From reader Pat Riotic comes this end-times news:
Dan,
Do you recall the obnoxious news story about Oregon’s health care program declining to treat a woman’s lung cancer due to cost, but could find it in their budget to fund her assisted suicide?
The Oregonian says this must be fixed. But why they say it must be fixed is equally as obnoxious:
“The dust-up over this conflict comes at a poor time for backers of a Washington state initiative that mirrors Oregon’s aid-in-dying law. That’s too bad…”
Their thoughts on the State’s version of single payer health care? That’s here:
“In Wagner’s case, administrators of the Oregon Health Plan had to make a difficult call. But that’s what they do every day in performing the tough, thankless job of rationing government-paid health care to the needy.”
“You think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free,” someone more eloquent than I once said…
Two, four, six, eight . . . Time for us to palliate.
The Oregonian’s reasoning is “obnoxious”? The full quote:
“The dust-up over this conflict comes at a poor time for backers of a Washington state initiative that mirrors Oregon’s aid-in-dying law. That’s too bad, as Wagner’s story could cloud what Washington voters really ought to know about Oregon’s 10 years of experience with the law.”
And the lead goes like this:
“Opponents of physician-assisted suicide are fired up this summer, and rightfully so, over an ethically questionable provision of the Oregon Health Plan.”
Also, your correspondent writes about “Oregon’s health care program declining to treat a woman’s lung cancer due to cost,” apparently without realizing that the very article he cites points out that, yes, her lung cancer was treated. Again, from the article:
“Predictably, critics of Oregon’s unique-in-the-nation law are aflame over Wagner’s story, some claiming it covers killing but not cancer. That’s not exactly true, of course. The program that rations subsidized health care for low-income Oregonians has paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner’s cancer care, and it will continue to do so.
It stopped short, however, of paying for a cancer drug that failed to meet the state’s long-standing “five-year, 5 percent rule.” It won’t approve payment for treatment that doesn’t provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years.”
You should consider getting some new correspondents, or at least reading the things they send you before posting it on the internet. The internet serious business! SERIOUS BUSINESS!111111111!twelve
This is what socialism looks like. No mas, por favor.
Visualize
World Peacethe savings!For some reason, this woman’s doctor decided it was worth a try. Aren’t you on board with “fast-tracking” unproved medications when someone’s life is on the line? I mean, I don’t think she should take it personally or anything, but kind of sucks for her, eh?
I’m off ta gether ma wee bairn. See you late tonight.
“For some reason, this woman’s doctor decided it was worth a try. Aren’t you on board with ‘fast-tracking’ unproved medications when someone’s life is on the line?”
I don’t know the details of this particular case, but I’m in favor of marginal utility, even if no one else is anymore, so, based on what little I know about the case, I would say that if we’re running a socialized medicine program – and, of course, we are, and have been for some time – then we ought to at least get bang for our buck. As for unproven medications, I have no problem with any patient taking them. Personally, I’ll take anything as long as the bottle says that I shouldn’t drive while taking it. The point I was making, though, only relates to the manner in which certain parties who believe that the state should be able to forbid a citizen from choosing to die have latched on to this case, misrepresented demonstrable facts about it – and then, of course, the dishonesty is transmitted like a virus. It becomes another one of those false anecdotes which will later be used to misinform the public on matters of public policy. This is a subject of great interest to me.
“I mean, I don’t think she should take it personally or anything, but kind of sucks for her, eh?”
Yes.
“I’m off ta gether ma wee bairn”
Also, I wish Babelfish or one of those other translating deals had a “Scottish to English” button. Seems like an oversight.
Let’s start by denying healthcare to elected officials. They should live by the rules they make for us
Barret Brown: “It stopped short, however, of paying for a cancer drug that failed to meet the state’s long-standing “five-year, 5 percent rule.†It won’t approve payment for treatment that doesn’t provide at least a 5 percent chance of survival after five years.—
IOW, she wasn’t being treated.
Barret Brown: “I don’t know the details of this particular case, but I’m in favor of marginal utility, even if no one else is anymore, so, based on what little I know about the case, I would say that if we’re running a socialized medicine program – and, of course, we are, and have been for some time – then we ought to at least get bang for our buck. ”
So, we give her a high and hearty handshake for her “contributions” to the system, decline to cover her and tell he we will pay for her physician to kill her.
Barret Brown: “Also, I wish Babelfish or one of those other translating deals had a “Scottish to English†button. Seems like an oversight.”
Ah, fekoof, ya sassanach. ;)
“IOW, she wasn’t being treated.”
There is a reason that Mr. Collins did not dispute my characterization that she was being treated. The startling secret lies here!
“The program that rations subsidized health care for low-income Oregonians has paid thousands of dollars over the years for Wagner’s cancer care, and it will continue to do so.”
If you don’t think that treatment constitutes treatment, and that a woman who is being treated is not actually being treated because she is not getting a particular sort of treatment in addition to the others sorts of treatment with which she is being treated, then you will be among those who are eaten last. Think to the future, my friend. THINK TO THE TERRIBLE FUTURE THAT LIES IN STORE FOR US ALL KTHANX!!!!!
Genentech stepped up and is providing her the drug Tarceva (erlotinib) at no cost to Wagner, although she will have to re-apply for it after one year.
One difficulty with the Oregon rule is that by current standards, chemo in advanced cancer IS comfort care. The standard in oncology is to provide chemo to get benefits other than life-extension. (It can mean less pain, fewer hospitalizations, and improved quality of life even when it doesn’t extend life by five year, or ultimately change the course of the disease. The denial was partly pretext, as comfort care is supposed to be covered. Since chemo can be used to extend life, they are asserting its primary purpose is to extend life so they can weasel out of paying under some very obsolete rules.
Her doctor picked her out as a good candidate, likely to benefit from the drug, in part because she had responded well to earlier treatments and lived longer than most lung cancer patients. There is a modest life span benefit from Tarceva (31% survival after one year).
Oregon’s big comeback to the “not up to current standards of oncology care” is a: we can’t afford to pay for everything and b: there are lots of less expensive ways to provide comfort.
Like the sweet gift of death, apparently.
BB: I think th point is that this patient received a note from the state that said, basically, “We won’t pay for a drug that may improve your chances of survival marginally, and that may reduce final suffering, but we will assist you to kill yourself.” Yes, treatment was refused, even if it was additional treatment that somehow you do not consider a treatment withheld by state edict, by state rationiong of health care. Treatment is withheld and suicide is offered as an alternative, all in the same letter.
Why do liberals have to be so cruel and murderous to achieve their goals?
Despite the nuance in the situation that I’m deliberately overlooking, I think that we should pause to consider that we’re talking about a system that guarantees fewer Oregonians.
Discuss.
Give BB some credit. He is the first liberal I have seen that is willing to admit that socialized medicine means state rationed health care. All the other liberals lie and pretend that health care will be free and bountiful when the state takes it over.
At least BB is being honest. We may disagree on whether or not having the government in charge of such decisions is good (obviously it is not), or whether gov’t can even be remotely efficient in providing health care (it cannot), but it is a big step for a lib to come in and say “yes, the state will be rationing health care, it will be denying care that it deems expensive or not certain enough, and I fully support such decisions”.
If you don’t know what Dan meant, you did not watch ST-TOS.
This is what we have to look forward to when Baracky and the Dems get their way.
“Yes, treatment was refused, even if it was additional treatment that somehow you do not consider a treatment withheld by state edict, by state rationing of health care.”
It is not statist for the state to decline to pay for a particular treatment for one of its citizens. The state is not preventing her from receiving any additional treatments on her own in addition to the assistance that she already received.
“Why do liberals have to be so cruel and murderous to achieve their goals?”
You should ask one. Maybe he or she will invite you to post on Daily Kos about how how mean it is that a particular state government is disinclined to spend more tax dollars on more social services.
Aw Barrett, crack yer phizzer an’ gie yer erse an chance, eh?
“Aw Barrett, crack yer phizzer an’ gie yer erse an chance, eh?”
I assume this is Scottish for “I’m out of liquor.” We share a common problem.
I assume this is Scottish for “I’m out of liquor.†We share a common problem.
Not even close, but I like the way you think.
Comment by Barrett Brown on 8/1 @ 12:27 pm #
“The state is not preventing her from receiving any additional treatments on her own in addition to the assistance that she already received.”
Not in this case. If we go to a single payer system that guides (via varying possible levels of force and coercion) people into public care… how about then?
Because I agree you have been up front. Now please consider how many people on the public healthcare for all bandwagon want to take over the system via various means to give everyone equal care.
In Canada they went all out and outlawed private care. The UK tried to be a little trickier and put all doctors on the public payroll. Both schemes unraveled but there is a definite pattern that many lefties have forced equality as a side goal in this. Otherwise why try to get the middle class on pubic healthcare?
“Not in this case. If we go to a single payer system that guides (via varying possible levels of force and coercion) people into public care… how about then? Because I agree you have been up front. Now please consider how many people on the public healthcare for all bandwagon want to take over the system via various means to give everyone equal care.”
I have never advocated for a single payer system, and have no dog in the ongoing fight between the Republican and Democratic parties over how much and what sorts of statism ought to be implemented by the federal government. I do have opinions about which sorts of statism are most inappropriate, destructive, and logically indefensible, though, and have expressed this elsewhere.
Despite the nuance in the situation that I’m deliberately overlooking, I think that we should pause to consider that we’re talking about a system that guarantees fewer Oregonians.
Discuss.
Good God, dicentra! Consider yourself denounced!
…
…
…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
OK, I denounce myself too, but that was fried gold.
Is there a reason we should care?
What upsets me, is why have the Republicans taken government health care as a given? As far as I’m concerned, it’s not, and never should be.
How about if square one states: “Uh-uh! No way! Obama, Nancy, and Harry need to keep their mitts out of my health care”?
It is just an absolute outrage that these idiots want to destroy this country’s outstanding healthcare industry.
If you know any doctors, you should know that the government is choking them to death already.
Kewl. I’ve never actually been denounced before, to my face and all. It’s quite refreshing.
I believe Oregon’s system is single-pay, which means no private insurance options are available, meaning the state a). first deprived her of the option of acquiring or using private health insurance, and b). deprived her of additional treatment.
Why do liberals have to be so mean to achieve their goals?
*waving and smiling* Hi, Dicentra! I’ve never been denounced by anyone either! *frown* Could you oblige me?
dicentra – I know for a fact that I have denounced, and condemned you previously.
Geezer – Ask, and you shall receive. Racist. Under the back of the bus with you. Your denunciation is now complete.
Thank you, JD. Dicentra is right! It is refreshing!
I prefer to think of it as liberating.
Oregon’s health plan has been a fiasco since it’s inception, it is constantly running in the red, several major providers have bailed out of it because they just don’t get paid.
Unfortunately, some of us are stuck with denouncing ourselves.
But I’ve figured a way around that.
I hereby denounce everybody!
Anybody else having problems with the “T” on their keyboard being covered with some kind of black goo? It’s very confusing, and when you’re a keyboard “pecker’ like I am, sometimes it takes me ten minutes to remember what’s under that black spot.
“Geezer – Ask, and you shall receive. Racist. Under the back of the bus with you. Your denunciation is now complete.”
I would be real careful about that back of the bus thing. Unless maybe you’re a vegan.
#34
! denounce you retroactively to last May. Consider yourself denounced’
My “P” sticks, but I’m seeing a urologist for it.
No. Seriously. It does stick , but I attribute that to the very large cinnimon roll I had while surfing the web at Panera Bread.
JD: I know for a fact that I have denounced, and condemned you previously.
I must not have seen it, but I do recall an inexplicable breath of fresh air awhile back. That must have been it.