Skip to comments.Wife fights red tape to end husband's life after tragic softball accident (Maryland)
Posted on 09/25/2009 9:47:24 AM PDT by Hawk720
On June 5, 2008, the Starr family's life changed forever.
Patrick Starr, father of two and a softball fanatic, was playing his favorite sport when he collided with another player and fell backward, striking his head on the field.
The impact caused brain damage that put the Pasadena man into a coma, in which he has remained ever since.
Now his wife of 16 years, Beth, is prepared to let him go - but she wanted to be sure she and their children Ashleigh, 15, and Zachary, 8, are financially secure first.
"That's what he would want," she said.
Starr said that in order to get there, she has had to struggle with a complicated mess of red tape on two separate, unrelated issues. She has fought simultaneous battles to get Medicaid to cover the costs of her husband's hospitalization, and to work with her bank to approve refinancing the family's waterfront home.
"The process to qualify for Medicaid is as grueling as the accident itself," said Starr, 41. "It shouldn't be that way. Due to the catastrophic nature of the accident, he should have been qualified right away."
(Excerpt) Read more at hometownannapolis.com ...
Important for valid debate I think
If you are required to buy health insurance, then you should be forced to buy term life insurance. If this guy had a waterfront home in Annapolis area, then he should have had life insurance. I have great sympathy for the family, but they should sell their valuable house and move to more humble digs. Why should I bail them out?
She is complaining that Medicaid doesn’t pay her husband’s bills until he is destitute? So she should be able to keep all of their money and assets and let the taxpayer foot the bill? Incredible.
Plus if he had life insurance, I bet she would have already murdered him (”let him go”).
I don’t understand the issues here. Wouldn’t it have saved her all of the paperwork hassles if she had killed her husband first? The story doesn’t explain why she wants to wait to do away with him until after all of the paperwork with both the state and the bank is complete.
There is something missing from this story.
I hope Sponge Bob takes care of the family, I mean where would he be without Patrick Starr?
No insurance, so we get to pick it up?
Sorry Beth, not on my dime.
THat does raise this question —
What would you do if the pols dumped 42 CFR 1399dd?
(for those in Rio Linda
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (”EMTALA”) was enacted in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (”COBRA”)1. The statute is often referred to as the “anti-dumping statute,” as it was enacted pursuant to legislative concern that hospital emergency departments were transferring unstable patients or refusing to provide emergency services based on the patients uninsured status or inability to pay for treatment. One the reasons YOUR insurace rates go up every year.... and the cost of hospital care syrockets.
Very sad, but why didn’t someone in this guys position in life have term life insurance?
I agree. I used to live in Annapolis and I know how expensive water-front homes there are.
Can somebody do the Dave Ramsey Ping list please?
Beth said she knew in February that her husband wasn't going to improve. After consulting with his family in Howard County, she said she's planning to disconnect his feeding tube within the next few weeks.
Yes correct. Then comes the other issue. Life insurance doesn't kick in until death (I think). She's not after his locked up life insurance (there isn't any) so don't have that hanging over her head. She already has access to his savings, so again not after money.
With no living will is the wife able to make the decision to pull the plug? Morally and/or legally?
That's actually the part that I'm having issue getting my head around.
Plus if he had life insurance, I bet she would have already murdered him (let him go).
That’s not very nice. I have 1mm in term life insurance with the explicit instructions that I am NOT to be kept alive by means of some machine. My wife is to take that money and pay off the house and put our 3 girls through college. She has the same instructions for me to follow as well.
So this is a 40-something year old man with three children, who earns $122,000 a year and is the primary breadwinner for his family and he DOESN’T HAVE LIFE INSURANCE! (Probably because he was putting the money toward that nice “house on the water.”)
Yet again this is really about the taxpayers being expected to bail out someone for their own irresponsible decisions. I feel bad for the family, but they should have to sell their house and move to humbler digs before they shove their hospital bills onto the backs of taxpayers.
This is sad, but recall that Medicaid is a form of WELFARE and a person is not “automatically eligible” due to accident or life-threatening injury.
What would she have done if there were no “Medicaid?”
I sympathize, yet, this “grown up kid” should have been more responsible for his family and purchased life insurance. Instead, his wife applies for OUR TAX MONEY to subsidize her husband’s irresponsibility.
Again, I’m not being heartless and I sincerely wish this family well, but I still state that MY TAX MONEY should not be used to pay for her husband’s medical bills just because she did not insist that he have life insurance.
EVERY WAGE EARNER should have some form of life insurance. TERM Life is not all THAT expensive, considering the man’s income.
Is there a Dave Ramsey ping list? I’d like to be on it if so.
Some people don’t need nor want life insurance. I would gladly trade my Company life insurance “points” for other medical coverage.
I do NOT need life insurance. I am single 52 and with no dependents. I have well over $1 mill saved. I have medical insurance and I plan to keep it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.