That story is so heartbreaking.

Edwards appears to be the only one willing to fight to prevent this ever happenning again. Vague hope and hoopla is not enought; nor is the status quo.

When John Edwards says the presidential campaign is personal, he is right. He understood how Nataline's family felt, he has fought the big corporates on behalf of the Lakeys, and he will ensure all Americans will get universal health care so that folks like James Lowe don't have to wait 50 years to speak.

The real tragedy of the Sarkisyan case is that this family WAS insured ! They were not a charity case , they were like you and me.

And John Edwards understands that.

"Business as Usual" in America
means Real People must face Real Pain.

When will someone stand up to these heartless corporations, where profits are their only Priority?

Enough is Enough!

America is so much Better than this.
When will we elect someone who will fight for Real People, as Edwards has done his entire life!

The Sarkisyan case is exactly why negotiating and playing nice with corporate interests doesn't usually work. They tried that, it cost them their daughter.

Edwards understands what it means to fight these corporate interests; he's done it and won.

John often says "It's personal with me." He is referring to the fact that he genuinely cares; it is not merely a matter of abstract principle or tactical calculation. He actually cares and cares deeply. When the fight gets most furious, John will not retreat; he will not surrender. His heart and soul are in the fight.

John Edwards made a brilliant point at last nights debate when he stated that this isn't "academic or political" to him...this is personal.

A quick (rhetorical) question for everyone out there. What happens when your (or mine, or anyone's) insurance company suddenly refuses to cover a life-saving procedure? You have insurance, you've paid your premiums and deductables, but now, when you really need it, they won't cover the procedure in question. What happens? What would you do?

How long are we going to allow the rules to be set up against us? If you decide to fight it--like most of us would undoubtedly do--you're fighting a multi-billion dollar industry with all of it's money and red-tape at the exact time when all of your energies should be focused on getting better. Our health care system has to change.

And, if we really want to bring about the change that's needed, please support John Edwards. At the very least, help keep his important voice in this race until the end. He's already succeeded in pushing the issue of universal health care, now let's reward him by keeping his voice alive in this race.

Please, America, listen to what this man is saying! Don't let the media choose our president for us. Don't fall for gauzy dreams or for the "good times" of the past.
We are being taken over, and run over, by corporations. They've very nearly won already, and if we don't find our voices and fight them, they will win completely.
Listen to Edwards, and vote for your own self-interest.

I think John Edwards is the man for the job at hand. Obama does give good lip service, but I think we need someone for who will sincerely work for us. I don't understand why people aren't more perceptive when listening to candidates. John seems very passionate and serious about following through on the issues he discusses.

nataline's story makes me feel lucky that our health insurance only denied to pay for the lab costs for our physicals (which it says they would pay it, so why deny the claim??) we were only put out $200 bucks. it hurt our budget, but we are still alive.

a friend of my mother's, her husband was diagnosed with cancer. he had a hmo, who told him to go home and wait untill they had a space for him in one of their cancer treatment centers. he went home and waited for two months. he died at home without ever getting treatment.

nataline and her family are not alone.

i've supported john edwards from the start of this campaign. the fight for universal health care is only one of the reasons why.

This tragedy should never happen, not in America. My heart goes out to Nataline's family, and I thank them for their courage in standing with John Edwards, who, in turn, will always stand for them and for all of us. How can it be that a family with health insurance--from a corporation whose CEO must make millions/year--is denied a potentially life-saving operation? Sure, transplants are expensive, but today hardly "experimental." Her doctors believed the transplant could be successful--they should make the decision, not the insurance company. Hell, the CEO could've paid for the transplant with a month or two worth of his own pay. This is obscene, it is outrageous. And John Edwards is the only candidate who can respond with the strength needed to change it.

The biggest health care crisis in this country is not the denial of service by insurance company, rather health care has became so expensive that individuals and small companies can not afford health insurance. Universal heath care is the right solution, because it has the potential of reducing cost. For universal health care to be successful, cost control is important.

Nataline's fundamental heath problem is leukemia, not liver disease. Her liver failure is a side effect of her bone marrow transplant. With a liver transplant, her doctors gives a 65% chance of survival for six months, not exactly a great odd. Under normal conditions, she would not qualify for a liver transplant because a normal liver transplant patient has 90% chance of surviving 5 years. Since liver organs are in short supply, giving her the liver would mean denial to another patient who would live more than 5 more years. In Nataline's frail condition, giving her a liver transplant is really more suffering for her.

Every year I have to make several call to cigna about claim denials, so I have no sympathy for cigna. However in Nataline's case, I think cigna made the right decision. It is my understanding that Sarkisyan's employer is self-insured, so cigna is just an administrator, denying the liver transplant would not save cigna any money.

John Edwards always try to appeal to voter through emotion, he is not interested in sound policy. I would never vote for John Edwards.

We used to be a confident, optimistic nation, but the last eight years have made us uncertain, anxious, and fearful of "what they'll do to us next"
John Edwards sees health care and jobs as central, and his compassionate-fighting spirit should also see the need to secure another biggie: safe food for both two-legged and four-legged Americans.
If elected, he should quickly beef up inspections (good pun?) of imported foods. Put the FDA and Dept. of Agriculture back to work at full strength so we no longer have to worry about eating tainted foods, and can also protect our dear four-legged friends against the horrible fates they have recently suffered from poisoned food. That'll help to make a secure, happy citizenry.
Go get "em John Edwards.

This is the first year I'm filing for medical expenses in my itemized deductions. We had an insurance plan (now with a different one which is also bad). I hope I don't have to pay AMT, since I believe medical expenses is considered to be a tax preference.

Anyhow, Edwards is the man I support. And cookie, dear, the first step in getting a program implemented is for the candidate to have an emotional interest in the subject. He really cares about healthcare and will make it a priority. The wasted trillions of dollars that paid for a stupid war but made a lot of Bush's contributers rich through contracts (which were a mess accounting-wise) could have paid for all of the health care for all citizens.

People don't realize what horrid shape the country is in. I think Hillary will be too cooperative with the status quo. Obama is still a kid in short pants. Also, I don't think that Americans aren't ready for minority and women presidents. If Edwards doesn't get in, we'll be stuck with some corporate lackey Republican. The Republicans want to continue the war even though the type of war is NOT the way to combat terrorism. And yes, the US knows exactly where Bin Laden is. They've known for years.

Let's change back from corporatism back to people in office who focus on the actual citizens of this country.

Not only is John fighting for us against them and big money but he also has to fight the media blackout imposed upon his campaign.

Grrrrr… Go get em John

I have been through many elections from my first with Hubert Humphrey and Nixon to the last one with Kerry and W. I have seen all kinds of politicians. I endured the Vietnam war, watergate, the riots of Watts and Detriot, Iran Contra with Reagen and Maonica gate and impeachment procedures with Clinton.
I pride myself that I know something about people and politics. I was to young to vote for Kennedy but I would have. He brought promise and enthusiasm to America but the Crooks snuffed out his voice, His brother the same and the sameresults and with Martin also. They will keep doing the same unless we stand up to them and the only two people I see doing that are John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

Brack Obama and Hillary are fine people I am sure but Brack just talks and doesnt have the experience needed and I sincerely dont believe he will fight for us as hard as he talks. He is poetic for sure, a good orator and I am sure means well but he just doesnt have the necessary credentials to stay the course. On the other hand, we have Hilliary. She is a strong woman, No doubt about that. She believes what she says. She is passionate just like Obama but she is staus qou when it comes to washington. She could have fought Bush about the war but she didnt. I voted for Bill bothe times. He was a good President despite his transcretions, Hilliary chose to forgive him. God forgave him. I forfave him but Hilliary aint no Bill. She may say she is for the little people but she is not. She will try but not get far. If it comes down to Hilliary being the democratic nominee, then I will vote for her fot she would be ten times better than any republican. I ave had enough of W and the republicans.
The real answer here is to vote for John Edwards. He isnt financed with PACs or special interest. He is against tyhe big drug companies and he has the experience as a laywer going up against the companies that we need. he is passionate like Kennedy, From the heart and would be thebest choice. Wake up America. Listen to what the man has to Say. Stay the course John and we will vote for you

Wait a second. Doesn't anyone remember that Edwards made between $40 and $80 MILLION (he won't say how much) suing doctors for things they didn't do wrong??? I'm referring to the money he made suing doctors blaming infants' cerebral palsy on doctors not performing caesarean sections. Did he care that there wasn't a shred of evidence linking cerebral palsy to natural birth (then or now)? And caesarean section rate has increased 5x since then, with no change in cerebral palsy rate. Whatever, he was getting paid, to the tune of EIGHT figures.

And who paid Edwards? It wasn't the insurance companies, it was you and I. Because when those insurance companies raise their rates and lower their services because of great lawyers and bad science, we all suffer. People like John Edwards bankrupt the system for their own dollar.

I'm not saying that what happened in Nataline's case isn't a tragedy, but is John Edwards the answer? More like part of the problem...

Amazing that in all the coverage of this issue there is almost no mention, so far as I can see, of the reality of the issue:

1) There is a very high probability this girl would have died whether she had a liver transplant or not. This not only would be a large expenditure of health care funds with little prospect of accomplishing anything positive, but it would take a liver away from someone else who would more likely have been more likely to have benefited from it.

2) Countries with “universal” health care systems, such as many of the candidates profess to admire, all have one way or another of controlling costs. It is highly unlikely that this girl would have received a liver transplant in any of them.

3) Cost benefit analysis is the only logical way to control costs in a medical care system. This case is a prime example of a very high cost procedure with very little likelihood of benefit.

John Edwards is the most viable candidate in the democratic party to beat a republican in Nov. Sure, Obama and Clinton have star power (shhhh! because they are a black man and a woman) and don't forget Oprah. I say Edwards/Obama is the winning ticket. Combined, they've got enough experience. But not too much to be corrupt (Clinton). Also, Edwards can capture the southern /rural/heartland vote (important) and Obama would capture, the right/left coast liberals, young people, women, and the black vote. Together, they could do alot of good and turn this country around.

Dan D has apparently never had his life threatened by an insurance company in the name of "cost control." I have. My doctor prescribed a drug for inflammation, knowing I am severely allergic to Ibuprofen. A low-level clerk at my insurance company overrode my doctor's order and replaced it with a generic that contained Ibuprofen. I spent 5 days in the ICU after coming within minutes of death. How is it that clerks without a medical degree of any kind are allowed to wield life-and-death power? Cost control? Not good enough, Dan D. It is about greed, and in my case it was counter-productive. They wound up paying thousands of times the cost of the more expensive drug, all because our system allows minimum-wage desk jockeys to make medical decisions out of generic, boilerplate drug manuals. I'm voting for John Edwards, because I believe I survived for a reason, to take up the cause of winning our government back from greedy corporations who own it now, and from "pro-life-in-name, anti-life-in-practice" Republicans.

The only thing that is broken in health care is the cost of health care and no one is addressing this problem. The government caused the problem with health care cost crises in America by over socializing (with mandates) medicine to the extent it is not completive.
http://www.InteliOrg.com/

Hillary is not the status quo! Health care for everyone, as Hillary speaks of, is far from the Status quo - it is a new enactment for the U.S. The same with stepping forth as the first woman president of the United States. These are elementry facts, don't go with obviously false things declared by Edwards.

John should step aside and let Hillary take the stage! Enough of hiding behind Barack! Besides, Barack is fake!

Can I just say that Cigna should not be blamed for 100% for the death of Natalina. UCLA doctors should have treated the patient anyways and then fight Cigna for the denial overturn later with attorney and lawsuits, the reason they did not because the physicians and hospitals want to get paid...JUST LIKE CIGNA. So, it Cigna wrong here? Yes perhaps 60% and then the 40% should be blamed on the physician's at UCLA.

Saving a human life should come first NOT wait for the insurance to get the authorization to be determined!

Thanks

I have to agree with Dan. Transplant is a complicated situation. My husband received a heart transplant a few years ago. First of all there has to be an organ available. I understand the emotion. Its very difficult. We went back and forth from being on the "list" to being off the "list". These patiants are very sick people, and very unstable. There is a lot involved. Even when folks are approved by the insurance company they still die while waiting. Its a sad story, but I don't think the facts are clear. People have a story book idea of what is involved with a transplant. A lot of things have to go right at the right time. Then you spend the rest of the extra years you are given (Its not a cure, it just gives you borrowed time)on strong medication that causes other problems. We are very blessed and very grateful for everyone who has helped us. Especially the donor family. However, we never forget that the transplant life is a fragile life and things can change tragically in an instant.