Slashdot Mirror
EFF Co-Founder Announces Benefit Concert to Pay His Medical Bills (twitter.com)
An anoymous Slashdot reader reports:
"I was dead for about 8 mins. on Wed. eve," EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow posted last year on Facebook. "total cardiac arrest...sad to report, no Ascending Light." The cyber-rights activist told the San Francisco Chronicle that he had gone "down the tunnel of eternity and it turned out to be a cheap carnival ride." He paused for a moment. "Probably not cheap, though."
Yesterday Barlow posted a Twitter update announcing a big benefit concert in Mill Valley, California to help pay his mounting medical bills on Monday, October 24th. Performers will include Bob Weir (also of The Grateful Dead), Jerry Harrison (of The Talking Heads), Lukas Nelson, Members of The String Cheese Incident, Sean Lennon and Les Claypool, plus 85-year-old folk singer Ramblin' Jack Elliott, as well as "special guests."
Barlow's family describes the last 18 months as a "medical incarceration" with "a dizzying array of medical events and complications" that has depleted his savings and insurance benefits. They've also set up a site for donations from "his fellow innovators, artists, cowboys, and partners-in-crime, to help us provide the quality of care necessary for Barlow's recovery."
Yesterday Barlow posted a Twitter update announcing a big benefit concert in Mill Valley, California to help pay his mounting medical bills on Monday, October 24th. Performers will include Bob Weir (also of The Grateful Dead), Jerry Harrison (of The Talking Heads), Lukas Nelson, Members of The String Cheese Incident, Sean Lennon and Les Claypool, plus 85-year-old folk singer Ramblin' Jack Elliott, as well as "special guests."
Barlow's family describes the last 18 months as a "medical incarceration" with "a dizzying array of medical events and complications" that has depleted his savings and insurance benefits. They've also set up a site for donations from "his fellow innovators, artists, cowboys, and partners-in-crime, to help us provide the quality of care necessary for Barlow's recovery."
"Affordable" in the Affordable Care Act is very much akin to "unlimited" in unlimited bandwidth in a mobile phone contract. It's not so much an adjective as it is a branding label.
Seriously, complain as much as you want about it, socialized health care is the best thing a country can do for its people.
That and actually regulating the pricing on medical hardware/drugs, it's ridiculously overpriced in the US compared to the same service in say, Canada, without insurances.
The Affordable Care Act did a couple of things - dropped the 'pre existing condition' clause for private insurance (if you're sick, we aren't going to cover you, but you're certainly welcome to pay into the program in the event you get some other illness down the road - while you're still healthy enough to pay the premium), made insurers create lower (not low by any means) marginally useful insurance policies and tried to force everyone to get some sort of medical insurance. It also gave insurers the ability to lock in double digit profits for another decade. And gave me even more reasons to write run on sentences.
We don't know just what insurance he had (TFS implies that he had some) but if he had a standard commercial policy with a 1-2 million dollar limit, let me point out two interesting points:
- A year long illness can easily kick you into the million dollar club. A bad MI, a couple of weeks in the ICU, a couple more weeks in a step down unit, rehab, a few more procedures, a couple of expensive drugs and a host of billing errors and you're there. Hell, I'm an ER doc and I can run up $100,000 easy peasy. That's for the first couple of HOURS.
- MOST insurances have a 20% copay. Crappy ones don't drop the copay until you get to the quarter million dollar range although most have an out of pocket limit of at most $10,000 or so.
So, lets say he had 'OK' insurance. He's limited to $10K out of pocket plus an enormous number of 'little' expenses. Things that weren't covered, billing errors (did I mention that before>?), lost time, wages, home assistance, family issues .....
He's a lawyer, but probably not that kind of lawyer that has 20K sitting in his savings account.
Yeah, the money goes fast. The most popular thing at our local Elk's Club is drinking, the next most popular is various fund raisers for somebody or others medical bills.
USA! USA! USA!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The legislative process gutted The Affordable Care Act.
Don't step on the baby.
I wonder, though how likely it is that any regular person would be able to get anyone else to pay their bills.
The Affordable Care Act did a couple of things - dropped the 'pre existing condition' clause for private insurance (if you're sick, we aren't going to cover you, but you're certainly welcome to pay into the program in the event you get some other illness down the road - while you're still healthy enough to pay the premium), made insurers create lower (not low by any means) marginally useful insurance policies and tried to force everyone to get some sort of medical insurance. It also gave insurers the ability to lock in double digit profits for another decade. And gave me even more reasons to write run on sentences.
We don't know just what insurance he had (TFS implies that he had some) but if he had a standard commercial policy with a 1-2 million dollar limit, let me point out two interesting points:
- A year long illness can easily kick you into the million dollar club. A bad MI, a couple of weeks in the ICU, a couple more weeks in a step down unit, rehab, a few more procedures, a couple of expensive drugs and a host of billing errors and you're there. Hell, I'm an ER doc and I can run up $100,000 easy peasy. That's for the first couple of HOURS.
- MOST insurances have a 20% copay. Crappy ones don't drop the copay until you get to the quarter million dollar range although most have an out of pocket limit of at most $10,000 or so.
So, lets say he had 'OK' insurance. He's limited to $10K out of pocket plus an enormous number of 'little' expenses. Things that weren't covered, billing errors (did I mention that before>?), lost time, wages, home assistance, family issues .....
He's a lawyer, but probably not that kind of lawyer that has 20K sitting in his savings account.
Yeah, the money goes fast. The most popular thing at our local Elk's Club is drinking, the next most popular is various fund raisers for somebody or others medical bills.
USA! USA! USA!
So maybe lead the charge as an ER Doc to bring those costs down? 100,000$ for a few hours? That's criminal, nothing on Earth can possibly cost that much without someone committing a crime. The fact is hospitals charge the fuck out of everything they can. I've never seen people so rich as hospital administrators. They know they have everyone by the balls and don't care because the ones their billing are to sick to do anything about it.
People bitch about Martin Shkrelli but he's got nothing on the hospital admins I've met.
"Affordable" in the Affordable Care Act is very much akin to "unlimited" in unlimited bandwidth in a mobile phone contract. It's not so much an adjective as it is a branding label.
Still. Every insurance plan has an out-of-pocket maximum and the law prevents life-time limits on benefits. While it's possible for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums to be quite high, I'm dubious about the claim, "depleted his savings and insurance benefits" -- unless he's not good at managing his own money. To be fair, the summary did say this happened over 18 months, so there could be some cost build up due to his case exceeding a calendar year and the deductible and out-of-pocket fees being reset (I don't know if it works that way for a continuing treatment).
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Just gotta love Slashdot's editing function.....
Just to expand - if you have insurance covered by your employer than if you exceed the policy limits, somebody has paid for re insurance so that will kick in.
Sometimes. Not every policy has a backup if you exceed the limit.
There is nothing more confusing and contradictory than American healthcare. Statistics is a walk in the park compared to understanding the morass we've gotten ourselves into.
And won't ever be able to get ourselves out of. But that is another series of whines and complaints.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
On one hand, this guy has done more for humanity than most, given he's a founder of the EFF, which is fighting the good fight around internet based human rights.
On the other, most people don't get to have their own "benefit concert" when they rack up big medical bills. (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure the US healtlh care system will be hashed within an inch of its life in this thread).
So... are some people more deserving than others, based on what they've accomplished? They're asked for voluntary contributions, and shit I'm inclined, given all what the org he started has done, but is preferential treatment really a good idea?
Exactly right. The anti-competitiveness of hospital, drug, and doctor prices in the USA is the problem.
Nobody else gets away with charging these prices without disclosing them up front. (Try that with car repairs)
Nobody else gets away with charging different prices based on how you pay. (Try that with car repairs)
Nobody else gets away with forcing you to buy 'protection' from the racket. (aka health insurance)
Nobody else gets away with doing it under duress.
They are criminals!
Yep, criminal and insane but nothing I can do about it. My particular charges are pretty modest, maybe $1000 or so for a couple of hours of work. But that helicopter gets expensive, the nice cardiac team has six highly paid professionals tending to it in three shifts 24 x 7, not to mention the suite costs several million dollars itself. ICU beds typically run several thousand per day. There are drugs that are three figures per dose.
I'd be the first to complain about the costs. I'm the one who gets yelled at in the supermarket, not the hospital CFO.
It's a fucking mess.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
life without steak and ice cream sucks but death is worse.
Lies!
Sorry, posting to undo bad mod.
Anyone have a manual for this trackpad?
"Affordable" in the Affordable Care Act is very much akin to "unlimited" in unlimited bandwidth in a mobile phone contract. It's not so much an adjective as it is a branding label.
Still. Every insurance plan has an out-of-pocket maximum and the law prevents life-time limits on benefits. While it's possible for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums to be quite high, I'm dubious about the claim, "depleted his savings and insurance benefits" -- unless he's not good at managing his own money. To be fair, the summary did say this happened over 18 months, so there could be some cost build up due to his case exceeding a calendar year and the deductible and out-of-pocket fees being reset (I don't know if it works that way for a continuing treatment).
Universal single-payer health plans don't (for the most part) have deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses.My first encounter with an out-of-pocket expense was last week - $5 for a DVD with a copy of my dental x-rays. First time in 60 years. I've literally spent months in hospitals, had a bunch of operations, dozens of treatments, and there's never been a co-pay or a deductible. The only time I ever saw even a copy of any bill was when Workman's Compensation sent me a copy of the bill they paid for one workplace accident tht required surgery - and that was strictly advisory - big notice saying "DO NOT PAY THIS!".
As for the universal drug plan, the maximum amount is $87.16. It's $0 for children under 18 (or 25 if they're attending classes), welfare recipients, and people receiving at least 94% of the old age guaranteed income supplement.
Your "Affordable Care Act" is not affordable, same as your "Transportation Safety Administration" screeners are useless because you don't need protection from a family-sized tube of tooth paste - they catch that, but they miss 95% of weapons and wasting more than half a billion on machines that have a lower success rate than dogs.
It doesn't have to be this way. Thank both parties for being in the hip pocket of the insurance companies.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nobody pays the $100k.
Insurance and government pay a small % of bill amount. So hospitals charge a high % to offset the fact they know they will get stiffed.
It's just fiction.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The "Affordable Care Act" is just a tax.
I wonder, though how likely it is that any regular person would be able to get anyone else to pay their bills.
Survival of the richest/most popular!
The most succinct and profound commentary on our medical system in the USA that I have ever seen.
So he's exploiting his class and privilege to "benefit" whom? Himself. How noble of him. Is his continued delay of inevitable death at this late stage of his life so crucial to civilization that it warrants exploitation of funds from a massive benefit concert that could likely save hundreds or thousands of "less important" lives if used more ethically?
It's kinda like hollywood accounting where no movie produced in the last 100 years made a dime, yet they keep making them for some reason.
That's why you never see a simple plan like we pay 80% and that's that. YTou see we pay 80% of 70% of the bill after x amount but below y amount provided this that and the other condition are met within x time but not more than y time so long as it happens because of z, but not on alternate Tuesdays or during the gibbous moon on Friday.
One dirty trick is that the out of pocket maximum only counts particular treatments they cover. If the non-doctor at the insurance company decides you didn't need something expensive (or that it was necessary but done by the wrong doctor), you're screwed.
Why don't you just roll over and die like the rest of us who can't afford medical bills?
Or just move to a country with a sane health system, rather than the best health system in the world*.
*As voted by the US Medical magazine.
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done. I won't outright object to a single-payer tax supported medical system, but it's pretty obvious that we'd need to put some rules into place as it's not financially viable to provide the unlimited care that people are capable of consuming.
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well. Also, mandatory requirement that if you want to use the system, you're automatically an organ donor. Throw in some tax deductions (or alternatively just higher taxes for anyone who wouldn't get the "deduction") for people who generally try to stay in reasonable health and it's a reasonable system.
In America, we put the dollar sign before EVERYTHING else.
How utterly barbaric is the USA ? One of the most technologically advanced societies on the planet yet you can die because you have no money and are unfortunate enough to need medical treatment..
And all you stupid brainwashed Yanks claim your health care is better than the rest of the world ? Really ? You must love the taste of that Kool aid.
Oh sorry I forgot socialism (or all joining in to do something together) = bad in your tiny minds.
Thank fuck I live in England where we have the utterly civilized NHS. Thankfully I've been lucky enough (so far) to only pay into the system without needing much myself but I know people who've needed treatment, sometimes quite expensive treatment, and I'm proud to say that my taxes helped pay for them. I will be happy to spend my whole life paying into the NHS without ever needing it myself.
Your American medical "system" is a fucking joke. It's like something out of the middle ages.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
The one that Trump just said has a "catastrophic" health care plan. What he fails to note is that many Canadians are lured to fake promises of cures by for-profit organizations. It's sad to see someone raise $50k - $100k to go down to the US, come back announcing that their cancer is cured, and then die of cancer. They could be hit with the same scam for a lot cheaper just by going to Mexico.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
> If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well.
this used to be my opinion until i learned that the cigarette tax in UK brings in so much money it can more than cover the cost of the necessary healthcare for smokers. alcohol is taxed similarly.
Although it is oft repeated (e.g. During the debates by Clinton) that the ACA "fixed" being uninsurable or having a cap on out of pocket costs it is incorrect. There is a cap on your deductible (~10k/year) but you're still on the hook for 10-40% of the cost once your deductible is met. Sure the ACA assures that everyone has insurance but "the poor" and now even the middle class still can't go to the doctor because 10k out of pocket per year is pretty much unaffordable.
Off course the unpoor (people intentionally making less than 20k/year) still get Medicare as they did before that pays 100% of the bill but a lot of Medicare and free medical aid beneficiaries (20-40k income) have now been shifted (or should I say shafted) by private insurance.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Dozens of countries have solved the problems in the second paragraph by taxing unhealthy shit higher to offset healthcare costs and through encouraging people to volunteer organ donation by educating them loudly on the good you can do after death. The better countries also heavily regulate advertising of unhealthy things, funding healthy eating and exercise programmes and providing preventative healthcare. In these places, the libertarian "anyone should be able to persuade anyone into becoming addicted to anything" is considered a crude first approximation to a working society. Unfortunately, the US is still quite close to that attitude, which is fundamentalist to the point of religious (as an ex Eastern European, reminds me of Soviet Marxism, except the "god" is the Invisible Hand instead of dialectical materialism).
You seem really unclear on the concept of insurance.
If participating in any behavior that increases your risk for a health event disqualifies you from coverage for treatment then either no one would qualify for any coverage at all or we would all have to live cocooned in some hypothetically coocoon of perfect safety that ensures just the right amount of physical and mental activity and consumption of just the right amount of all nutrients.
The entire point of insurance is that there are outliers and that the cost of outliers is amortized across the entire group. The penalty for engaging in risky behaviors is suffering the consequences - the only thing worse than surviving a heart attack is dying from a heart attack. Getting emphysema or COPD from too much smoking is its own punishment even if there is treatment to reduce the effects. Breaking your back and being paralyzed because you went sky-diving one too many times is enough of a just desert all on its own even with daily physical therapy, a free wheel-chair and regular home-visits from a health aide.
JPB has written lyrics for the Grateful Dead. https://w2.eff.org/Misc/Public... ...and despite (in his words) dead for about eight minutes, he didn't find himself in a shaft of light. http://ultimateclassicrock.com...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> I won't outright object to a single-payer tax supported medical system, but it's pretty obvious that we'd need to put some rules into place as it's not financially viable to provide the unlimited care that people are capable of consuming.
And yet countries like Canada where I live have a lower healthcare spend per capita, we have a longer life expectancy, and nobody here goes bankrupt from medical conditions. The problem in the US isn't that the people will "consume too much healthcare", the problem is you have a system built where several levels of companies have their hands out to gouge as much as they can. In the US the hospitals and the insurance companies negotiate prices for everything and with several companies in the mix everyone wants (and gets) their piece. In Canada, we have a single payer system where the government runs a board of doctors who determine what a procedure should cost and that is what a doctor or hospital will be paid for that procedure or visit. Period.
>The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle.
Hello slippery slope. What's an unhealthy lifestyle? Obesity sure, same with smoking and drinking. But what about other things? Play football, hockey, basketball? Go skydiving, rock climbing, biking or kayaking? Skiing? Construction? All of those activities and more can lead to very expensive injuries. If premiums go up for unhealthy lifestyles, why not risky ones too? Hell for that matter what about using a car, driver or passenger? Statistically the average person will be in 2.7 significant car accidents in their lifetime. So really if you use vehicles it's not a matter of if, but when you will become a burden to your healthcare provider. Better bump those peoples' premiums too....
What out of pocket maximum?
The plan my parents have, for example, has an extremely high deductable along with the fine print stating that even if you get injured and pay the deductable, you're still on the hook for 30â... of the medical bill.
They also don't cover a number of other necessary things. $350 a month doesn't get you fuck all.
It doesn't really matter. Unless you're living paycheck to paycheck with no savings or credit, it really shouldn't be a problem. This is not the kind of guy we should be throwing a pity party for.
You have an out of pocket limit for the year. After that, stuff should be free. If that's not the case, then how did he manage that?
This is a non-trivial issue.
My medical bills probably make his look puny. I have been sicker over a longer period of time. I probably have been in the hospital more. I have been on very expensive drugs.
This nonsense is no excuse for socialized medicine.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You're missing zeroes. The actual leading edge cancer treatments are terribly expensive. They also represent an improvement in the state of the art. They've managed patients where everything else failed.
That's assuming you weren't just talking about some shaman or some other form of quackery.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Before Obamacare, there were catastrophic plans that were "you pay, then we pay". They were nice and simple and fairly cheap. Obamacare banned them. Dems also seem hell bent on banning health savings accounts too.
As far as disagreements about treatments go, you can appeal.
Try doing that with a government beaurocracy.
Which reminds me... don't even get me started on the US disability system. Or Medicare. Or Medicaid.
We need to fix the half-assed attempts at socialized medicine we already have before creating new ones (or expanding them).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> - A year long illness can easily kick you into the million dollar club. A bad MI, a couple of weeks in the ICU, a couple more weeks in a step down unit, rehab, a few more procedures, a couple of expensive drugs and a host of billing errors and you're there. Hell, I'm an ER doc and I can run up $100,000 easy peasy.
Bullshit.
I've had a 2 year long illness and I'm nowhere near a million yet.
What liberals don't want to tell you is that those billing numbers for hospital procedures are BULLSHIT. Private insurance only pays a 3rd of that at most. Labs and diagnostic procedures pay even less. So when you see something in the media that says some procedure costs X, it's probably safe to divide that by 3.
If you are going to drag the "niggling bits" in then you have to drag those in when you are making your comparison to Canada, or the UK, or Finland.
Being out of work is usually worse than your medical bills.
A 10K out of pocket limit is also crap. It amazes me what kind of health insurance nightmares come out of blue states.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit. Drink and ruin your liver, same deal. Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well. Also, mandatory requirement that if you want to use the system, you're automatically an organ donor. Throw in some tax deductions (or alternatively just higher taxes for anyone who wouldn't get the "deduction") for people who generally try to stay in reasonable health and it's a reasonable system.
At this point I think it would be wise to point out that everybody dies sometime, somehow and old people tend to have a lot of medical problems. Most people dying from "lifestyle diseases" make it through most their taxable income years, if you drop dead from cardiac arrest at 60 you're still probably cheaper than a fitness freak that goes down fighting at 90 after a decade of deteriorating health going in and out of hospital. And to put it bluntly, very often it doesn't matter how or when it's a matter of whether there's something to be done. I've heard stories of apparently healthy people going to bed and simply not waking up, game over. Very cheap, very easy just issue the death certificate and move on. Others are caught in critical condition and spend days or weeks on the brink of death. There's a huge, huge variation that means the risk and payout won't correlate well no matter what you do.
The other part is, do you really want a society counting the number of beers and smoke and BMI and any risky or stupid activity you do? Orwell would love it, but no just no. I think you should realized that the main reason it won't get crazy abused is that being sick and injured is not fun and generally painful and uncomfortable. And you will spend a lot of time waiting in line unless you're in critical need and in general, you just don't cut yourself to get a free band-aid. Not when it's only going to be put on a bleed wound, it's not like you can keep them and sell them. Now benefits, there's a lot of fraud with disability benefits, a little with some highly regulated drugs that are monitored carefully... but healthcare in general? People are there because they need it, not because they want to.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I have bigger medical bills. Probably spent more time in the hospital. Had a more serious condition. Have had to deal with it for longer.
This jackass is a fucking loser. He's not the class of people that government rescue programs are meant to benefit. He's from the class of people that should be able to fend for themselves. He should be able get out of this kind of thing and be able to pay for OTHER people's treatment both directly and through taxes.
This schmuck points to a problem with Americans, not the healthcare system.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> You have inferior care that gets people killed.
Holy shit, it's a real in the flesh idiot who has bought the US healthcare astroturf hook line and sinker. You don't live here, you don't use our system and yet you feel comfortable slinging bullshit like that around?
> You have arbitrary limits on expensive care that are a death sentence.
We don't no. But do look into US healthcare providers' lifetime limits and until the ACA those "preexisting conditions".
> You don't develop the interesting new treatments.
Horse. Shit. Insulin, Rhogam, the Salk polio vaccine trial, T - cells, AIDS medications, the ebola vaccine, etc.
You should really educate yourself. You're kind of an embarrassment.
That's what bankruptcy is for you stupid fool.
So what's the big deal about it anyways? Europeans don't have anything anyways. So why is it a big deal having nothing here? It's not a death mark. It's just a way to get out from under your debts.
Going broke in the US is not so bad really.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Then why are you commenting on what is predominantly a US site?
Fuck off, Canuck dyke.
All butt-hurt because you don't want to hear the truth about how the Affordable Care Act is the worst health-care plan in the western world, and that even Cuba has free health care for everyone?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The phonies won't be able to con people into paying millions, because the suckers that fall for these sorts of scams don't have millions.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nobody in the USA should have to worry about paying medical bills. We need a single-payer health care system.
A single-payer system would:
—Cover everybody
—Eliminate co-pays and deductibles making health care affordable and accessible to everybody
—Increase freedom by allowing people to choose any doctor or hospital
—Reduce overall medical costs for the nation
—Prevent the nation going bankrupt from excessive health care costs
Eventually, we will move to a single-payer system because financially we will have no choice.
Not an infarction though. I was also dead for 8 Minutes. I was 35 and was in good health, maybe 20lbs more than ideal for my height, I swam and cycled a few times a week. But there you go, I coded and died. CPR was performed, then I self-resuscitated (doctors words, not mine), but had presented complete heart failure (everything inconclusive, viral cardio myopathy and myocarditis are the likely causes - but I don't smoke, do drugs and don't really drink that often). I had huge clots in my ventricles.
The doctors were surprised that I had survived - bi-ventricle failure has a very minute chance of survival. I was fortunate, though. I coded at the hospital as I had checked myself in thinking I just had pneumonia (I also hadn't slept in a month). I woke up a week later. Barlow said there are no angels, cherubs, etc. He's right. There's nothing - and if there was something it was straight out of that hallway in Beetlejuice. But that was really just me barely conscious while I was medically sedated. I will say that if you have a bad doctor they can kill you all the same even if you do code there. The ED doc was ignoring me and a friend (who is a also a doctor - and could pass for Greg House) showed up to take charge when the ED doctor tried to brush my friend off and said, "Everyone here is sick." That ED doc was let go not long after that.
I was on ECMO then I was put on a bi-vad and expected to have one path: to transplant. But I was fortunate, I recovered and the bi-vad was explanted. That's just as rare to happen as surviving massive cardiac arrest. At my hospital, I was one of four patients out of ~100 who were explanted without a transplant over 15 years. I was on the transplant list, however and the transplant team was ready to promote me to 1A when my echo and right-heart cath showed massive improvement. Not everything is perfect, I'm still on the list - it's just something that I'm going to have to deal with further down the line. Over a calendar year, I totaled maybe 10 or 11 weeks in the hospital. ICU, step-down and physical therapy for the first go around because I had atrophy from being immobile for 8 days.
With insurance, I was fortunate. I was fully covered. I might not have a ridiculously paying job, but my company did go for the best benefits packages. My out of pocket for all of this was less than $1,000 (most of that was meds and follow up appointments - none was the actual stay in the hospital). It's scary to me that when the time actually comes for a transplant (for me it's not if, it's just when) that my insurance situation will have changed. With my current plan, I've been approved. I don't need one right now, but when the time comes, what then?
What's even worse, IMHO, is that the doctors, nurses, transplant team, etc. know this and really can't do anything except to tell you to fundraise if you don't have the money. They even have seminars and tell you to use gofundme and other crowdsourcing avenues to raise money. All the people I've met who had been on the list for years on various VADs or pic lines for a near constant stream of medicine who couldn't afford to live was humbling when I had it relatively easy. The anger, pain, and confusion of the unknown is just starting to sink in for me now that I'm actually planning long term for this and it's changed what I thought was a plan to get married and have a family. Now I'm second guessing that entirely because I can't stand the thought of someone potentially being burdened financially or emotionally with what I have to deal with.
I wish Barlow all the best and hope he succeeds in his fund raising for his costs. I wish it was that easy for more people who end up in situations like this.
Wow, I did not expect to write all of this. I just realized I've never spoken publicly (even anonymously) about what I've been through.
it's not financially viable to provide the unlimited care that people are capable of consuming
So we're back to fuck it and let them die if they are expensive?
Hi random internet person. The WHO who isn't some random person on a forum rank Canada 7 nations ahead of the USA in its global rankings. These include first and foremost the quality of life (ability to live, ability to live well, and ability to receive healthcare).
So... You're talking out of your arse.
Thanks. That is all.
There are several areas in which the USA provides world class care. To the rich. In most areas, it's rather depressing to look at the figures though.
Here is the summary from a report by The Commonwealth Fund, which was set up to improve healthcare in the USA in 1918: US healthcare from a global perspective
Highlights:
- High U.S. health care spending due to greater use of medical technology, health care prices
- U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes
- Health care spending as % of gross GDP, USA vs Canada: 17.1% versus 10.7% (2013)
Some causes:
"Data published by the International Federation of Health Plans suggest that hospital and physician prices for procedures were highest in the U.S. in 2013.10 The average price of bypass surgery was $75,345 in the U.S. This is more than $30,000 higher than in the second-highest country, Australia, where the procedure costs $42,130. According to the same data source, MRI and CT scans were also most expensive in the U.S. While these pricing data are subject to significant methodological limitations, they illustrate a pattern of significantly higher prices in many areas of U.S. health care.
Other studies have observed high U.S. prices for pharmaceuticals. A 2013 investigation by Kanavos and colleagues created a cross-national price index for a basket of widely used in-patent pharmaceuticals. In 2010, all countries studied had lower prices than the U.S. In Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, prices were about 50 percent lower.11"
But perhaps, if you pay more, you get more?
"On several measures of population health, Americans had worse outcomes than their international peers. "
Okay, but we know a lot of Americans have been smoking more than other folks, and are more... big-boned. Right?
"The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."
But cancer care is top notch in the USA.
"One area where the U.S. appeared to have comparatively good health outcomes was cancer care. Other research based on survival rates also suggests that U.S. cancer care is above average, though these studies are disputed on methodological grounds."
However: "The opposite trend appears for ischemic heart disease, where the U.S. had among the highest mortality rates in 2013—128 per 100,000 population compared with 95 in the median OECD country."
To summarize: if you state that Canada has inferior care (imploying that it goes across the board), despite research suggesting the opposite is true, I'd like to see citations.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
so there could be some cost build up due to his case exceeding a calendar year
Insurers need to be prohibited from resetting deductibles for further treatments required for a condition that
has arisen just because a calendar year has hit.
Or, for insurance liability purposes: law should be changed to make sure insurers always liable to pay for all ongoing treatment
at least as much as if the bill was made on the date which the condition was diagnosed (Even if the insurance has been
cancelled since then; the coverage is for the date the loss or damage began, and the treatment is the repair.), so long as the
condition has been suffered continuously, and gets re-diagnosed once per year on a regular checkup.
Think about how ridiculous that would be.....
$5999 medical bill for a condition that arises in December... next month starts a new calendar year;
$5999 more in costs for treatment of the same condition, out of pocket maximum of $6000 never reached.
Either you pay for it, or someone is working for free.
See how that works? People think it is somehow wrong to charge for essential goods and services, since people would die without them. But if the workers who provide said goods/services don't get paid, they are slaves.
We sweep that under the rug through taxes. We just extract more money from everybody's pay checks (primarily the middle class) to cover the costs. So the service providers aren't working for free, everyone ELSE is spending some of their normal work day, essentially unpaid.
It sucks either way...but...life requires labor so what are you going to do?
And it is pretty easy to end up in a situation where the specialist you need to see is not in your network. Even for fairly common (I hate to use the word trivial) problems you can quickly be out $10k; I had an appendicitis (non ruptured) that was billed as $40k for 36h in the hospital, and was still nearly $11k out of pocket... with very good insurance!
It always amazes me when people chose plans that effectively have no out of pocket maximum, although I did have catastrophic insurance only until I was about 35 myself (well pre-ACA).
That reminds me... Tuesday I get to deal with health insurance renewals for the company...
Um, you do realise you're talking about booze and cigarettes, right? Not exactly necessities of life, and nobody's talking about forcing anyone to buy them, are they?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Not really. I know a family member who ran up over 100 grand in medical bills. He recovered and found out he was to live. He ended up filing bankruptcy and all that debt magically disappeared. This is what usually happens to ridiculous bills but hey! They get to write that off on their taxes. The amount his insurance company paid was probably sufficient for the actual costs but this way they get to dodge the tax man.
From the HHS website:
So the point remains - there are no annual or lifetime limits allowed by law.
What this suggests is that Barlow is pursuing medically questionable treatments that insurance won't cover, and is asking everybody to pay for his experimental medical journey. Good luck to him, but I'm having trouble mustering a lot of sympathy for his financial straits.
I've just helped get my mother in law (who recently immigrated from Russia) a health care plan... I've been eyeballs-deep in health plan fine print, and there are very reasonable out-of-pocket annual limits on all of these plans, so I'm not exactly sure how he's managing to financially ruin himself, when my mother in law (who is a retired office worker on a ~250 dollar per month russian pension) can get health care that offers her something like a 5k yearly out of pocket maximum. For a lawyer, 5k yearly should not mean financial ruin. My wife and I have decent IT jobs, and support our two kids plus her parents, and 5k yearly wouldn't be ruin for us.
Well, let me know how one will afford that "out of pocket max" of ~$14k/year + $15k/year for the 'average' insurance cost = $29k in health care costs alone and then you still have to pay several thousands in Medicare (the thing that one time was supposed to be used to pay for 'universal health care'), Social Security and other taxes.
My premiums have risen to ~$1.5k/month for a family (we were promised ~$400 after ACA) and both my deductible (before 1.5k, now 5k) and out of pocket max (before 3k, now 10k) makes health care practically unaffordable, that is because my private insurance now carries the cost of ObamaCare (or so they say) and the maximum limits Obama promised to impose during the proposal of ObamaCare are either non-existent (as in the premium caps) or about 10-100x as high as promised.
The average ACA insurance cost is now ~22% of your wages, where before ACA they were only ~10-15% and will increase to ~27% in the next 5 years.
Insurance used to be affordable before ACA came along, it's just people had the choice and chose not to, Darwinism at it's best I would say. In many cases Medicare and individual states would take care of the 'gaps'.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Holy shit are you kidding?!?! $11k for appendicitis???
I knew the US medical system was a mess but that is crazy! My medical insurance is the top everything and it costs me $146 a fortnight for my family of 4. I was involved in a motorcycle accidents that crushed my collar bone and badly dislocated and broke my wrist. The collar bone was just a plate but the wrist required 4 hours of surgery, 6 screws, a plate, 2 k-wires (otherwise called nails), and 6 months of rehab. I was out of pocket about US$300, and that was because I decided I wanted to go to a private hospital rather than a fully free public hospital because they were running 4 days ahead....
I love the "consumer" model of health care....guess what, you aren't. Medical stuff is the only thing you cannot price shop or even compare. Even if you could, the hospital will charge you differently for different insurers...and as I found out once....if you don't hit the deductable (five stitches from a minor accident) you don't even get your insurance company rates (all that money and I'm not even in the Buyer's Club ?) When you get really sick, every single thing you use is billed. Bed. Docs...Drugs...machines (and when a relative had a breast biop done, they charged for each use of the machine, not just "turn on and use". No normal person can keep track of this, and the hospitals know it. Insurers, who have an idea, will fight tooth and nail on costs and fees. What we end up with now is two tiers. If you can get into or afford private insurance, not an ACA plan, you are working for Government or a very large company. If you don't, you are stuck with an ACA plan, which will NOT cover a majority of your doctors, or even possibly the hospital. Yes, folks who work for Govt. or big companies are still somewhat protected from the health insurance nightmare. So, yes, it is very conceivable that this person is getting nailed by "out of network" charges. When you are laying in a hospital bed, you don't ask the attending if they take Aetna or Blue Cross, and send them hither if they say no. For years, US insurers have benefited by their claims practices, fobbing off the poor and old on the Government, and skimming the cream of "healthy" risk pools. The ACA stopped the worst practices, but also forced anyone who could to leave the exchange plans. I got an ACA plan once. Every single provider..my kids pediatrician....wife's ob/gyn....my GP...the allergiest "oh we're sorry we don't accept any insurance from the exchange". You are all the access of a Medicaid patient but you pay full price for the lack of services....and I used to pay 1/3 the price for the same docs to smile at me and take a $20 copay...so an ACA plan is a non-starter in the NYC area and I'd seriously consider paying the tax penalty if I was unable to get coverage elsewhere. The insurance industry has managed to propagandize the low information bits of our population to not want "socialist" medicine. I've been exposed to the Canada and German systems...while not perfect, they are a hell of a lot more fair and reasonable than the mosh that we have here in the US...the only folks who are "OK" are the Big Company and Government policy people. All the rest are one illness away from a trip to Bankruptcy Court. Thank the Bush Administration for not allowing negotiation of drug prices, and the Obama Administration for the ACA and tax penalty. The lack of a 'government option' was clearly designed to make sure there wasn't competition or any reliable measure of the private industry practices. At a very minimum, there should be published price schedules at hospitals, a right to sue health insurers for poor claims practices or denial of vital services, and one single payer pool, not the cherry picking of the healthy. After all, if you limit coverage to folks who can work a 40 hour week, you've just cut off most of your expensive patients...and insurance companies have gotten away with this far too long.
Marathon runners get heart attacks, and folks who eat healthy get cancers too. Illness isn't always "your fault". You could cross the street today, look both ways, in a crosswalk and green light, and get seriously messed up by an uninsured and stolen car. just sayin...
do you actually live in the US ? this is a shit country to be poor in.
The problem is the amount skimmed off the top by the non-productive 0.1% That's why the cost of everything keeps going even while less labor is required than even before and pay remains stagnant.
If X takes only 75% of the labor it did 10 years ago, but it's 50% more expensive and nobody got a raise, the money went somewhere.
The high deductible cheap plans were banned because they excluded "pre-existing conditions". And offered no preventive care treatment for free. I knew people on those plans, $10K deductible. They were pretty young and willing to take the risk. I understand completely. But a goal of the ACA was to get everyone covered (even those with preexisting conditions) and to get people in for preventive care as that is shown to make the entire society healthier.
I am on the ACA. I had a plan with $6500 deductible. Unfortunately I reached that max, but now everything is 100% covered. Now I paid more per month than $350, and maybe that is why mine has no co-pays after reaching the deductible. I am thinking your parents compared plans and went for the lower amount and risk the co-pay? You should ask them. But one thing people forget is you are paying the "insurers rate". So the $450 blood tests I got, was paid by the insurance at $80. If I had a co-pay it would have been 30% of the $80. So having insurance does benefit you on all these expenses by giving you a big discount on the amount. And F*** the blood testing company for charging some poor person without insurance $450.
True, though it isn't THAT simple. And this is where it gets complicated.
The national healthcare doesn't pay for dental maintenance (if you have an infection or a car accident and your teeths get knocked out, yeah. But a simple cavity? Fuck you). There is still an amount to pay on medication, and a lot of medications aren't covered. Countless people don't have a family doctor to get the preventive medicine they need.
Line at the ER are absolutely insane if you're not about to die (but you still need to wait forever to see your family doctor, if you even have one, so you have no choice but to go to the ER for things that should not need it).
I was born in Canada and lived there for 20 years. How much I had to pay on my paychecks was more just for my dental insurance than how much I pay for it all in the US. My grandma paid more for minor conditions in medecine than Ive had to pay ever (and I have some serious conditions). And then she died because they made her wait 8 months for a critical surgery because of lack of beds (once she did have a major condition).
And the difference in taxes I pay was so excruciatingly high, I honestly could put half of the difference aside and pay for health care out of my pocket even if I get cancer 6 times because of all the silly things that get paid with it beyond just health care and other actually important things (of course, the US could go a long way by cutting in silly bullshit too)
Yes, overall even with all that, its still better and more fair for everyone overall, and I'd totally take that over the unfair system we have in the US so that everyone can have the basics. But it's not "better in every ways", and it's very easy to see how many human beings, which can be selfish in nature, would vote against it.
This use to be the situation, are you sure it still is?. My wife worked in HR at a big company and saw some cases like this. But with the ACA it is our understanding there are no limits. So even insurance by corporations should be covered to no limit. (My wife retired before ACA was passed so no longer has inside information).
As far as disagreements about treatments go, you can appeal.
You mean you can ask to be told no in another voice? And then you get the bill because the treatment was already done?
The problem in the U.S. is that it IS half assed. The solution is to do the other half. Then there's a single entity with enough bargaining power to keep us from spending 4 times more per capita than any other developed country for healthcare.
The rest of the world manages, are you claiming Americans are uniquely too stupid to manage it?
I looked up this point. http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/... The ACA banned these limits, unless you have a grandfathered in plan. And I would assume those grandfathered plans ran out before 2016. And there is the ability to put limits on non-essential healthcare.
The one time we saw some numbers, the insurance company paid less than 10% of the total bill, and we paid nothing. It was the hospital charges for a standard room.
I choose to have a high deductible/out of pocket limit ($5k deductible), but most of that amount is covered by contributions to my HSA by my employer. Under every scenario for use of medical services (from no use of medical services, to hitting the out out of pocket limit), I am better off with the high deductible.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Steve Jobs?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I looked him up, he is 69 yrs old, so should be on Medicare. So we all should be discussing what is covered by Medicare. Long term healthcare is not covered (i.e. nursing homes).
If you are in your twenties or early thirties, you can get a good individual plan for about $250/month, even in the most expensive part of the USA, I know, because that's how much my daughter pays.
However, for myself and my wife, my employer pays almost $2000/month for a high deductible plan.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
All butt-hurt because you don't want to hear the truth about how the Affordable Care Act is the worst health-care plan in the western world, and that even Cuba has free health care for everyone?
Don't forget that they have similar health outcomes for what was it, $5.70/yr/citizen or something?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle. If you smoke and get lung cancer, tough shit.
Smokers who die of lung cancer tend to have lower lifetime health care expenditure than people who live to a riper, older age. Because, guess what? If you extend people's lives out long enough, they tend to hit the cancer wall anyway. And lung cancer has a higher mortality rate than many of these other cancers (your lungs being quite important) so it kills people quicker. If you want socialized medicine to be cheaper you should encourage smoking.
Obesity related medical issues are your own responsibility as well.
Obesity is curable in at least some situations. It really is not always the person's fault. And in any case, you should want it cured whether it is or not, because that makes health care cheaper in general. You can't successfully and cheaply determine whether many health problems would exist without obesity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
https://ourworldindata.org/the...
There was an ambulance involved, but yes. Company plus personal contribution $700/month...
And yet countries like Canada where I live have a lower healthcare spend per capita, we have a longer life expectancy, and nobody here goes bankrupt from medical conditions.
I think you just described all other developed countries too.
While true that US healthcare is exceptionally expensive, there is not evidence it is to blame for the lower life expectancy in the US.
More road accidents, violence (notably guns), racial mix, and obesity do appear to be factors.
i.e. US healthcare is very effective, just horrifically expensive, both to individuals, and as a percentage of GDP.
Ambulance transfers are free in Australia, I hadn't even thought of that. So how does that work? You picked up off the road and they ask for your credit card?
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done.
But that's not the way it works. Socialized medicine costs less that insurance based systems. Partly because it involves less bureaucracy.
I'm going to ignore your sociopathic rant about "unhealthy lifestyles".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
All butt-hurt because you don't want to hear the truth about how the Affordable Care Act is the worst health-care plan in the western world
But, amazingly, still better than what was in place before,
Thanks, Mr Romney!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
All this proves is that the insurance lobby has a deathgrip on politics.
Kowtowing to it is not the right answer. What the US needs to do is break up the cartel and introduce some competition. Insurance companies make obscene profits.
The problem is that the "Affordable Healthcare Act" has nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare. It deals specifically with health "Insurance" and still has caps on the maximum lifetime expenditure.
I'll repeat: "The Institute of Medicine found that poorer health in the U.S. was not simply the result of economic, social, or racial and ethnic disadvantages—even well-off, nonsmoking, nonobese Americans appear in worse health than their counterparts abroad."
It's not just the lifestyle, even though it *is* worse than that of almost everyone else, but it's *also* the way in which the healthcare is structured that makes it more expensive and still provides a worse outcome for people with health comparable to other countries. If you read the report you see that in the USA there is a tendency towards a lot of very expensive medical equipment that then has to be used, so people get MRI scans where you'd normally get an X-ray or just a doctor looking at your ankle. They're great for catching cancer, but they won't help much for other ailments and are merely very expensive placebos in that case. Americans also tend to be overmedicated with drug prices much higher than anywhere else. That's a bad combination for the patient (but very good for the pharmaceuticals).
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
In the U.S. we have the sin taxes but the money isn't being applied to treat the associated health problems.
So Canada is responsible for inventing:
"Horse. Shit. Insulin, Rhogam, the Salk polio vaccine trial, T - cells, AIDS medications, the ebola vaccine, etc."
Pretty sure that you didn't invent horse shit (or is that horses and shit), or T-cells.
95% of the tens of thousands of medications, tests, procedures and medical equipment are developed in the US, even though it is extremely expensive and difficult to do so. So that makes it what 6:40,000 in favor of the US? Most companies don't want to develop in Canada because it is too difficult to make back their money unless they are also concurrently approved by the US FDA. The private US health care system bankrolls all of these things, and we are also the guinea pigs. Those life saving drugs developed in the US go around the globe and save lives.
Why do wealthy Canadians sneak down to the US every day to have medical procedures performed if it is so great in Canada? My guess is you have never had to have a life saving operation and your opinion of Canadian health care is based on the occasional cold and your annual physical?
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I am a fan of capping medical care at some reasonable level once you reach a certain age. We should as a society be willing to pay a million or two to save a child, who has their whole life ahead of them, but once you hit the median life expectancy, you should accept the fact that you are going to die soon. Everyone dies, be thankful that you have now lived longer than half (the day after you pass the median life expectancy). In the US we have socialized medicine for those over 65 (medicare) so the US tax payer ends up paying 20% of all health care spending on 55 million retirees (.37% spent per million people), along with another 16% for medicaid to care for the 65 million poor (0.25% spent per million people). Meanwhile, just 33% is spent on/by private insurance that covers 58% (~186 million; 0.17% spent per million people). So to recap, the working insured are footing 100% of the bill and only receiving 33% of the benefits. Theoretically they will eventually use Medicare as well, if they live long enough.
The problem is that the retired block all votes, so it is the political third rail to talk about capping medical benefits past a certain age. The working insured are the cheapest block to provide health care for. It is also widely known that Medicaid is heavily used by emigrants from other countries either legally or often illegally. Anyone venture a guess as to how often Canada or Mexico puts up with that from a US citizen?
http://kff.org/other/state-ind...
https://www.cms.gov/research-s...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Fair enough. Steve Jobs was a victim of his own Reality Distortion Field.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He gave one of the most memorable and insightful talks I've ever heard, this at the 1994 Usenix Technical Conference. This was before the tragic consequences of "intentional communities" was evident to any but deep thinkers like JPB. We need people like him on our side. I hope this works out well for him.
You highlight one of the problems: too much complexity. Nobody should have to worry about "deductibles" or "calendar years" or any of that shit.
Things are about to get a little simpler. According to this NY Times article: HealthCare.gov Will Add ‘Simple Choice’ Plans in Effort to Improve Value
“All Simple Choice plans in the same category (like Silver) have exactly the same core benefits, deductibles and co-payments,” states a message to be displayed on the federal website. “When viewing Simple Choice plans, you can focus on other important features that may be different: monthly premiums, additional services covered, doctor and hospital networks.”
Under the standardized version of a silver plan, co-payments would be $30 for a visit to a primary care doctor, $65 for a visit to a specialist, $15 for a generic prescription drug, $50 for a preferred brand-name drug and $100 for a non-preferred brand-name drug. Consumers may be responsible for up to 40 percent of the cost of specialty drugs, including certain high-cost medicines for cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.
For the lowest-income families, the charges would be lower.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Socialized medicine doesn't somehow equate to free and unlimited health care. We could spend 100% of GDP on health care and people would still eventually get to a point where there's nothing that can be done.
The most obvious are that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the consequences if your unhealthy lifestyle.
People need to be more realistic about medical outcomes and doctors need to be more straight-forward with patents. According to many articles, a LOT of health care spending in on (usually) elderly people during their last year of life. From the articles mentioned below: (Google: end of life care costs:
Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months.
But the costs of patients in critical care with chronic disease and multi-organ failure — heavily the elderly and those for whom death is a common but not an immediate outcome — are exceedingly high. The top 5 percent of such patients account for nearly half of spending (more than $600 billion a year), ... Those patients are typically the ones whose doctors do not level with them or their families that their chances are not good, and who are put in hospice programs much later than they should be.
My wife Susan died, literally in my arms, on Jan 13, 2006 of brain tumor, just seven weeks after diagnosis. She had a Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), for which (basically) no one lives past two years and even that is with constantly declining quality of life, and it was right next to her brain stem. As a result, she declined surgery as it wouldn't have extended her life by much and would have left her severely impaired - she didn't want to live or be remembered like that.
Remember Sue...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The WHO who isn't some random person on a forum rank Canada 7 nations ahead of the USA in its global rankings.
I've never understood why a band is making these kind of decisions.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
All the best JPB. I named my son after one of your 'Dead songs: Cassidy. I recall reading a Reason article with JPB: The backstory there was how he’d spoken to Douglas Adams (Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) just before DA passed away. DA had begun “working out” and had a massive heart attack. JPB was going to re-invent himself, hence the JPB 2.0 http://reason.com/archives/200...