Oregon Health Plan denies cancer treatment, offers assisted suicide instead

[Jake]

But hey, it's "free" healthcare for all!

An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide. ?Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan."

State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy,child birth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.

In other words, it's not free healthcare, it's rationed healthcare. But I'm sure any federal "universal health care" plan would never do such a thing to us. (Pay no attention to the fact that this goes on in Canada and England, among others).

Fortunately, for this woman, the evil drug company is covering the cost for her instead of the compassionate government that cares so much about us all.

Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Jake

But hey, it's "free" healthcare for all!

An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide. ?Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan."

State officials say the Oregon Health Plan prioritizes treatments, with diagnoses and ailments deemed the most important, such as pregnancy,child birth and preventive care for children at the top of the list. Other treatments rank below, officials said.

In other words, it's not free healthcare, it's rationed healthcare. But I'm sure any federal "universal health care" plan would never do such a thing to us. (Pay no attention to the fact that this goes on in Canada and England, among others).

Fortunately, for this woman, the evil drug company is covering the cost for her instead of the compassionate government that cares so much about us all.

Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient

Your ability to transpose one factual scenario to another hypothetical situtaion is impressive. Lots of blacks were lynched in America in the 20th century. Maine is a part of America. I bet they lynched a lot of people in Maine in 1999.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Your ability to transpose one factual scenario to another hypothetical situtaion is impressive. Lots of blacks were lynched in America in the 20th century. Maine is a part of America. I bet they lynched a lot of people in Maine in 1999.

Your ability to change the subject to something irrelevant is equally impressive. It seems to happen when you either don't like, or can't grasp, the topic at hand.

You like to reference history, and yet you ignore such evidence on things like socialized medicine, taxation, and government policy when it conflicts with how you feel about a topic.

Socialized medicine kills. There are plenty of studies to support it. Start with the Fraser Institute and go from there.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by Jake

Your ability to change the subject to something irrelevant is equally impressive. It seems to happen when you either don't like, or can't grasp, the topic at hand.

You like to reference history, and yet you ignore such evidence on things like socialized medicine, taxation, and government policy when it conflicts with how you feel about a topic.

Socialized medicine kills. There are plenty of studies to support it. Start with the Fraser Institute and go from there.

Certainly our own views add a bias. But for you to go from a some policy wonk in Oregon making a decision to an assertion that it is a universal that any other admin type at all public run facilities everywhere will make the same mistake is just not credible. That is like saying because of (fill in the blank horror story of insurance company denying benefits in bad faith) private insurance is not a valid model. Your sweeping generalization is fine for talk radio, but not so valid in a debate. Other than this incident, how does the Oregon system stack up to the private insurers in the area in costs and services? One incident does not warrant that giant leap of conclusion......in my opinion. BTW, my addressing your conclusion method I find relevant.

You make statements like "its not free health care its rationed health care" ignoring the fact that all present private health care is rationed - by access to wealth, health care plans and by underwriting.

I have news: if socialized healthcare kills, so does no health care. And nobody has ever said that there will not likely be a two tiered system. Rich folk will always be able to access better doctors.

What is your answer to the current health care crisis if you do not like universal health care? Natural selection? I'm serious. What is your fix?

[bluechillj]

Originally Posted by Jake

Your ability to change the subject to something irrelevant is equally impressive. It seems to happen when you either don't like, or can't grasp, the topic at hand.

You like to reference history, and yet you ignore such evidence on things like socialized medicine, taxation, and government policy when it conflicts with how you feel about a topic.

Socialized medicine kills. There are plenty of studies to support it. Start with the Fraser Institute and go from there.

I think he (Gator) is just reacting to the way the issue was framed in the original post....sarcasm and hyperbole instead of what could have been a more substantive exchange on the topic. Maybe it was put this way because the topic has already been debated elsewhere in more detail and you were going for humor, but I think these types of framings just polarize us more on what are complicated, important issues.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by bluechillj

I think he's just reacting to the way the issue was framed in the original post....sarcasm and hyperbole instead of what could have been a more substantive exchange on the topic. Maybe it was put this way because the topic has already been debated elsewhere in more detail and you were going for humor, but I think these types of framings just polarize us more on what are complicated, important issues.

Don't you touch my [censored]ing sarcasm button

Jake and I do not agree on most things political. I like to respond to fact based post with facts, sarcasm and generalities with my own brand of shtick. But you'll note that I returned to asking about specifics.

Don't take the fun out of this. Jake is a big boy who is more than capable of responding in a cogent and persuasive manner.