Talk:Nataline Sarkisyan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Armenia Portal Nataline Sarkisyan is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

[edit] Broader context needed

I don't understand this situation at all. Pundits all over the U.S. have been declaiming that illegal immigrants get free health care because they walk in and are given treatment by doctors who feel it is unethical to withhold it. Supposedly the reason why a few minutes at the hospital can cost $1000 is that there are several patients not paying for every one that does. Yet in this article we're told that mercenary doctors put their ears back and refused to move. I'm reminded of a comment by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History: "...I shall not even attempt to denounce their avarice, the rapacious haggling while their patients' fate hangs in the balance." It is as if two thousand years of civilization (exploitable or not) have been stripped away, and I don't understand how or when.

I also don't understand why the insurance company per se is regarded as the killer here. No doubt they did the wrong thing - but how is their decision to withhold immediate payment worse than the hospital's or the doctor's decision not to provide treatment? Especially when you consider that this complication arose from the previous medical treatment, that the physicians knew it was not an experimental procedure, and that the patient's life was truly in dire peril.

I also don't understand why someplace like St. Jude's Children's Hospital was not a possible resolution. I had always imagined that they were not the only hospital in the U.S. willing to take cases regardless of ability to pay, either. Now I find myself wondering what the situation really is. And if the $1000 emergency room visits aren't going to needy patients... where is all that money going? Wnt (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point, They let her die because there was only a 65% chance of survival (according to USA today) and the cost vs. possible success was deemed not worth it, in simple, it was cheaper for them to just let her die instead of exploring each and every single angle of saving a human life. Weather there was a 1% or a 100% chance, if that was the only thing that would give her a chance they should have done it, but refused to solely on the grounds of cost. That is why the family is suing, If you're paying for insurance and they LET you die anyway what were you paying for in the first place?

[edit] NPOV Cleanup

I tried to clean this up a bit to make it a more NPOV comment and added some citations, including the CIGNA HealthCare coverage position (for balance.) Please feel free to correct or update anything that you can't find in my citations or the other listed resources. Even from the comments I have read on the news stories, there is a lot of conflicted opinions.

I did see a lot of comments asking why the physicians would not perform the surgery without an absolute guarantee of payment by CIGNA HealthCare, but could not find a reliable source to cite for this. As this topic is likely to be very heated, I definitely did not want to add anything that can't be 100% sourced. Slavlin (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The page is very one sided, and falsely states that CIGNA "refused to pay" for the liver transplant when in fact CIGNA was not financial responsible. The medical facts are wrong, too. This page is a campaign ad and violates NPOV. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120001235968882563.html has the facts, but isn't even cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.218.152 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the insurer of Nataline Sarkisyan, it is unclear whether she was insured through her mother or father. Furthermore, most small self-insured companies purchase separate "stop-loss" insurance. Stop-loss insurance can cover either single really large claims (as this would be), or a large number of small claims, in excess of the self-insurance pool controlled by the employer. So there are several questions: Was there a stop-loss provision in the parent's insurance? If so, who was the insurer for the stop-loss provision? 69.225.227.126 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)