$4000 vs. $100, "an unfortunate interpretation"

[See It Clearly]

A preview of things to come, from the State of Oregon.

Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment (http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html)


"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."

Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.

Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan, said Wagner is making an "unfortunate interpretation" of the letter and that no one is telling her the health plan will only pay for her to die.

Saha said state health officials do not consider whether it is cheaper for someone in the health plan to die than live. However, he admitted they must consider the state's limited dollars when dealing with a case such as Wagner's.

HERE'S THE KICKER

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.

[ThrowCop]

Ever heard of an HMO?

I don't support government run health care of any kind but these kind of arguments are really poor.


I have problems with my ankles that a fairly costly surgery could fix. My insurance refused that treatment but did offer me shoe inserts that would lessen the pain.

That kinda thing happens to ALL non-personally-funded care.

[See It Clearly]

Ever heard of an HMO?

I don't support government run health care of any kind but these kind of arguments are really poor.


I have problems with my ankles that a fairly costly surgery could fix. My insurance refused that treatment but did offer me shoe inserts that would lessen the pain.

That kinda thing happens to ALL non-personally-funded care.

So your comparison of the cost differences between assisted death vs. living is....ankle pain?

[MrShotShot]

Ever heard of an HMO?

I don't support government run health care of any kind but these kind of arguments are really poor.


I have problems with my ankles that a fairly costly surgery could fix. My insurance refused that treatment but did offer me shoe inserts that would lessen the pain.

That kinda thing happens to ALL non-personally-funded care.

I don't find these to be poor arguments at all.

If this is the kind of stuff that is happening in the few state run programs around the country, it should terrify all of us to think what will happen when it goes nation-wide. Add to that, what happens when the nation-wide program is tens of billions over budget, we have a multi-trillion federal deficit, and an aging population.

How can anyone not see this as a recipe for disaster?

[captusa]

So your comparison of the cost differences between assisted death vs. living is....ankle pain?

The point is that private coverage puts as much or more restrictions on health care than government run programs.
Insurance companies regularly refuse any treatment they can describe as "experimental".
For defense of government involvement, it is more likely a government program would be more likely to combine with drug companies to fund "experimental" treatments than private insurers.

[captusa]

I don't find these to be poor arguments at all.

If this is the kind of stuff that is happening in the few state run programs around the country, it should terrify all of us to think what will happen when it goes nation-wide. Add to that, what happens when the nation-wide program is tens of billions over budget, we have a multi-trillion federal deficit, and an aging population.

How can anyone not see this as a recipe for disaster?

Throw-cop is describing an HMO.
Private insurer not government.

[MrShotShot]

The point is that private coverage puts as much or more restrictions on health care than government run programs.
Insurance companies regularly refuse any treatment they can describe as "experimental".
For defense of government involvement, it is more likely a government program would be more likely to combine with drug companies to fund "experimental" treatments than private insurers.

You mean those same drug companies that are demonized at every turn by the government?

Do you have anything to backup your claim or is this just more liberal "land of milk and honey" fantasizing?

The other important point is that is your insurance company does deny such treatment, there is nothing stopping someone from pursuing it on their own if they so choose. Once we're all on the gummit plan, that won't be possible.

[MrShotShot]

Throw-cop is describing an HMO.
Private insurer not government.

Yes, but the original example is the government.

Throw Cop was making the argument that this stuff happens in HMOs as well.

[LouC]

...HERE'S THE KICKER

"If we invest thousands and thousands of dollars in one person's days to weeks, we are taking away those dollars from someone," Saha said.

First off this is an old story.

What you call the "KICKER" is the flat out truth.

The Oregon Plan is not privy to a bottomless well of money, should they expend all that limited source on maybe prolonging the inevitable for the terminal on new costly medication when they have all those who could be kept from going terminal from the providing of proven medication?

When one signs up for the Oregon Plan it informs right up front that it does not pay for such drugs.

[MrShotShot]

When one signs up for the Oregon Plan it informs right up front that it does not pay for such drugs.

Healthy 20 year old: "hey man, I don't want to pay for insurance because it's too expensive. Do you like my 58" plasma and new BMW?"

Oregon Plan official: "No problem. We've got you covered. Sign here. By the way, we don't cover those expensive and radical cancer drugs and such."

Healthy 20 year old: "that's cool. I'm a healthy 20 year old who is going to live forever. By the way, did you check out my cool $5K Panerai watch?"

Healthy 20 year old - 50 years later: "But I've got colon cancer. What do you mean those drugs aren't covered?"

Oregon Plan official: "hey, sorry, you signed it. It was in black and white on the Form X5-273-419-amended. By the way, you had a great watch back then."

[See It Clearly]

First off this is an old story.

What you call the "KICKER" is the flat out truth.

The Oregon Plan is not privy to a bottomless well of money, should they expend all that limited source on maybe prolonging the inevitable for the terminal on new costly medication when they have all those who could be kept from going terminal from the providing of proven medication?

When one signs up for the Oregon Plan it informs right up front that it does not pay for such drugs.

DOH!!!!!!! Nice diversion, but wrong-o.

The kicker is that the same person who claims this was an "unfortunate interpretation" by the patient, goes on to prove that the interpretation was correct.

[Greyclouds]

Healthy 20 year old: "hey man, I don't want to pay for insurance because it's too expensive. Do you like my 58" plasma and new BMW?"

Oregon Plan official: "No problem. We've got you covered. Sign here. By the way, we don't cover those expensive and radical cancer drugs and such."

Healthy 20 year old: "that's cool. I'm a healthy 20 year old who is going to live forever. By the way, did you check out my cool $5K Panerai watch?"

Healthy 20 year old - 50 years later: "But I've got colon cancer. What do you mean those drugs aren't covered?"

Oregon Plan official: "hey, sorry, you signed it. It was in black and white on the Form X5-273-419-amended. By the way, you had a great watch back then."

Funny... the oregon plan covered her initial surgery. So your "20 year old" analogy is only fixed if you insert these lines prior to the ending two:


20 year old 50 years later: I got a polyp and need it removed.

Oregon plan official: alright we'll pay for your biopsy and possible removal.


Then change the 20 year old's final statement to: my tumor became malignant and I missed several colonoscopies that would diagnose it. My only option is a tumor suppressant that'll give me 7 more months to live, will you pay for it? It's only $4000 a month!

Oregon plan official: I'm sorry but we cannot cover such a treatment due to our 1994 statute that does not cover drugs that only give a 5% survival rate over 5 years. You are more than welcome to pay for the drug yourself.

[LouC]

DOH!!!!!!! Nice diversion, but wrong-o.

The kicker is that the same person who claims this was an "unfortunate interpretation" by the patient, goes on to prove that the interpretation was correct.

Your kicker does not exist.

The woman did interpret the letter wrong, unfortunately.

The letter said it would provide "comfort care" as well as the "assisted suicide" option.

She made it sound as if they were telling her her only option was "assisted suicide".

[ThrowCop]

So your comparison of the cost differences between assisted death vs. living is....ankle pain?Yes. That's kinda the definition of a comparison.