'We can't cover everything for everyone.'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by carpro, Jan 10, 2010.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://www.physiciansforreform.org/index.php?id=30

    What This Means For You

    The powerful story of Barbara Wagner demonstrates why this discussion is of utmost importance. When Barbara’s lung cancer reappeared during the spring of 2008 her oncologist recommended aggressive treatment with Tarceva, a new chemotherapy. However, Oregon’s state run health plan denied the potentially life altering drug because they did not feel it was "cost-effective." Instead, the State plan offered to pay for either hospice care or physician-assisted suicide.

    In stunned disbelief you may ask, "How can this be? This happens in Europe. I’ve heard stories of Britain’s National Health Service delaying intervention until the patient dies or reports of physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands. But in America?"

    SNIP

    When queried about withholding Barbara’s treatment, Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for Oregon’s Division of Medical Assistance Programs, explained the policy this way, "We can't cover everything for everyone. Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people."

    Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, echoed Shaffer, "If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone [else]."
     
  2. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    just a taste of what governemnt run health care will be like, people told to simply die, here we'll even help you die, we'll kill you. This is what we're all supose to be wanting and supporting, nation wide, for everyone.
     
  3. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would private insurance cover that treatment?
     
  4. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Terceva has been approved by the FDA since 2004 as non first line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

    Most private insurance carriers treat it the same way.
     
    #4 carpro, Jan 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2010
  5. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40

    NO!!!

    Say it ain't so!!! The government actually treating a person like a statistic?

    Again, I say emphatically
    NO!!!

    Certainly this would have been well publicized so people would know what their reps were voting on --- wouldn't it???? Well, wouldn't it??????????

    Surely everybody who supports this "health plan"(??) is aware of all these little intricate details aren't they?? WELL, aren't they???

    Surely these folks aren't just taking the word of politicians, who admit never having read the "plan", and trusting them to look out for the citizen's welfare - are they???? WELL, are they???

    And one (well some) wonders why the nation is going straight to perdition in that proverbial hand-basket!!

    This one typical example is literally "Nuff said"!!!!
     
  6. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't "We can't cover everything for everyone" what we say to proponents of federalized healthcare? Either way, the statement is in and of itself true.
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it the government's obligation or an insurance company's obligation or the public's obligation to keep every person alive as long as it is technically possible?
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    No to all.
     
  9. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm.. seems like Palin may be right...

    Who will decide what is best for you?
    YOU?
    Your Dr?
    Or some pimple faced government official that just graduated from college behind a desk somewhere in DC?

    It's time for a revolution... vote em out in 2010... 2012... Throw the socialist bums out of congress, and take back the White house from a free loading moocher living in Public Housing!
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issue isn't who decides treatment, it's what treatment is covered by insurance. I categorically oppose federalized healthcare, but whether insurance is public or private, it doesn't mean that everything must be covered, or that the insurer is entitled to unlimited free health coverage.
     
  11. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the case with private health care insurance there is a contract of some sort that defines the benefits and then the courts as a means of enforcing the contract.

    With a government plan I do not believe that either of those assurances exist.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make a good point. Assuming you're correct, a federalized insurance plan can then cover whatever it wants, so long as it does to across the board. If someone doesn't like it, the are welcome to get additional private insurance to cover the difference. Of course, I expect people to think they're entitled to it free, rather than having to do so.
     
  13. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not sure about that. The little that we know about the persons who will be creating the bureacracy to dole out healthcare under the govenrment system have indicated that they are in favor of allocating healthcare services based on some sort of system which rates the relative value to society of the person requesting the services.

    The elderly, infirmed, handicapped, etc would be considered less valuable under such a system and would therefore not rate the expenditures.

    The entitlement mentality is a natural product of any welfare system.

    The government promotes such thinking by calling welfare payments and the like "entitlements".
     
  14. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Isn't that the "problem" socialized health care is supposed to solve? Isn't that the great ignominy of privat insurace?

    Here you cite it to defend government rationing of treatment.

    In this you have tipped your hand. You don't care about people, you simply desire a government program.
     
  15. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, and once you imliment such a program, it's difficult to change or rescind it, since people will claim that their "benefits" are being "cut". Case in point, social security should have been phased out long ago, imo, but people now feel they are "owed" it.
    And it won't. It will just have the same problems that are present in the private health system, but people will now feel like they are entitled to have whatever they want paid for.
     
  16. Paul3144

    Paul3144
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do any of you connies have a problem with Medicare? I don't hear people complaining about how Medicare is killing Grandma. All the progressives want to do is create a Medicare-like public option or let people buy in to Medicare.
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,293
    Likes Received:
    783
    Such naivete.......
     
  18. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two points - we have been paying into Medicare through payroll deduction taxes all our working lives. It is healthcare that we have already paid for.

    And it's going broke. Adding more beneficiaries to the system while cutting funding for it will simply drive it broke sooner.
     
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    Excellent point.

    There are examples of such in other public healthcare plans.

    In reality you have described a bureaucratic "death panel" that will decide that value.
     
  20. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    That's an incredibly ignorant and naive assesment of what a public option would do.
     

Share This Page

Loading...