This is unbelievable. You people have money for

Quote:#1 A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft. The goal of this “video game research” is reportedly to study how “emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace.”

And now all of a sudden everyone's so concerned about how resources are wasted. Jebus.

At least they have a purpose.  What is the purpose of pumping blood through a corpse?

She has a purpose to them.
I can think of dozens of examples of insurance money being "wasted". That's what insurance is for. Is all the litigation happening around this girl any less of a waste?

Insurance companies cover a disproportionate amount on beginning and end of life medical issues as it is. If they pulled the plug on everyone, they'd save a lot of money.

Cases like hers cannot be all that common.

(December 26, 2015 at 12:45 pm)pool Wrote: This is unbelievable. You people have money for

Quote:#1 A total of $3 million has been granted to researchers at the University of California at Irvine so that they can play video games such as World of Warcraft.  The goal of this “video game research” is reportedly to study how “emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace.”

And now all of a sudden everyone's so concerned about how resources are wasted. Jebus.

We did not validate the above expenditure though, so that's irrelevant.

I had no idea about that, and that would be a separate issue for discussion.

Sure, if it's just private insurance money, go nuts. I don't know how these things work. Public money, however, needs to be accountable. I'm offering my opinion, not pulling the plug on her.

(December 26, 2015 at 1:54 am)pool Wrote: I'm quite flabbergasted that others think they have a say in what that family do.

Given that health-care expenses are socialized, why shouldn't those helping to foot the bill have a say? He who pays the piper calls the tune. I'm not saying the family should have no say -- I certainly think they should have final say -- but if they wish to keep the girl on a ventilator etc, they should have to foot the bill themselves.

Public money can't just fund anything anyone wants it to be spent on. That wouldn't work.

Quote:She has a purpose to them.

She's DEAD.  Don't get me wrong.  I hope they win the malpractice suit but this is not helping them.

It just makes them look crazy.

Thanks for the responses. My 2 cents.

Medically: This is a waste of resources. Not only will she need to be cared for 24/7 but the very act of continuing her life will lead to medical complications that will need to be addressed at additional time and manpower. Maybe heroics. I'm guessing the family will not agree to a DNR.

Monetarily: I don't care who is paying for it, it will cost money. If the state, then taxes. If insurance, then increased premiums for those with that coverage (I'm guessing employer group) and potential termination of coverage for everyone with that coverage. If private, then potential bankruptcy and the effects on the rest of the family.

Emotionally: Everything dies. Her brain is dead. Her body will die also in time. What then? Have her embalmed and have her lying in state? Delaying the grieving process is not benefiting anyone and may be causing harm.

There is the issue of whether insurance should have to cover something such as this. I would think it certainly shouldn't. But that's a technical matter I have no expertise in.

What are you insuring against at this stage?

(December 26, 2015 at 6:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: There is the issue of whether insurance should have to cover something such as this. I would think it certainly shouldn't. But that's a technical matter I have no expertise in.

What are you insuring against at this stage?

Well, that's a good point.

Technically, the question is what the insurance contract says. I would think that in most places, the insurance contract could say "this policy doesn't cover keeping alive a body that has been declared brain dead." But I think the particulars of this case are such that 1) they're fighting to try to say that the insurance *can't* do that, and 2) in New Jersey the law says that someone (insurance, the govt, etc) has to pay for it. The correct outcomes would likely be 1) the court rules that the insurance company doesn't have to pay, and 2) the law should be overturned. #2 is beyond the scope of this prticular situation but is (at least a little bit) important going forward.