View Full Version : woman denied chemo offered assisted suicide
namvet
08-02-2009, 04:56 PM
answer is simple. Oregon state officials controlled the process of healthcare decision-making—not Barbara and her physician. Chemotherapy would cost the state $4,000 every month she remained alive; the drugs for physician-assisted suicide held a one-time expense of less than $100. Barbara’s treatment plan boiled down to accounting. To cover chemotherapy state policy demanded a five percent patient survival rate at five years. As a new drug, Tarceva did not meet this dispassionate criterion. To Oregon, Barbara was no longer a patient; she had become a "negative economic unit."
story (story)
if passed Osama will make this call in all 57 states. including the old clunkers
Joe Steel
08-02-2009, 05:11 PM
Try again, dumbass. The US has 50 states.
namvet
08-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Try again, dumbass. The US has 50 states.
the liberals have 57 dumb fuck
Gaffer
08-02-2009, 05:45 PM
the liberals have 57 dumb fuck
Yep the dark lord said so himself.
So, did this women have medical insurence or what now?
namvet
08-02-2009, 06:23 PM
So, did this women have medical insurence or what now?
The answer is simple. Oregon state officials controlled the process of healthcare decision-making
looks like it dosen't matter
looks like it dosen't matter
No it does matter. If the state is stopping the women from getting medical aid that she has covered in insurence then the state is way our of line.
However, if she has no insurence and the taxpayer is paying all the costs then the state has to justify it's costs, and spending $4000 per month for the rest of a women life is a massive cost, and as I assume you are against welfare healthcare for all, then you would be against this women getting state funded medical attention.
namvet
08-02-2009, 07:04 PM
No it does matter. If the state is stopping the women from getting medical aid that she has covered in insurence then the state is way our of line.
However, if she has no insurence and the taxpayer is paying all the costs then the state has to justify it's costs, and spending $4000 per month for the rest of a women life is a massive cost, and as I assume you are against welfare healthcare for all, then you would be against this women getting state funded medical attention.
don't shoot the messenger.
and as I assume you are against welfare healthcare for all, then you would be against this women getting state funded medical attention
why would i be against this??? did i say as much??? get a grip.
don't shoot the messenger.
I ain't shooting anyone. You were the one who chose to post this, and you have a motive behind posting it. Thus I wanted to ask some questions about the story.
why would i be against this??? did i say as much??? get a grip.
Ofcourse. How rude of me to assume. So lemme ask instead, do you think the state should of paid the $4000 per month, for life, treatment for this women?
namvet
08-02-2009, 07:27 PM
I ain't shooting anyone. You were the one who chose to post this, and you have a motive behind posting it. Thus I wanted to ask some questions about the story.
Ofcourse. How rude of me to assume. So lemme ask instead, do you think the state should of paid the $4000 per month, for life, treatment for this women?
my motive was the tragedy behind it. I think she as well as MEN should should be given every chance to live.
my motive was the tragedy behind it. I think she as well as MEN should should be given every chance to live.
Indeed. Inwhich case you must support a national healthcare system. Sorry, but I assumed that you would not support it, which is were I went wrong.
No hard feelings :beer:
namvet
08-02-2009, 07:35 PM
Indeed. Inwhich case you must support a national healthcare system. Sorry, but I assumed that you would not support it, which is were I went wrong.
No hard feelings :beer:
wrong again. now what??? pistols at 10 paces ????
Little-Acorn
08-02-2009, 07:44 PM
Try again, dumbass. The US has 50 states.
(sigh) Some people just never quite get it.
And prominent among them, as usual, is little joesteel, cursing and namecalling as fast as he can while displaying his ignorance of even the simplest of recent history.
Some things never change.... :poke:
namvet
08-02-2009, 07:50 PM
what's funny is the tax's are coming out of his pocket to. he just hasn't figured it out yet :laugh2:
Joe Steel
08-02-2009, 07:55 PM
However, if she has no insurence and the taxpayer is paying all the costs then the state has to justify it's costs, and spending $4000 per month for the rest of a women life is a massive cost, and as I assume you are against welfare healthcare for all, then you would be against this women getting state funded medical attention.
That's the situation. The woman has a public plan which can't afford to pay for treatment which is extraordinarily expensive and which has only a small likelihood of success. It's no different than a private insurance plan.
The only alternative would be a public plan supported by unlimited taxes to fund any and every possible therapy.
Say what now?
my motive was the tragedy behind it. I think she as well as MEN should should be given every chance to live.
Ergo, no matter the cost the state should pay, which will have to come through taxes.
but you do not support a national healthcare plan, which would involve the state paying with taxes that have been raised to given every man an woman healthcare.
How can you be for this case on it's own, but against the policy when it is put to a nation wide level?
namvet
08-02-2009, 10:13 PM
Say what now?
Ergo, no matter the cost the state should pay, which will have to come through taxes.
but you do not support a national healthcare plan, which would involve the state paying with taxes that have been raised to given every man an woman healthcare.
How can you be for this case on it's own, but against the policy when it is put to a nation wide level?
maybe some day when you come down with a terminal diagnosis you'll understand. your an animal anyway.
Little-Acorn
08-02-2009, 10:49 PM
(sigh) Some people just never quite get it.
And prominent among them, as usual, is little joesteel, cursing and namecalling as fast as he can while displaying his ignorance of even the simplest of recent history.
Some things never change....
That's the situation. The woman has a public plan which can't afford to pay for treatment which is extraordinarily expensive and which has only a small likelihood of success. It's no different than a private insurance plan.
And when he's caught in his mendacity and bile-spewing, he simply switches to outright lies. Needless to say, he is unable to name even ONE private insurance plan which woould promise to cover all treatments up to a very high limit (and the insured can set that limit), and then not cover this woman's needs in the situation described.
I'd guess the OP posted this case to demonstrate how poorly government-run medical plans cover difficult cases (even non-rare ones like chemotherapy for dangerous cancers). If you can get through all little joe's snarling and sliming, he's actually done a fair job of admitting the truth about his hero's plans: They will often let the really needy die, while leaving them NO alternative, unlike private plans.
namvet
08-03-2009, 08:50 AM
enter Eugenics. which Pelosi publicly supports. what if this is a 4 year old kid??? she is not allowed to be born. except within the master race.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Eugenics_congress_logo.png
maybe some day when you come down with a terminal diagnosis you'll understand. your an animal anyway.
Damn that's a good put down, successfully debunking my post without making any reference to it. You are clearly debating a a far higher level than I could ever hope to compete with. I thus must back down.
mundame
08-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Damn that's a good put down, successfully debunking my post without making any reference to it. You are clearly debating a a far higher level than I could ever hope to compete with. I thus must back down.
You're good, Noir...............
I may have to copy this tactic. :wink2:
You're good, Noir...............
I may have to copy this tactic. :wink2:
Cheers! :cheers2:
You may ofcourse use my tatic, for a fee, as i have taken a copyright out on it. But just keep up the payments and all shall be fine ^.^
Seriously though it's amazing what some folk believe is an acceptable reply to a few questons.
Insein
08-04-2009, 08:43 AM
That's the situation. The woman has a public plan which can't afford to pay for treatment which is extraordinarily expensive and which has only a small likelihood of success. It's no different than a private insurance plan.
The only alternative would be a public plan supported by unlimited taxes to fund any and every possible therapy.
So, you're stating that the public plan did not allow her to decide whether she could live or die? So, according to Joe Steel, the Public option does not allow you or your physician to choose what care you should get? A patient is merely a number and a dollar sign? Hmmm. thanks for clarifying for me, Joe.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.