it allows bureaucrats too much influence in our lives. there are SO many bad ways this could end. but hey, everyone wants free sh*t, right?
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
State denies cancer treatment, offers suicide instead
'To say, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel'
Posted: June 19, 2008
11:15 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
State officials have offered a lung cancer patient the option of having the Oregon Health Plan, set up in 1994 to ration health care, pay for an assisted suicide but not for the chemotherapy prescribed by her physician.
The story appears to be a happy ending for Barbara Wagner, who has been notified by a drug manufacturer that it will provide the expensive medication, estimated to cost $4,000 a month, for the first year and then allow her to apply for further treatment, according to a report in the Eugene Register-Guard.
But the word from the state was coverage for palliative care, which would include the state's assisted suicide program, would be allowed but not coverage for the cancer treatment drugs.
"To say to someone, we'll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it's cruel," Wagner told the newspaper. "I get angry. Who do they think they are?"
(Story continues below)
She said she was devastated when the state health program refused coverage for Tarceva, the drug her doctor ordered for treatment of her lung cancer.
The refusal came in an unsigned letter from LIPA, the company that runs the state program in that part of Oregon.
"We had no intent to upset her, but we do need to point out the options available to her under the Oregon Health Plan," Dr. John Sattenspiel, senior medical director for LIPA, told the newspaper.
"I understand the way it was interpreted. I'm not sure how we can lift that. The reality is, at some level (doctor-assisted suicide) could be considered as a palliative or comfort care measure."
The 64-year-old Wagner lives in a low-income apartment in Springfield with her dog, the newspaper said.
State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy, childbirth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.
"We can't cover everything for everyone," Dr. Walter Shaffer, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs, told the paper. "Taxpayer dollars are limited for publicly funded programs. We try to come up with policies that provide the most good for the most people."
He said many cancer treatments are a high priority, but others reflect the "desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile."
Wagner, however, is ending up with the treatment needed when her lung cancer, in remission for two years, returned.
She reported a representative for the pharmaceutical company called and notified her the drug would be provided for at least the first year.
"We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon," said the "Bioethics Pundit" on the Bioethics blog. "Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered."
"This isn't the first time this has happened either," the blogger wrote. "A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide. But not to worry. Just keep repeating the mantra: There are no abuses with Oregon's assisted suicide law. There are no abuses. There are no abuses!
sorry it was so long. the article itself looked pretty short......
its not only about the taxes we'd get jacked for, its about letting government have that big of a say in our personal lives. catch-22, they are heading for the point when they will get to decide who will live and who will die. A REAL $$$ FIGURE on our lives.......i don't want a POLITICIAN deciding my healthcare.
Andrew K- you have much more freedom to choose your physician with the private insurance. you will be 100% putting your health in the hands of the gov't with universal care, and they can't even run the country efficiently.
Mettie <3 and El Telecote- i agree 100%.
downwithsocialists- i guess i'm evil and stupid too, because i agree with you.
stratm663- once again, i now have a beef with the government having that much control of our lives. they WILL someday take it as far as putting a dollar amount on our lives, and decide who lives and who dies. that is the real BS.
- El TecoloteLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
My dad suffered from a brain tumor, and six weeks into his radiation treatments, before the chemo began, his HMO informed him they weren't paying because he had been given a choice between going to Tucson or Albuquerque. He was a New Mexico resident, but his whole family resided in Tucson, so he chose to go there. Come to find out, the doctor had made a mistake.
Twelve years and fifteen thousand dollars out-of-pocket later, my dad has survived the brain tumor and STILL DOES NOT WANT TO SEE A FEDERAL HEALTH CARE DEBACLE TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY.
- 1 decade ago
if you're asking how people feel about it? then here is my answer
I am iffy on this topic. It could eiter be good or bad. I work in the healthcare system so I know how cruel our healthcare system is now. So i do see the good in universal yet i see the ugly.I work in a hosptial that treats people with low income, many of whom come from hight standing hospitals and they are still healing from a surgery b/c they could no longer stay that the hosptial b/c the doctors treated them with the minimum. So i see both sides of the coin
I see people taking advantage of the system and crowding up hospitals and wasting precious time that could be used for someone critically ill.
I see less people with no income with medical conditions being taken care of to the full extent and not being thrown out onto the streets in basically only hospital gowns.
But as the saying goes no good deed goes unpunished.
ANd I agree with what you said about it being cruel, it is there is no denying that.
- Justin DLv 51 decade ago
Ah, the WND, there is a reputable source (snicker). Medical care is and will always be rationed, public or private. Economics is all about rationing. Some get things, others do not. What statistics across many countries show is that public health insurance reduces costs. We in the United States pay more money per capita on health care than any other nation, and get worse results.
- stratm663Lv 71 decade ago
look a single payer system w/ an aggregate would save , the economy and lives. we have it now..its called medicare-medicaid/VA.
im not gonna spout on about how, because frankly i see your mind is made up. but i will tell you, you will get old (if youre lucky) and will not always have the same opportunities to earn income to pay (ever rising) insurance premiums. as for government being the problem....that only seems to be the case when the re-pubic-cans get to run it...
single payer would solve the gay marriage issue, (they only want the insurance) legacy costs for maufacturing, long term accrued disease like diabtetes (that can be managed earlier much more cheaply) amongst many things...
and if its a single payor YOUR physician will enroll in the program. dont kid yourself..hes wants to get paid....it will allow more education to be available for medical training, paying for tuition in leau of public service is what they do now.its called "internship" and they work for free...its good, yes it will need to be capped, but supplemental coverage will still be available in the openmarket. dont be fooled by the BS. we need to save our economy. all this will be internal so we'll have the jobs here.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Andrew KLv 61 decade ago
Corporate bureaucrats are the ones who run health care now, and they do it for profit. At least government bureaucrats are looking out for the people's well-being.
You may not want a government official deciding your health care, but I'm not too comfortable that some random person 20 states away in a cubicle paid a low salary by a health insurance co. is deciding mine.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Please don't copy and paste articles...
Like most things, universal health care has its pro's and its cons.
So does our current health care system.
Our health care is expensive and a lot of people aren't covered.
But if it's private, you get the services you need when you need them.
In places with universal health care, you pay much less and everyone can have access to it, but there might be delay.
It depends on the thing you want to do. I personally think it would be better for America not to have universal health care, but we definitely need reform because too many people are just left without any help whatsoever and it makes life hell.Source(s): Wow, there are some really flat out racist and terrifyingly stupid comments here. Being poor does not mean you are stupid. Being poor does not make you lazy. Being rich doesn't automatically make you a hard worker. Being rich doesn't automatically make you smart. A large % of billionaires never graduate college. Some not even high school. All work is dignified, from hamburger flipper to lawyer. That lawyer may have more education, but work is work and money is money. If your only opportunity is working at a restaurant and you work your arse off at that relatively less-cool job, you're not lazy. You're working to make a living because it's the best you can do. A lot of the time, your wealth is just luck. You're born in country x to family y in region z and you are race a. Opportunity is a LUXURY. So many people have so much of it from the get-go, and yet, many times more than that have none of it: no chance for good education, no chance to get out of your country, no chance to find a good job, no chance to get back to school, no chance to get help of any kind.
- 1 decade ago
Have none of you seen the way British and Canadian health care systems suck? Why spend billions of dollars to try something that has been proven not to work? Its like using millions of taxpayers' dollars to enlist scientists and equipment to nail Jello to a wall.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
H*** yes its cruel. Medicaid only offers so much and if the doctor or place that is being paid wont accecpt what they offer then they wont be covered under medicaid. But offering to pay for suicide when some one could possibly be saved is sick. Shows how much the goverment really cares. I thought that was illegal to assist someone in suicide.
- justm399Lv 61 decade ago
So without the gov't plan her options would be to do what exactly? get the treatments, pay $25/mo toward the cost until she dies. Then guess what? We all pay for her full treatment anyway.
- stumpedIILv 61 decade ago
i dont care who runs it..
but right now.. the ones running it .. earn their money.. get paid.. by denying health care.. people who want health care have to wait till it's an emergency.. then walk into an emergency room.. where they get reactive health care for free .. paid by the taxpayer.. not the insurance companys...
the insurance industry owns the politicians.. that's why they stay in control of our health care system.. thru bribery extortion and criminal corruption of our politicians..
you want to make health care cheaper.. get rid of the insurance companys.. they profit only by denying health care..
nixon is still laughing