celticlord

There's no denying that such is not possible.

However, there is something deeply disturbing about government making the call as to what patients are "cost effective" to treat and what patients are not "cost effective."

If there is good competition in the health insurance market place (and I say "if" because I realize that the over-regulated nature of insurance today makes that unlikely), then the constraints of profit and market share operate to give cancer patients such as her a maximal amount of care for the dollars she has to spend (even if she herself could not switch, the negative PR from being too stingy would drive other healthier customers away from the insurance provider). Even in the current environment there is a base level of accountability that can be brought via the marketplace.

If all there is is GovernmentCare, how can they be held accountable for the worthiness of their allocations? How can anyone be certain GovernmentCare is making a truly equitable distribution of resources to treat the sick?

Additionally, to deny lifesaving care and in the same form letter offer to pay for assisted suicide just has a creep factor all its own. It would be perverse even coming from a private insurance company--the creep factor is multiplied when it comes from the state.

goldendog

Assisted suicide became legal in Oregon under the Bush Administraton....

celticlord

So?

Legal is one thing. Government-sponsored and advocated is another. That is just not a decision I want being placed in the hands of government employees, not ever.

Kernel Sanders

Why is it any more disturbing when the government makes health care choices than when some bureaucrat in the private sectore makes them?

celticlord

Because government, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed, should not ever view the governed as a liability.

The problem is that government is not the private sector, does not arise from the same dynamics and motivations as the private sector, and should be guided by different principles than the private sector.

It is more disturbing because government should never be the one to decide which lives have sufficient value to justify health care. That is not a power given to government.

1069

There comes a point in the treatment of cancer where chemo and other options have been exhausted and a new program consisting solely of palliative care is undertaken.
This is nothing new.
If, in addition to palliative care, terminal cancer patients in Oregon are now being offered the option of assisted suicide, so much the better. Lucky them.
A person can never have too many options, especially when suffering from end-stage cancer, a condition that robs one of so much of one's ability to control anything about one's life.

Don't Tase Me Bro

Oh don't you know? We'll just vote them out of office like we do every other year that they **** up and 98% of them still reelected anyway.

Don't Tase Me Bro

Which is relevant how?

Don't Tase Me Bro

There is just a tad bit of difference between you making that decision yourself and the government making it for you.

RightinNYC

How is this even remotely different from the system we already have?

I guarantee you that there are already plenty of procedures or medications that would be helpful to many individuals, but are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid due to their expense. Does that mean that "GovernmentCare" is killing people?

No, there's absolutely not.

The government is not deciding what health care you get. It is simply deciding what it will pay for. You are free to get whatever healthcare you want. This is the exact system we already have.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.