• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead

TheHat

TheHat

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
551
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well there you have it folks. Straight up rationing in the state of Oregon.

Watch the video, listen to the doctor who tries to tell the reporter that the woman read the letter wrong. Then figure out why the guy cant look the reporter in the eye.

This is what is coming if we get Obamacare nationwide. Like they said in the video, its cheaper to kill somebody, then to try and keep them alive. Obama wants to cut costs, what better way then to tell grandma its cheaper to kill her off, then to keep her alive? Also, we already got video of Obama saying its perhaps better to give grandma a pill then to give her a pacemaker from a few weeks back.

Unbelievable.

Hot Air Blog Archive Video: Oregon says no to chemotherapy, offers assisted suicide instead

Money quote:

Single-payer systems have to handle medical services as a shortage market, rationing them by using “comparative effectiveness” paradigms to determine who gets medical attention, and who gets “physician-aid-in-dying” instead of it.
Click to expand...
 
Oregon's lack of Health Caring is the prototype for the National Socialist Plan!

WELCOME TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD YOU WILL FIND IN THE OBAMA I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR HEALTH PLAN

Read it for yourself if you dare. http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/healthcare_overview_obama_072909.pdf

Then once you get informed get involved and stop the National Socialists who's ideas appear to be built on the 1919 to 1945 model and ended up costing over 20 million lives.
But then there are those who love nothing more than to see world population reduced down to a manageable and sustainable number around 500,000 or so give or take a few servants (slaves). Don't believe me please, Google; Henry Kissinger The Population Reduction Agenda . Then read anyone of a number of the stories and then check them out. Yes some are on questionable sites but some are not and the all say the same thing. That being, you and I are USELESS EATERS in the eyes of the Global Elite. This is not a conspiracy theory it is a well known & documented fact since Kissinger made the speech about at a Bilderberg Group meeting. Then Google; "useless eaters" if you still need convincing and learn the history behind that two word phrase. People need to begin to understand that this isn't about Liberal or Conservative it's about right and wrong, good and evil.
 
Last edited:
More doom and gloom, sky is falling lies from the right. SURPRISE!
 
formerroadie said:
More doom and gloom, sky is falling lies from the right. SURPRISE!
Click to expand...

epic-fail.jpg


Why even bother commenting?
 
... such events also occur in the private sector for the same reasons. Well, except in most places you rot instead of being offered the assisted suicide option.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
... such events also occur in the private sector for the same reasons. Well, except in most places you rot instead of being offered the assisted suicide option.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Glad somebody pointed that out.
 
Morality Games said:
... such events also occur in the private sector for the same reasons. Well, except in most places you rot instead of being offered the assisted suicide option.
Click to expand...

True. Insurance companies routinely deny care that is too expensive. That's to say I think a single payer system is a good idea, but it's not like private insurers don't make the choice to let people die everyday.
 
Stop the ranting for a minute and think about what you're saying - do you people really think that the government should be required to pay for whatever healthcare people want?

The state is not killing this woman, they're simply not paying for chemotherapy. She's free to pay for it herself.

Requiring that the state pay for chemotherapy even where it's not cost-effective simply because this person wants it is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.
 
Don't worry by the time Der Fuhrer in Chief Obama has finished his National Socialist take overs the pharmaceutical industries will be included and then he can Dictate the cost of drugs down to a level manageable by the bureaucracy.
I thought the Liberals were the compassionate ones claiming to be in favor of human rights and all that happy talk? Oh that's right, I shouldn't be surprised they don't care if the elderly die, they're no better than unborn babies. And who cares if the Obama I don't care about your Health and go ahead and kill Granny Plan causes thousands to die while waiting in line for months see a doctor because Obama said himself I head him that your current insurance company will be put out of business. And If you don't don't sign up and pay you'll be find $1000. But not is your a GD illegal alien you'll get your health care free payed for by real Americans.
Did someone say doom and gloom? Well hell you must have been reading from the 1018 page report. I have and it is horrifying. But then I may have assumed too much thinking a Liberal would read it for themselves, they have the Liar in Chief to tell them what to do. It's almost like having their own Rush only worse. All Rush can do is bun his mouth the National Socialist leader Obama can run the nation into the dirt.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Stop the ranting for a minute and think about what you're saying - do you people really think that the government should be required to pay for whatever healthcare people want?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Assisted suicide became legal in Oregon under the Bush Administraton....:lol:
 
goldendog said:
Assisted suicide became legal in Oregon under the Bush Administraton....:lol:
Click to expand...
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.
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why is it any more disturbing when the government makes health care choices than when some bureaucrat in the private sectore makes them?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Why is it any more disturbing when the government makes health care choices than when some bureaucrat in the private sectore makes them?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
celticlord said:
If all there is is GovernmentCare, how can they be held accountable for the worthiness of their allocations?
Click to expand...

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.
 
1069 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is just a tad bit of difference between you making that decision yourself and the government making it for you.
 
celticlord said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Don't Tase Me Bro said:
There is just a tad bit of difference between you making that decision yourself and the government making it for you.
Click to expand...

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?
 
RightinNYC said:
Stop the ranting for a minute and think about what you're saying - do you people really think that the government should be required to pay for whatever healthcare people want?
Click to expand...

LMAO! Well, healthcare is being sold as a "right" by the government. So, either you provide everybody the equal right, or it cant be a right at all.

2nd, if you condone rationing of care, how is that better quality care, which is also a staple of the government run health system.

The state is not killing this woman, they're simply not paying for chemotherapy. She's free to pay for it herself.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you didnt watch the video? They sent her a letter telling her instead of paying for chemotherapy, they would most certainly pay for physician assisted death. I dont know how more blunt they have to be for you to understand that.

Requiring that the state pay for chemotherapy even where it's not cost-effective simply because this person wants it is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which makes the entire arguement FOR UHC ridiculous b/c the government cannot match funds with the amount of care needed, if they are gonna proclaim healthcare is a right.

Just turn to Medicare and Medicaid as examples. Those stellar programs are running in the black arent they?
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Why is it any more disturbing when the government makes health care choices than when some bureaucrat in the private sectore makes them?
Click to expand...

Well for starters, the private sector insurance company cant mandate that I have coverage. They also cant put a gun to my head and tell me if I dont have coverage they will fine me.

Why do you guys WANT the government to run your lives for you? Can anybody for this please explain that to me? I cant wrap my brain around why someone would want an entity who cant run its other 2 healthcare programs properly, would want to turn over their entire care to that same entity. It defies all rational thought processes.
 
1069 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It would appear the example you speak of above, is not the example provided in the video now is it?

If the government takes over healthcare, there will be no other options. The government is not about providing people choices. Its about consolodating power so that more and more people are dependent upon it for daily activities.

Lord Obama already stated to a woman whose mother had a pacemaker put in at 99 years of age, that perhaps taking a pill is the answer instead. The government has to look at every person as a liability and determine each persons worth to the system. You will basically get eugenics of 1920 and 1930s all over again, only this time it will be mandated by law.
 
RightinNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

Kind of blows the entire premise that healthcare is a "right" out of the water doesnt it?

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?
Click to expand...

Um, what is the difference b/w deciding what healthcare you get and deciding what to pay for? If the government is gonna determine what it will pay for, then they are also determining what kind of healthcare you can get through them.

Are you for UHC? If so, and you proclaim this to be the exact system we already have, why change the system over to 1 that cant be held accountable?
 
TheHat said:
Well for starters, the private sector insurance company cant mandate that I have coverage. They also cant put a gun to my head and tell me if I dont have coverage they will fine me.

Why do you guys WANT the government to run your lives for you? Can anybody for this please explain that to me? I cant wrap my brain around why someone would want an entity who cant run its other 2 healthcare programs properly, would want to turn over their entire care to that same entity. It defies all rational thought processes.
Click to expand...

Because the uninsured health needs of the 40 million Americans who are not insured are draining the resources needed by the rest of us. It would be much, much cheaper to have everyone enrolled in some plan. And despite your ridiculous assertions about government not running programs properly, Medicare and the VA are efficient systems which are much appreciated by those served by them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom