I'm amazed at the reaction in Manny's diary about the high cost of mandated insurance to my suggestion that we could cut costs by not including organ transplants in the mandated plans, and leaving them and other controversial procedures for private supplemental plans if people want them covered. It is startling how insistent everyone is that organ transplants be part of the public option, and that they be mandated coverage. I think they're going to be a huge entitlement that we should prevent as much as possible, by allowing people to opt out and insisting on other cures that don't rely on harvesting dying people''s organs.
So here is a new diary on the topic. It's not intended to rebuke organ donors or recipients, who are only doing what anyone would do and are not to blame for their decisions, so don't be personally offended, and don't base your policy views on your own debt to organ donation, that's water under the bridge.
Given that, it seems such procedures should be among the first (and least controversial) things covered by insurance. I always assumed the goal of health care was to prevent/treat illness and prevent unnecessary death. If not, then what is it? BTW, are you a Jehovah’s Witness? Those are the only people I’ve ever heard opposed to this kind of thing, though to be clear I would also oppose REQUIRING organ donation as I believe that decision properly lies with the potential donors and their families.
Shouldn’t we be able to say “I want a cheaper plan that doesn’t include organ donation coverage? If I need an organ donation, it’ll be as if I was uninsured, but I’ll save X amount of dollars a year if I don’t.”
<
p>If we can have plans that don’t cover IVF, or that only cover one physical a year or only cover 70% of the bill, why can’t opting out of organ donation be one of the choices we have?
<
p>Yeah, few countries REQUIRE everyone to be subject to organ harvesting. Maybe China, with its prisoners, and Spain, which requires people to opt-out, come close to that. But apparently you want to require everyone to pay for it, whether they approve of it or not.
<
p>and no, I’m not jdub.
It saves lives though and as such it absolutely should be covered by any public plan. A long healthy life shouldn’t be just a privilege for those who can afford it. I can see (and even agree with) the arguments about restricting public coverage for most abortions, but yes, I will make you pay for the transplants. As others have pointed out we all pay taxes toward things we don’t agree with.
I’m not sure where I stand on this issue overall. But what I do know is that as potential organ donor, I have made my preference known on my card that I do not want my organs used for science. This is because of several things. If my kidney could give someone a second chance at life- I’d prefer that than it going to a classroom to be cut and scrutinized and discarded right after. Also, the cost of science/medical research is a driving force behind health care costs.
<
p>I struggle with the idea that should be saving lives with preventive medicine- but in the words of Alan Sager, noted academic on health care and cost containment- the medical field has a 100% failure rate.
<
p>How long do we research to find cures for cancers, AIDS, etc? Everything requires a cost/benefit analysis. Mosquito nets are really cheap and can save thousands of lives from malaria. kidney transplant is very expensive and may save 1 person’s life.
<
p>In terms of an organ transplant under a mandated plan- perhaps the “opt out” option could suffice. But what happens if you change your mind- say when your kidney starts to fail? Can you opt-in suddenly?
But what happens if you change your mind- say when your kidney starts to fail? Can you opt-in suddenly?
<
p>Well, yes, you can opt-in suddenly, because rejecting someone for a pre-existing condition would be not allowed. So maybe their premiums would go up when they decide to switch to a plan that covers organ transplants. Otherwise it would be an obvious flaw in the whole package, if accepting people with pre-existing conditions into a new plan means that there can be no plan with less than total coverage of everything, which would make them all cost the maximum.
<
p>Or are the differences between health plans all in the details like co-pays and co-insurance, and they all cover everything? No, I definitely think there are differences in what is covered. I’ve seen all the brochures and gotten the bills from lots of different insurance companies depending on where I worked. That’s why they reject people for pre-existing conditions. To not be able to do that, isn’t that saying that everything is mandated coverage? Unless it simply raises your premiums and you pay for the rest of your life, you can’t go back to the old plan after the operation.
<
p>
The plans would be more like student loans, but unlike loans they’d be post-pay insurance. So we’d pay a minimal amount for minimal coverage in a public plan, that basically got everyone signed up, collected their records, and covered all non-controversial, non-radical medicine, but not lots of other stuff. If you suddenly needed or wanted the other stuff covered, like IVF or erectile drugs or life-extension and cybernetics (zero votes for that stuff in the poll!) you’d sign up with a private company to cover your costs in exchange for a monthly payment for the rest of your life, or til 65 or for 20 years maybe. Of course people that got a heart transplant generally don’t live very long, but their premiums would be very high, though not enough to be expected to recoup, but recipients of other organs would balance it out I guess…