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.