PDA

View Full Version : Don't blame insurance co., blame Hayes


sahuaro
09-23-2008, 08:43 PM
I just checked my certificate of insurance with HealthNet online and lo and behold! there is now an attachment which is new and which we never received (and subsequent to my and others' appeals) entitled "Evaluating New Technology."
They claim they depend on the Hayes Technology Assessment Manual to determine whether or not a device is investigational and depending on Hayes' rating, may use other sources. I googled Hayes and found that this is the equivalent of an "independent medical examiner"
staffed by master's and doctoral level employees and nurses. The closest thing to a medical doctor on their staff is a veterinarian.

Aren't insurance company shams grand?

Justin
09-25-2008, 06:47 PM
I googled Hayes and found that this is the equivalent of an "independent medical examiner"staffed by master's and doctoral level employees and nurses. The closest thing to a medical doctor on their staff is a veterinarian.

Aren't insurance company shams grand?

What a joke...sorry you were screwed and insulted at the same time.

ans
09-26-2008, 03:11 AM
Sorry to hear this B. The way you write makes this sound both funny and horrible..

Best, Allan

sahuaro
09-28-2008, 09:41 PM
Thanks, Justin and ans. Just to clarify, this is an amendment to our certificate of insurance which has appeared subsequent to my appeal. They have also expanded the written policy regarding artificial disk replacement which they still consider investigational and which now includes some of the incomplete and erroneous wording that appeared in the "independent review" of my appeal. My one consolation is that my appeal may have caused some anxiety (because it was very, very good and thorough) and someone at HealthNet decided they had to cover their a***s--although those a***s look pretty bare to me!

Terry
09-30-2008, 09:50 AM
I can only hope that the party that claims they are Pro-Life realizes what life means. It is not just being alive that counts. It means life sustained.

I am always amazed at the talking out of both sides of one's mouth that politicians engage in and I blame them for the mess the health care industry is in. When I hear that a party want's government small, so that States and individuals can have more rights, it reeks of another motive entirely. Let's keep government small, so as to have no oversight and, business can thrive at the expense of people.

As long as profit is king, people will suffer.

I am sorry for the nonsense you've gone through to get your health cared for. Really pays to have insurance when they seem so opposed to your general well being.

Terry Newton

JasonR
10-01-2008, 08:26 AM
I can only hope that the party that claims they are Pro-Life realizes what life means. It is not just being alive that counts. It means life sustained.

I am always amazed at the talking out of both sides of one's mouth that politicians engage in and I blame them for the mess the health care industry is in. When I hear that a party want's government small, so that States and individuals can have more rights, it reeks of another motive entirely. Let's keep government small, so as to have no oversight and, business can thrive at the expense of people.

As long as profit is king, people will suffer.

I am sorry for the nonsense you've gone through to get your health cared for. Really pays to have insurance when they seem so opposed to your general well being.

Terry Newton

It's a shame what level politics has degenerated to in this country, but there are different views to every problem. In my mind, small government means less expensive so I get to keep more of the money I earn rather than have it taken to be given to someone else. Unfortunately, neither major party is the least bit interested in small government.

As for insurance companies, they can be fired. I changed jobs to see if a new insurance company would mean approval. I realize not every can do that but some simply don't WANT to do it. My new insurance company claims they cover the procedure, we'll find out for certain in a couple of months. I would like to see employees be more proactive in trying to get their employers to move to better insurance companies.

The profit motivator does seem to be hurting the insurance industry. But there are good companies out there that have managed to make money and provide good coverage. But the problem is more than just the insurance companies. Too many people still go to the ER for everything. Everything. That's expensive and wasted money for the insurance company and wasted time for the ER. People do it though because they don't want the inconvenience of making a Dr's appointment or trying to find a walk-in clinic. That or they just don't know better. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. This country also needs malpractice reform. We have a friend who's an anasteatheoligist(sp?) and his malpractice insurance, paid for by the hospital, is several times his salary. That's insane. We also have a friend who was successfully prosecuted on a malpractice claim when the patient died because the patient didn't follow the Dr's advice. The claim was that the advice was not clear and/or forceful enough. People are even suing OB's for malpractice because they unexpectedly had a baby born with down syndrome.

The problem is multi-faceted and there is no single solution to the mess. We can't simply point to insurance companies and scream they're the problem(not saying you are Terry, I just know some people who do). There are problems with Dr's, insurance companies, and patients. I'd be more in favor of a plan that lets us, as consumers, pick and choose our insurance company rather than our employer picking it for us. For instance, states could mandate that any insurance company offering insurance in said state would have to offer insurance as a group plan to the entire state. Employers could still offer an insurance allowance as part of their benefits package, and consumers could pick the company and plan offering that fits their needs. If we could enable that plan(more detailed to be certain) it would allow the better insurance companies to thrive and give us the opportunity to fire them when they suck.

Ok, sorry for the long post and rant off :).

Terry
10-01-2008, 03:52 PM
Many who go to the emergency rooms in our area do so because they have no health care coverage at all. Hospitals have to give away a certain amount of charitable care to keep their non-profit status. Patients know this and go to the Emergency room as they know they cannot be turned away. As the economy worsens this situation will get worse. This is a catastrophe in the making. Here's one article I found to verify my story:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0509-07.htm

I also have worked in the health care field for years. I understand about medical malpractice as I have been sued before under my professional liability plan. Even though no one won in the case it was still traumatic for all involved.

I support tort reform with reason. I believe there are some frivolous lawsuits though, there are many with merit as well. That is why I believe in a trial with a jury hearing the facts, supporting arguments, and, award settlement. I would hate to see a system where companies, physicians, other entities could practice with impunity. In the State of Michigan; John Engler, past governor ensured that the pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued in our state. This can only occur in Federal court where the client is assured of losing. So the people hurt in the Viox cases throughout the country could collect due to negligence but, not in Michigan. I hate to see the little guy get squashed and big business gets away with whatever they want with immunity. It's a lousy system when the little guy gets victimized over and over again.

I have also made my case very well known on the forum here. A dog ran in to my bicycle as it was not on a leash. I went end-over-end and shattered my clavicle and destroyed my spine. You can only sue someone for their policy limits and nothing more. The stories you hear about people getting rich are ones where big businesses are liable. The homeowner had $100,000 policy. My settlement was still not enough to cover my expenses. I shelled out $74,000 out of pocket to cover all of my medical costs, bicycle and clothing reimbursement, physical therapy, medications, etc.

Tort reform will benefit insurance companies, who are already wealthy, and corporations who have probably been proven at fault in court or, settled out of court to take care of the case.

The homeowner's insurance company was State Farm and they refused to talk to us in any way, shape or form. They forced us to sue and played hard ball every step of the way.

Most believe in all of the hype about the McDonald's coffee suit. When you get injured it's another story entirely. All I wanted was money, that taken out of my retirement plan, to get me back whole, to be replaced. Without the money being replaced I would never be able to retire.

Terry Newton

JasonR
10-01-2008, 06:07 PM
I see and agree to some of your points. I never advocated a complete absence of liability, but think reasonable limits should be set.

It's good that you brought up pharm companies. They seem to be a favorite target of people because they're, generally, making a good profit. People scream about them making money but then demand the latest drugs for free. Pharm companies invest billions in R&D looking for the next wonder drug. There's a reson life expectancy has been rising and drugs are part of the reason. Viagra seems to grab the headlines but there have been a boon of new drugs offering hope for many people afflicted with different conditions.

Would those discoveries have been made by not-for-profit drug companies? Highly doubtful. And for every amazing discovery, how many R&D projects end up as busts? Walmart can make all the money in the world but God forbid a company in the medical industry make a profit.

Also, insurance companies would not be the only people to benefit from tort reform. Our anasteatheoligist friends mal insurance is 400k/year. 400k! It should probably only be 25% of that at most. That's 300k the hospital would save on a single doctor's benefits alone. That means they don't have to charge as much for their services; the insurance companies, the uninsured, and those with out of pocket requirements then don't have to pay as much. This leads to lower health insurance premiums.

The insurance companies will still make their money, the hospital will have an easier time making theirs, and the consumers save as well. In our current system some smaller towns can't even attract a doctor because the mal insurance is so high the doctor couldn't stay in business.

Yes, many uninsured go to the ER for all medical care. However, many ignorant insured people go there as well. And if we bring down the general cost of health care, more people would be able to afford it.

For isntance, take my plan regarding states requiring insurance companies to treat all state citizens as a group. That makes it more accessible as group rates do tend to be lower. Also, with multiple insurance companies competing in the state, prices will be driven lower.

Is it as simple as that? Of course not. But it isn't much more complicated either. Meanwhile, if you go with socialized medicine you are stuck with the one option. What are we to do if we socialize medicine and now you're told that fusion is the standard and that's all that is available to you? Are you willing to trust the government to treat you fairly? Do you trust the government to do what's in your best interest or what's in their best interest? What has the government done to deserve this level of trust?

I truly do understand the frustration with our health system in its current form. Remember that I was denied ADR by my first company. It sucked. But I had options and I exercised them. I do not want to be stuck with the government as my only option. I've heard to many horror stories from coworkers who either are or lived overseas where socialized medicine just isn't getting the job done and they didn't have any other viable option.

Again, if we want to test government health care, beyond the VA anyway, then let a state test it and run with it. Then, keep it on the state level where it's more manageable. The federal government has ruined every benefit program it has been entrusted with no matter which party was in power.

Harrison
10-01-2008, 10:12 PM
Jason, well said. Umm, well said, because I agree with many of your points. ;)

Can you relate your ideas back to the orginal post -- about the IRO process that some spine patients must endure? More specifically: is NAIRO "owned" by the insurance companies? Yes, or course they are! I've studied this travesty for years in many ways. The system is corrupt. But the need for specificity in this weird diagnosis is important! Out of all the problems in the "system," which one is the most obvious? The most addressible? The "low hanging fruit?"

So the real question is: why do insurance companies own the independent review process? What can we do to change the process to make it legit, fair and HONEST? That's my rant.

As the editor, I try to steer people back to the intent and needs of the orginal post author. Hence, this post.

KBear
10-02-2008, 11:33 AM
I support tort reform with reason. I believe there are some frivolous lawsuits though, there are many with merit as well. That is why I believe in a trial with a jury hearing the facts, supporting arguments, and, award settlement. I would hate to see a system where companies, physicians, other entities could practice with impunity. In the State of Michigan; John Engler, past governor ensured that the pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued in our state. This can only occur in Federal court where the client is assured of losing. So the people hurt in the Viox cases throughout the country could collect due to negligence but, not in Michigan. I hate to see the little guy get squashed and big business gets away with whatever they want with immunity. It's a lousy system when the little guy gets victimized over and over again.

I have also made my case very well known on the forum here. A dog ran in to my bicycle as it was not on a leash. I went end-over-end and shattered my clavicle and destroyed my spine. You can only sue someone for their policy limits and nothing more. The stories you hear about people getting rich are ones where big businesses are liable. The homeowner had $100,000 policy. My settlement was still not enough to cover my expenses. I shelled out $74,000 out of pocket to cover all of my medical costs, bicycle and clothing reimbursement, physical therapy, medications, etc.

Tort reform will benefit insurance companies, who are already wealthy, and corporations who have probably been proven at fault in court or, settled out of court to take care of the case.

The homeowner's insurance company was State Farm and they refused to talk to us in any way, shape or form. They forced us to sue and played hard ball every step of the way.

Most believe in all of the hype about the McDonald's coffee suit. When you get injured it's another story entirely. All I wanted was money, that taken out of my retirement plan, to get me back whole, to be replaced. Without the money being replaced I would never be able to retire.

Terry Newton

I second this. I finally settled my case against the 18 wheeler who hit me. First of all, do to liability laws, they were only liable for 6 months of my care, since I was a passenger in another wreck 6 months after they hit me. So all, the following figures are for 6 months of my care (from Jan 06-July 06). My medical for those 6 months was $40,000. I got a settlement of $75,000, which sounds like a lot; but here is the true breakdown. Attorney fees $35,000 (who I was forced into hiring, since the other company was not willing to work with me, they wanted to give me 30K, which would have left me in the hole), Money owed to health insurance for payments they made, $14,000, money owed to automobile insurance for medical payments they made on me $5,000, money I paid out of pocket for medical $15,000, and money I paid for childcare and house cleaning (I had a 2 week old baby and a 2 year old when this happened and I was on strict restrictions, so I had to hire help) $4,000. That totals $73,000 owed out of $75,000; so I get $2,000 for pain and suffering. It makes me sick that someone can destroy your life as you know it, take away your livelihood and I get a lousy 2k.

On the McDonald's suit, I was talking to my attorney and I said something about frivolous lawsuits and I brought that up. He said in fact, that that McDonalds had been cited over 30 times by the health department for their coffee being too hot, they had had other people get burned and still did not turn down the coffee. So in fact, they knew the coffee was too hot, had initinally left it too hot and ignored numerous warnings to turn it down. The lady who was burned, also had 3rd degree burns from the coffee, hence the suing. I'm not saying the suit was right or wrong, just pointing out how the media just does the headline to shock and never gives the facts behind the case.

Terry
10-02-2008, 11:15 PM
I know what you mean KBear. I was aware of the full facts behind the McDonalds Case. Most people accept things at face value any more as critical thinking has gone out the window. Most people are settling for being fat and lazy and allow others to do their thinking for them. They are mere sheep being led to the slaughter. When the middle class are no more because the wealthy, the politicians, the corporations, the other countries, all got richer and richer while we paid the lion's share I will count the money I invested over the years and retire comfortably and peacefully.

I have not paid an interest payment on a credit card in almost twenty years. I look at all sides to the story. When my Republican friends send me the e-mails trying to discredit all who stand in their way I look to www.snopes.com and other sites to sift through the BS. I have saved the maximum amount in my retirement plan for years. While others are bailing out of the stock market I am buying right and left. I am buying low to accumulate a lot of shares. When the market goes back up I will be sitting well (I hope). I am most fearful about the corruption that has run amuck for the last several years in corporate America. Americans have stood by the sidelines and allowed this to occur. They bought in to the religious right and thought the party was represented with God on it's side. If life is so precious, why does it not matter after it is born? Life should be sustained by good healthcare, good jobs for Americans rather than foreign markets and, select shareholders in this country, why are we filling prisons with poor people, drug addicts, mentally ill people, people of color, why are we sending valuable life overseas to die, why do we have the death penalty for people if we believe in life? Why, Why, Why?

I am sorry for the losses you experienced over your accident. You can truly relate to what I went through. Tort reform is what corporate America and insurance companies want to sell to the masses. As mere sheep, most of us will buy it. Until we get injured ourselves and find how it is slanted to have the insurance companies win. They have attorney's that come in with the sole purpose of wearing you down. Most people get intimidated and run. Not me and, not you. We were fighters. Good for you.

This post will probably tick off a few people and is off topic. Go to www.snopes.com and check out the politics page. Look up Obama and McCain. The lies spread about Obama cover a full page. The one's about McCain and Palin cover a small percentage. It's obvious someone has a vested interest in trying to systematically destroy Obama as a candidate. I wonder if it is because of his color. Before anyone answers this check out the disparity of the sentencing laws between powder cocaine (primarily white, middle class to wealthy person's drug) vs. crack cocaine (primarily black person's drug). We are filling up prisons with person's of color in record numbers. Who said we weren't still racists?

I still hate seeing the little guy get trampled. A classic example is how few of us get our much needed surgeries paid for on this forum. If all of you are tired of it as well stand up, go to the window right now and yell; "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." ;)

Terry Newton

kimmers
10-03-2008, 03:17 AM
I had to reply because there are many good things said on this post. Interesting conversation guys.
Going back to the original topic, and the Hayes assessment report, I'd like to mention a few things about my favorite insurance company (tongue in cheek), Blue Cross. Blue Cross comes by its decision to not cover ADRs by the TEC assessment, which if you look it up is a bunch of doctors who decide on treatments.
I also found with BC that when I drove through the points in my appeals about how many years ADRs have been done and what success they have had in Europe with ADRs and studies backing the treatment, BC came back with that there were not American studies going back five years after FDA-approval of the Prodisc.
Well, since it was 2007-2008, and the Prodiisc was approved in August 2006, of course there were not. And when the retired neurosurgeon, "board-certified", and supposedly independent, spoke to my doctor, that was the argument they gave to my doctor. It didn't matter that studies showed that there was less adjacent disc disease after Prodisc. How can you argue with their logic?

It basically didn't matter that my doctor was asking for a surgery that cost less, had less recovery time, less chance of adjacent disc disease, and was overall better for me, the patient.

Regarding this particular insurance, I found out the following: I had less chance of suing BC since I was from a group policy and not individual, if I sued it was going to be through federal court because our plan was governed by the ERISA laws (i.e. take at least 18 months and cost us a bundle (I was quoted 45-50K by an attorney), which I don't totally understand yet, I might be able to go to arbitration but that wasn't clear and the Dept of Managed Health Care doctors sounded like they were nuts.

The Dept, which is supposedly independent, had the audacity to suggest that I didn't have a real spine problem and that I had "multiple somatic complaints". This was because I have had running injuries. The kicker was that my doctor's office, the PA, made the mistake of saying I had a history of depression, which is false. Well, one doctor, the one who said the above, started out his report with This is a 45 year old woman with history of depression and multiple somatic complaints.

Well not to belabor things and get off my soap box, about Blue you-know-what, this really ticked me off and gave credence to my belief that the Dept is in the back pocket of the insurance companies. One of the first things I thought about was, 'How about if I was a woman who actually had depression?' I feel that was an awfully inflammatory and discrimatory comment.

You guys or gals on here know I am for single-payer healthcare and why. I think if we were left as individuals to choose our own healthcare, I would not be insured. As it stands now, i do not believe I would be insurable. I went through the uninsurable thing several years ago when I was rescinded by an insurance company. I cannot remember why, I think it was because I had gestational diabetes with a pregnancy, or I had a D & C operation. Anyway, I was dropped and my only avenue for insurance that time was through California's major risk insurance. The problem was the premiums were like Cobra, but I would not go without insurance after I got in a car accident at 24 and I did not have insurance. That cost a lot.

I was in the major risk pool for two years and then got regular employer-sponsored insurance either through my job or my spouse's. It was good insurance but it was expensive, prohibitive for some people.

So the government might screw up the insurance bit a little bit or a lot but I do not believe they could do a worse job than the insurance companies we have today. The $70, 000 plus bills we owe for medical care make that clear to me. However, I think if the state was allowed to dictate the care and people had to be insured, state governance might work. The only thing is the insurance companies need to be taken out of the equation. They have done a bang up job with their share-holder profits and left us dying by the road. Think about what oversight they have? They have powerful lobyists and I think it is shameful that supposedly one of the richest countries in the world has such abysmal healthcare.

Kimmers

Terry
10-03-2008, 08:30 AM
I agree Kimmers. That's my biggest problem with America today. Profit over people. I'm very sorry that your surgery did not get covered. It's horrible when we have good insurance policies and they play with our lives. How come we are not allowed to be a part of the choice in what will fix us? It's all about making shareholders money like you stated. I hope you do continue to fight for the care you deserve.

Terry Newton

sahuaro
10-03-2008, 10:10 PM
Would some form of a national health system really take care of the corruption in insurance companies? Would we have an easier or even harder time getting our surgeries approved?

Harrison
10-04-2008, 07:57 PM
I’ll add my 2 cents too – with a question: did anyone see Healthcare Around The World on PBS? If I were king for a day, I would make all of elected officials watch this program. And again. And again. And again!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/synopsis.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/synopsis.html)

It featured five other capitalist healthcare systems from around the world; the analysis and presentation was incredibly clear. Please try to find it in your local area or just read the web site content.

The points made are many. But one thing is for sure – if we Americans can do what Taiwan did – rebuild the national healthcare system from scratch – there is hope for all of us. For what it’s worth, the folks I know in Taiwan are pretty happy with their quality of care and choice of medical specialists. But we are not Taiwan for a long list of reasons. I fear our collective road to wellness will be painful, given the gridlock in Washington, entrenchment of business interests (big pharma, big insurance) and frankly, how unhealthy we Americans have become as a population of 310 million.

So I ask you, could Americans muster up the will – along with its elected officials – to completely rebuild the healthcare system?! Wouldn’t it have been nice if we spent the $700,000,000,000 on this national problem?

But as an editor, I am showing one of my many biases. So I’ll shut up, watch the news and say a lot of prayers!

Terry
10-04-2008, 10:39 PM
I like Japan's approach where everyone is made to purchase health insurance. This would drive the costs downward if insurance companies are not allowed to make such a huge profit. Another solution would be that insurers are required to put a certain percentage of their profits in to subsidizing the insurance needs of the poorer people who cannot afford the whole package.

It sounds like Switzerland is on a decent track as well. Maybe this is one piece of capitalism that needs to be eliminated as, health care is a right for Americans. We deserve to be healthy. There should be incentives for people that do not smoke, drink alcohol, and exercise. There should be disincentives for people who choose unhealthy lifestyles.

I think that America is still a great country. If we truly make this a priority we can come up with a solution that will make America healthy.

Thanks for the decent article Harrison. :D

Terry Newton

Justin
10-06-2008, 11:46 AM
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

"Universal Basic Coverage" is not necessarily the best tests, the best drugs, and the best programs. It is a safety net so that people can get the average tests, drugs, and programs. Most importantly tests, drugs, and programs covered by the right level of care.

Just because there is no official program to cover the uninsured right now does not mean the insured population does not pay for the uninsured population, as Terry pointed out. The uninsured inherently drive up health care costs. People who don't have insurance still need health care, so they get it by going to ERs and not paying the bill, or only paying part of the bill. The ER costs exponentially more than does a regular primary care physician's office, and by the time someone goes into the ER for a problem, they need much more tests and drugs and care than they would have had they sought care earlier.

Americans without health insurance will spend $30 billion out of pocket on medical care this year, according to a new report by George Mason University and the Urban Institute.

The government will pay about 75% of an additional $56 billion in health costs - or $42 billion - for the uninsured. The rest is covered by private physicians, community groups and hospitals.

So uninsured spend about $30 billion a year out of pocket, but $56 billion either comes from your tax dollars (the government), you (assuming you'll be a physician), or the hospitals where you receive health care. None of those groups can afford to foot the bill--especially not hospitals. So what do they do to cover it? They charge more for services. Higher health care costs translates into higher premiums for employers. Higher premiums for employers means employers cant afford to cover as much. So they have to do one of a few things:

1. Raise premiums or out of pocket costs for employees
2. Get a cheaper insurance plan that covers fewer things
3. Drop coverage.

And all of these things are happening according to the National Coalition on Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)

Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 6.1 percent in 2007. Small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2

The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,100 in 2007. Workers contributed nearly $3,300, or 10 percent more than they did in 2006.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).

# National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.2
# Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.8

Now, as more and more people become un and under-insured, more and more people are showing up to the ER for problems that a PCP could handle, and fewer and fewer people are paying their bills in full. This costs hospitals more, which costs health insurance providers more, which costs employers more, which leads to fewer benefits and fewer people being insured. This cycle eats away at the insured population and fuels the growing cost of health care. Of course there are other reasons why health care costs so much, but this is a big one.

$56 billion dollars is nothing to sneeze at.

Even though the Obama plan will cost $50-65 billion a year once fully implemented, we're already paying that just for having such a large uninsured population and that number is set to rise in the coming years. So why not implement a plan that will stop this cycle using the same amount of money we're spending currently? We may even save money if it makes our population healthier and therefore in less need of heroic health care efforts.

Of course, just my $.02 ;)

Justin
10-07-2008, 08:36 PM
Watch the video in the link below:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4256735n

U.S. Health Care Gets Boost From Charity
"60 Minutes": Remote Area Medical Finds It's Needed In America To Plug Health Insurance Gap

(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 2, 2008. It was updated on July 9, 2008.

One of the decisive issues in the presidential campaign is likely to be health care. Some 47 million Americans have no health insurance, and that's just the start: millions more are underinsured, unable to pay their deductibles or get access to dental care.

Recently, 60 Minutes heard about an American relief organization that airdrops doctors and medicine into the jungles of the Amazon. It's called Remote Area Medical, or "RAM" for short.

As correspondent Scott Pelley first reported last March, Remote Area Medical sets up emergency clinics where the needs are greatest. But these days that's not the Amazon. This charity founded to help people who can't reach medical care finds itself throwing America a lifeline.

Terry
10-07-2008, 09:54 PM
Justin:

That was one of the most heartbreaking videos I've seen this year. I am a Rotarian and am proud of what we do for people overseas. We are remiss in this country, when we have all of these people that are Americans and, they have such difficulties getting health care.

This is a travesty.

Thank-you for sharing this video.

Terry Newton