instead, it foretells the things to come when bureaucrats get thrown into the mix between a doctor, and patient.

 

[NGSamson]

No, I simply have this crazy idea that people should be held accountable in this world - doubly so when it costs an innocent person their life. I know that's a terribly radical and unpopular viewpoint these days, but that doesn't make it any less logical IMO.

Sorry I didn't read the rest of your extremely lengthy post; don't have time or frankly inclination offhand as I suspect it's a very long way of basically going "she's at fault, not the people who screwed up and refused her son the medication!" Agree to disagree.

You tend not to read much. You still have not brought any facts to the thread. Only emotion.

Your responses only get more idiotic and childish as you go, which speaks for itself. I'm not replying to you further until you actually say something worth replying to. I'll hold my breath waiting.

You have brought no facts to support what you say. Every post you have made has onle been made to wind folks up. Bring facts, or blow it out your ass.

Definition for internet troll:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response.

 

[NGSamson]

...said the pot.

Yes we heard you the first time. It's still irrelevant because SHE TOOK ACTION. Numerous times.

Did you even read the article?


I don't know. Do you? Of course not. And that's relevant because-?

Try to keep stupid statements out of yours. It makes you look far more stupid. There was/is precious little emotion in my stating so; rather a statement of IMO rather obvious fact.

Try bringing some facts with yours.

I was going to respond with "try actually addressing my points," but realized what a foolish request that would be, since you've clearly demonstrated you cannot and not are capable of a rational discussion/debate, at least not on this topic.

Whats your point ?

 

[freedombecki]

How was the drug company in the middle of it? Nothing in the story said they were ever contacted. They probably didn't know anything about it until the story hit the media.

Thank you, Rat in the Hat. The thread parent opened this one with this link that I gathered a certain impression from and have based my responses on:



That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

The above link continues with the following assessment:

Her son's asthma worsened after several months of being off the anti-inflammatory drug Advair, which kept the disease manageable.
The boy died in July 2009. He fainted at his home after telling his mother he couldn't breathe and then died a few days later at Children's Hospital when he was taken off a ventilator.
State investigators later found the boy died of complications from his condition, which was covered by a state health plan that should have paid for the prescription medication he needed.
"I want this not to be the story of anyone else's family," Lucero-Mills said. "Something has to change."

That's why I'm on this poor woman's side. If you have ever seen a child suffering with mild wheezes and it becomes an issue of him not being able to do more than gasp for air, in spite of his young age, he can become the victim of a heart attack. My friend's son was on the verge of death, she was surprised to find out, when she took him to the hospital er with just such a complaint. Both she and her husband have above-average intelligence, and they had no idea how close to death he was, just a gut instinct.

This never should have come to an issue of why a child in America could not get care. He was eligible all along, and in spite of the mother's plea, the pharmacy told her at each time she visited he was ineligible.

That's why I think pharmacies if they are speaking in behalf of a government agency might consider going proactive in the behalf of a person could die if the government agency persisted in denying the child care.

And I think a whole lot more, but I have no proof.

People do not know what the hell they're dealing with the first time they see their child gasping for air. In actuality, a sane, highly intelligent person might think a good-natured child is pretending, but just as real, that kid is gasping for his very life.

Asthma can fool even a rocket scientist. That's what my friend's husband was.

Had the pharmacy handed out the drugs, and the boy died any way, they would then have been named in the law suet, and liable. It is a shitty messed up deal, the boy should NOT have died in this country, in this day and age from asthma. We agree on that. I also think we can agree on the fact that some goof ball at a desk messed up causing the boys death. All the rest is arm chair quarter backing about who should have done what. This article was posted (I assume) to support universal health care, instead, it foretells the things to come when bureaucrats get thrown into the mix between a doctor, and patient.

I don't know the position of the person who posted this information, NGSampson. I did my best to post within the parameters of the story and hearing my friend whose son had a similar issue tell of it. and but for the grace of God, did not end up going to a funeral, got a refillable prescription along with a stern warning from a physician in the er her first week in a new state. My thinking is she was probably insured, considering her husband's work and employer, not to mention her resources.

I don't have to have an experience if my best friend went through a family ordeal to get her dying son to care on time. I've lost touch with her, and don't know if her son actually suffered long-term issues, he was so young back when they arrived at the same town I lived in and we were friends from the start at the church we both attended. He seemed ok for the next 3 years we lived there.

 

[NGSamson]

Thank you, Rat in the Hat. The thread parent opened this one with this link that I gathered a certain impression from and have based my responses on:



That's how I concluded the pharmacy was in the big middle of it and refused to provide the correct medications for the victim, her son. According to what this says, it was Walgreen's who told her that her son was ineligible for Medicaid. That makes Walgreen's a spokesperson in behalf of a government that screwed up big time.

The above link continues with the following assessment:
That's why I'm on this poor woman's side. If you have ever seen a child suffering with mild wheezes and it becomes an issue of him not being able to do more than gasp for air, in spite of his young age, he can become the victim of a heart attack. My friend's son was on the verge of death, she was surprised to find out, when she took him to the hospital er with just such a complaint. Both she and her husband have above-average intelligence, and they had no idea how close to death he was, just a gut instinct.

This never should have come to an issue of why a child in America could not get care. He was eligible all along, and in spite of the mother's plea, the pharmacy told her at each time she visited he was ineligible.

That's why I think pharmacies if they are speaking in behalf of a government agency might consider going proactive in the behalf of a person could die if the government agency persisted in denying the child care.

And I think a whole lot more, but I have no proof.

People do not know what the hell they're dealing with the first time they see their child gasping for air. In actuality, a sane, highly intelligent person might think a good-natured child is pretending, but just as real, that kid is gasping for his very life.

Asthma can fool even a rocket scientist. That's what my friend's husband was.

Had the pharmacy handed out the drugs, and the boy died any way, they would then have been named in the law suet, and liable. It is a shitty messed up deal, the boy should NOT have died in this country, in this day and age from asthma. We agree on that. I also think we can agree on the fact that some goof ball at a desk messed up causing the boys death. All the rest is arm chair quarter backing about who should have done what. This article was posted (I assume) to support universal health care, instead, it foretells the things to come when bureaucrats get thrown into the mix between a doctor, and patient.

I don't know the position of the person who posted this information, NGSampson. I did my best to post within the parameters of the story and telling my friend whose son had a similar issue and but for the grace of God, did not end up going to a funeral, got a refillable prescription along with a stern warning from a physician in the er her first week in a new state. My thinking is she was probably insured, considering her husband's work and employer, not to mention her resources.

I don't have to have an experience if my best friend went through a family ordeal to get her dying son to care on time. I've lost touch with her, and don't know if her son actually suffered long-term issues, he was so young back when they arrived at the same town I lived in and we were friends from the start at the church we both attended.

The fact that your friend had insurance most likely helped allot. The attack there child suffered may have been common in that area.

 

[Xchel]

And she absolutely knew an asthma attack could KILL HIM -because every doctor ALWAYS makes sure parents know that asthma can kill their child if not treated or if the child is without an emergency inhaler!

Are you positive about that? My son had RSV and I have asthma..my doctor never once told me asthma could kill me...in fact, he told me it very rarely does cause life threatening illness. So they don't always do what you say and asthma medicine is EXPENSIVE extremely so, it is also an approved medication through medicaid. If she was denied her medication because of an error at the medicaid office that is why they were named and not the pharmacy. If the pharmacy was too lazy to pick up the phone and find out then they are also neglectful and I am not their attorney so I don't know the details of why they are not being sued, perhaps they are witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff? Also, why should a woman be charged with neglect when she went to the pharmacy and she was denied that medication? She had the insurance..and while it was medicaid.being poor is not a crime and it is covered under medcaid so yeah I would say they were neglectful moreso than she was.