They are 8K and I've had 3 of them (original, failure replaced under warranty which, bizarrely, doesn't "reset" the warranty, and a 3rd one so, since 2008, I've 'covered' the 20K which Gary had suggested in some other thread "if the [I don't recall which treatment] cost $20K, insurance companies wouldn't go for it". They'd be going for it left and right. An amputation runs about $20-30K but the huge cost is the subsequent disability of the person. Getting rid of that stuff would be huge.
@AR, the HBO for my foot alone was over 100k - they charged $1850 per pop and I did 60 treatments. Then add in all the hospital stays, 4 surgeries, home nurses, doctor visits and drugs to name a few.
That was to *not* amputate it though! ;-) I was being very conservative w/ the numbers. If we really added it up, used one syringe/ shot, one lancet/ test, one reimbursable alcohol swab/ test, etc., you could put quite a cost profile together...even without HBO!
I know you meant to not amputate, but I was just trying to prove your point, it is expensive to keep us alive. Even without the HBO, all the other wound crap was pretty expensive - you have to go thru a lot of that before they chop it off.
Actually it's just a figure I made up. I have really no idea how much a transplant of that magnitude would be. But speculation is most likely that kind of transplant would only function for a few years as best. They won't know until they test it. It could be $50K a pop? I have no ideal. If you had to go say every two years because the cells had to be replaced and it was even $20K it would be unrealistic for most people. I make only about $20K a year right now and its more or less a dead end job.
honestly... they are trying to get votes. most people with diabetes obviously wouldn't consider themselves as disabled. If she has any complications, those can be disabling. The legal definition is so broad under the ADA that just about any medical condition could be considered a disability. The real question is, however, if Sotomayor is really the first> Supreme Court justice to have diabetes. I really don't believe that since some of them are so so old (and diabetes incidence increases with age).
Justice Sotomayor is Type 1 with a pump. For what it's worth, I'm sure she does not consider herself to be disabled.
Think of the children: if diabetes were not considered a diability, it could have a huge effect on children in school-- they may not be able to have their diabetes taken care of during school, testing situations (like the SAT), sporting events, etc. Including diabetes under the ADA makes a huge difference, whether or not you consider yourself disabled when you have diabetes. When I am carrying around snacks and needles into places where they may be banned, I am happy to know I can plead the ADA if necessary. We wouldn't qualify for a handicapped parking space with diabetes, but the ADA covers a lot more than just that.
I think that's because, instead of covering people's medical needs straight up, we have to give them a lever to stick it to people with? I did ok on the SAT and in several of my (admittedly middle-aged...) sporting pursuits and insulin. I have no problem telling anybody off who goes after my snacks. "It's not a snack, it's medicine". I haven't actually run into it ever but keep hoping. I bet it's tougher for kids as they are always being sort of strict with them in the schools I've encountered? I ordinarily am in favor of governmental intervention but, in this instance, I'd rather have it on the "medical care" side than on the ADA, the networks of "school nurse" and "teacher" medical providers and stuff like that. I am also perhaps sort of different about it as I wasn't dx'ed until I was 16?
I really think it depends on how you define disability, and several people have brought up interesting points. For example, Jen's illustration of how her blindness causes her to have to do some things in different ways from people with good vision. There ARE things we as diabetics have to do differently. Seems like most of them are mental, in the sense of calculating carbs and insulin instead of just digging in (and lots of other stuff that I don't want to go into), and always being prepared in case of a low, but also behavioral, like insisting that we be given time to recover from a low before being expected to resume our duties (the court can always call a recess if Justice Sotomayor needs recuperation time).
So, while I don't have any complications (except slow stomach emptying, which is for other reasons, not gastroparesis), and I don't feel disabled, I feel it is appropriate for people with diabetes to have protection under the ADA law -- and if it means being called disabled, what do I care? I don't consider it an insult, just a reality in my life.
I fall more into the mindframe that every single one of us humans has things that we do brilliantly and things that we can't do to save our souls, and so all of us are disabled in one way or another. And if you don't believe me, try watching me folk dance -- can you say three left feet? Good thing everyone else in the group takes care of me, and although I've fallen twice, they remain good natured about picking me up and keeping me going! :-)
1 Like
Notwithstanding the technical definition of a "disability" as interpreted by the EEOC, as a practical matter it can be by virtue of the impact it has on a person's daily life.
Some jobs that impact public safety are out because enough people with diabetes COULD be temporarily unable to perform basic and essential functions TEMPORARILY and UNPREDICTABLY. While many PWD do not have hypoglycemic events that would keep them from safely doing many of these jobs, others do not and the risk of harm to other people is too significant to run that risk.
One part of the problem in deciding if diabetes qualifies as a disability is that for some people it has a negligible impact on their daily life. Others with severe Type I with challenging complications (kidney failure, blindness, amputation, neuropathy, etc.) might find that simply performing basic personal self care tasks is impossible. In other words, it all depends on the impact that the disease has on one person without diabetes when compared to one who has it. When I was first diagnosed in '94 my Type I was not particularly disabling, At the time I was a soldier and because of diabetes I was unable to deploy world wide.Because of that, my career ended. Since then the impact of complications has been such that they have overtaken the requirements of managing my diabetes to the point that disability is an appropriate description.
No simple anwsers, no simple solutions.