The UCLA Health Center and Blue Shield finally came to a resolution regarding the insurance flap between the two parties. Just a recap, the last contract between the two parties ended
December 31, 2011 and all UC health facilities have been out of Blue Shield's network since then. Suffice to say, this has caused of a lot of stress for me along with,
I'm sure, many other patients receiving care at UCLA and other UC health
facilities. I am grateful for Blue Shield's Continuity of Care Services
waiver program, but it has not been without it's share of problems and
heartache. Starting September 1, 2012, the UCLA Health Center and it's affiliates
will once again be within Blue Shield's network. The new contract will be effective through June 30, 2015.
At
this point, I will remain at Cedars Sinai for now. One reason that has
lessened any confusion on my part of whether to go back to UCLA is the
good rapport between Dr. Lai and both Drs. Hu and Chung at Cedars. So
far, the sharing of information between Cedars and UCLA has been
seemless. Dr. Hu and Dr. Chung both know Dr. Lai well and have seem open
in including Dr. Lai if need be. I contacted Dr. Lai about the news and
he just wants what's best for me.
If for some reason, I do need
another biopsy, this will be a tougher dilemma. I have read and heard
that Dr. Wu at Cedars is a very well respected neurosurgeon who is also
responsive to his patients. However, Dr. Liau at UCLA has set such a
high standard that it would be difficult not to go back to her.
Additionally, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center nursing staff also
set a very high standard.
Overall though, I do feel very grateful
that I now have choices again and UCLA is again on the table along with
UCI and the other UC health facilities.
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Friday, August 10, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Random Thought About Euthanasia and State Mandated Health Insurance
With so much hoopla about Obamacare the past couple of years and what not, I wonder why people don't speak more about allowing a person the right to die if he or she elects to do so. It's the other side of the coin that no one seems to talk about, especially those who are against Obamacare and state mandated health insurance in general.
The elephant in the room (at least to me anyway) is, if the state won't allow a person the right to die, then the state should provide meaningful health insurance for that person. However, if the state doesn't want to provide meaningful health insurance for said person, shouldn't the state allow the person to die if he or she wishes to? If a person's right to die is taken away by the state, the person should be afforded health care to ease the person's burden, be it mental or physical, or both! If the state is not willing to provide said health insurance, then the state should allow the person to die.
As of right now, a person who may be suffering from whatever ailment can't elect to be euthanized, but also does not have state mandated access to health insurance either. In a way, this is a Catch 22 and a form of torture in my eyes. So a person might argue that everyone has the right to get health insurance on their own, that there is no law out there preventing a person from buying health insurance. My rebuttal is that, for many of these people who would consider euthansia, they are most likely already at that point where their health condition does not allow for them to earn any sort of meaningful income that would allow them to receive the care they need via with or without insurance. Also, the people who fall into this category would likely fall into the dreaded "pre-existing" category. Any person, once placed into this "pre-existing" category, can pretty much forget about finding affordable insurance. What's the point of just living if all a person is living for is to pay off medical bills? Living hell...
Anyway, the courts under the 14th Amendment have allowed passive euthanasia (i.e., refusing treatment, such as pulling a respiration, etc...), but have yet to definitively tackle on active euthanasia in a direct and meaningful way. Courts have this uncanny ability to make a ruling on an issue while skirting around the real issue. Anyway, courts have by default ruled in favor of states. The states' position have always been that it is in their best interest to not allow their citizens to actively take their own lives. And this goes back to my original point. If a state is not willing to pay or provide people meaningful health insurance to make them better, then the state should also not force the person to live either. It's a simple concept...So simple that it's hardly ever spoken about.
The elephant in the room (at least to me anyway) is, if the state won't allow a person the right to die, then the state should provide meaningful health insurance for that person. However, if the state doesn't want to provide meaningful health insurance for said person, shouldn't the state allow the person to die if he or she wishes to? If a person's right to die is taken away by the state, the person should be afforded health care to ease the person's burden, be it mental or physical, or both! If the state is not willing to provide said health insurance, then the state should allow the person to die.
As of right now, a person who may be suffering from whatever ailment can't elect to be euthanized, but also does not have state mandated access to health insurance either. In a way, this is a Catch 22 and a form of torture in my eyes. So a person might argue that everyone has the right to get health insurance on their own, that there is no law out there preventing a person from buying health insurance. My rebuttal is that, for many of these people who would consider euthansia, they are most likely already at that point where their health condition does not allow for them to earn any sort of meaningful income that would allow them to receive the care they need via with or without insurance. Also, the people who fall into this category would likely fall into the dreaded "pre-existing" category. Any person, once placed into this "pre-existing" category, can pretty much forget about finding affordable insurance. What's the point of just living if all a person is living for is to pay off medical bills? Living hell...
Anyway, the courts under the 14th Amendment have allowed passive euthanasia (i.e., refusing treatment, such as pulling a respiration, etc...), but have yet to definitively tackle on active euthanasia in a direct and meaningful way. Courts have this uncanny ability to make a ruling on an issue while skirting around the real issue. Anyway, courts have by default ruled in favor of states. The states' position have always been that it is in their best interest to not allow their citizens to actively take their own lives. And this goes back to my original point. If a state is not willing to pay or provide people meaningful health insurance to make them better, then the state should also not force the person to live either. It's a simple concept...So simple that it's hardly ever spoken about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)