Talk:Death of Nataline Sarkisyan

message: Why has all the information related to Nataline's death been purged from the page? The timeframe surrounding the actual death is very significant towards this article. I am not familiar enough with editing to find the exact revision in which it was removed, though I believe a ton of other material was also altered in that particular edit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.134.69 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of death details 

message: I don't understand this situation at all.  Pundits all over the U.S. have been declaiming that illegal immigrants get free health care because they walk in and are given treatment by doctors who feel it is unethical to withhold it.  Supposedly the reason why a few minutes at the hospital can cost $1000 is that there are several patients not paying for every one that does.  Yet in this article we're told that mercenary doctors put their ears back and refused to move.  I'm reminded of a comment by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History: "...I shall not even attempt to denounce their avarice, the rapacious haggling while their patients' fate hangs in the balance."  It is as if two thousand years of civilization (exploitable or not) have been stripped away, and I don't understand how or when.
I also don't understand why the insurance company per se is regarded as the killer here.  No doubt they did the wrong thing - but how is their decision to withhold immediate payment worse than the hospital's or the doctor's decision not to provide treatment?  Especially when you consider that this complication arose from the previous medical treatment, that the physicians knew it was not an experimental procedure, and that the patient's life was truly in dire peril.
I also don't understand why someplace like St. Jude's Children's Hospital was not a possible resolution.  I had always imagined that they were not the only hospital in the U.S. willing to take cases regardless of ability to pay, either.  Now I find myself wondering what the situation really is.  And if the $1000 emergency room visits aren't going to needy patients... where is all that money going? Wnt (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader context needed 

message: I tried to clean this up a bit to make it a more NPOV comment and added some citations, including the CIGNA HealthCare coverage position (for balance.) Please feel free to correct or update anything that you can't find in my citations or the other listed resources. Even from the comments I have read on the news stories, there is a lot of conflicted opinions.
I did see a lot of comments asking why the physicians would not perform the surgery without an absolute guarantee of payment by CIGNA HealthCare, but could not find a reliable source to cite for this. As this topic is likely to be very heated, I definitely did not want to add anything that can't be 100% sourced. Slavlin (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is very one sided, and falsely states that CIGNA "refused to pay" for the liver transplant when in fact CIGNA was not financial responsible.  The medical facts are wrong, too.  This page is a campaign ad and violates NPOV.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120001235968882563.html has the facts, but isn't even cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.218.152 (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the issue of the insurer of Nataline Sarkisyan, it is unclear whether she was insured through her mother or father. Furthermore, most small self-insured companies purchase separate "stop-loss" insurance. Stop-loss insurance can cover either single really large claims (as this would be), or a large number of small claims, in excess of the self-insurance pool controlled by the employer. So there are several questions: Was there a stop-loss provision in the parent's insurance?  If so, who was the insurer for the stop-loss provision? 69.225.227.126 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Cleanup 

message: This is an important addition to the story and the state of Insurance in America:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/cigna-employee-flips-off_n_314189.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.253.43 (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIGNA Employee Flips Off Mother Of Dead Girl Denied Transplant 

message: Someone whose entire edit history consists of this page and the Cigna page has removed a significant amount of content and over half the external links (mostly ones unsympathetic to Cigna's stance on the issue) without explanation; reverting. 146.201.173.67 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Content 

message: I guess I am not too keyed into what happens on wikipedia, since I only now found out that this article had been marked for deletion.
I think this case is notable for several reasons. Certainly, in California it was a major news item, and involved the California Nurses Association campaigning against Cigna. There was also the automatic assumption of Cigna's culpability, when in fact their culpability was not obvious, illustrating the complexities of our insurance system. It was also notable as a case where there was some discussion of the heroic efforts to save this young girl, and discussion of the medical ethics of these efforts. Finally, Ms. Sarkisyan's family subsequently appeared with Presidential candidate John Edwards at his campaign rallies. National healthcare was a major plank of his platform. Hanuman (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *That makes her case notable, not her as an individual. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just found out about deletion