Terminally ill 29 yo mom denied treatment coverage — but gets suicide drug approved

[Iceweasel]

denied treatment by the Insurance's Drug plan....not by the Doctor....

and that is just horrible!

it is an interesting ethical question. with medical care a finite resource do we have an obligation to prolong the life of every individual for as long as possible or do we need to take a more utilitarian approach and use the resources to provide the most benefit overall, which might mean the terminally ill or very old receive less care

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

The point is that people should be free to decide on the level of coverage, not government forcing competition out of the game.

 

[ogibillm]

it is an interesting ethical question. with medical care a finite resource do we have an obligation to prolong the life of every individual for as long as possible or do we need to take a more utilitarian approach and use the resources to provide the most benefit overall, which might mean the terminally ill or very old receive less care

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

Let everyone over 40 die, that would be economical.

you aren't interested in an actual discussion of the ethical questions inherent in health care, are you?

you're just happy to point fingers at the president for insurance company decisions and scream nazi at anyone who questions you.

 

[ogibillm]

denied treatment by the Insurance's Drug plan....not by the Doctor....

and that is just horrible!

So, will obamacare kick in? I thought treatment was not allowed to be denied?

She got drugs finally...

Health Insurance was not to be denied to those with pre-existing conditions...

it wasn't

Sadly, the Insurance companies still make all the decisions on what they will cover in situations like this, as they ALWAYS have done...

agreed

Obamacare passed and this is the result - death panels.

again, this has nothing to do with obamacare

 

[ogibillm]

it is an interesting ethical question. with medical care a finite resource do we have an obligation to prolong the life of every individual for as long as possible or do we need to take a more utilitarian approach and use the resources to provide the most benefit overall, which might mean the terminally ill or very old receive less care

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

The point is that people should be free to decide on the level of coverage, not government forcing competition out of the game.

in her case it wouldn't matter. she couldn't switch companies if it weren't for obamacare.

and insurance companies have always made these decisions

 

[Weatherman2020]

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

Let everyone over 40 die, that would be economical.

you aren't interested in an actual discussion of the ethical questions inherent in health care, are you?

you're just happy to point fingers at the president for insurance company decisions and scream nazi at anyone who questions you.

She wants to live, and you're arguing to kill her. You have no concept of ethics.

 

[Weatherman2020]

denied treatment by the Insurance's Drug plan....not by the Doctor....

and that is just horrible!

So, will obamacare kick in? I thought treatment was not allowed to be denied?

She got drugs finally...

Health Insurance was not to be denied to those with pre-existing conditions...

it wasn't

Sadly, the Insurance companies still make all the decisions on what they will cover in situations like this, as they ALWAYS have done...

agreed

Obamacare passed and this is the result - death panels.

again, this has nothing to do with obamacare

So Obamacare did nothing to help people, it just made Americans pay more for healthcare.

 

[ogibillm]

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

Let everyone over 40 die, that would be economical.

you aren't interested in an actual discussion of the ethical questions inherent in health care, are you?

you're just happy to point fingers at the president for insurance company decisions and scream nazi at anyone who questions you.

She wants to live, and you're arguing to kill her. You have no concept of ethics.

you aren't a deep thinker, are you?

i actually haven't argued either position, but i do acknowledge that both arguments exist.

now, should her desire to live allow her to consume massive resources to extend her life a few months when those resources could be used to extend the lives of many people for years?

 

[Care4all]

denied treatment by the Insurance's Drug plan....not by the Doctor....

and that is just horrible!

it is an interesting ethical question. with medical care a finite resource do we have an obligation to prolong the life of every individual for as long as possible or do we need to take a more utilitarian approach and use the resources to provide the most benefit overall, which might mean the terminally ill or very old receive less care

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

 

[koshergrl]

denied treatment by the Insurance's Drug plan....not by the Doctor....

and that is just horrible!

And exactly what we said would happen.

SS deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't. While at the same time paying for state *euthanasia*. Death panels.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it when it's your turn though.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

Let everyone over 40 die, that would be economical.

you aren't interested in an actual discussion of the ethical questions inherent in health care, are you?

you're just happy to point fingers at the president for insurance company decisions and scream nazi at anyone who questions you.

She wants to live, and you're arguing to kill her. You have no concept of ethics.

you aren't a deep thinker, are you?

i actually haven't argued either position, but i do acknowledge that both arguments exist.

now, should her desire to live allow her to consume massive resources to extend her life a few months when those resources could be used to extend the lives of many people for years?

The argument to lethally inject everyone over 40 exists too, dufus.

 

[Weatherman2020]

it is an interesting ethical question. with medical care a finite resource do we have an obligation to prolong the life of every individual for as long as possible or do we need to take a more utilitarian approach and use the resources to provide the most benefit overall, which might mean the terminally ill or very old receive less care

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

My father-in-law lived 15 years after the doctors gave him 3 months for liver cancer. And a heart attack did him in because he kept smoking.

 

[koshergrl]

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

My father-in-law lived 15 years after the doctors gave him 3 months for liver cancer. And a heart attack did him in because he kept smoking.

Doctors are wrong all the time.

Meanwhile, Logan's Run (1976) - IMDb

 

[Iceweasel]

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

The point is that people should be free to decide on the level of coverage, not government forcing competition out of the game.

in her case it wouldn't matter. she couldn't switch companies if it weren't for obamacare.

and insurance companies have always made these decisions

...for the same reason you can't switch auto insurance companies after a car crash. Forcing them to take on after accident coverage puts them out of business. A child running a Kool-Aid stand could tell you that.

The better option is less government mandates and more choices. We've seen the outcome of what the liberal's plan is, predictable as it was.

 

[ogibillm]

it is an interesting ethical question. with medical care a finite resource do we have an obligation to prolong the life of every individual for as long as possible or do we need to take a more utilitarian approach and use the resources to provide the most benefit overall, which might mean the terminally ill or very old receive less care

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

she wasn't losing treatment, but she was not getting a new form of treatment approved.

likely there was insufficient evidence or effectiveness for the insurance company to approve the new drug.

so should the insurance company have to pay for whatever treatment she desires?

 

[ogibillm]

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

The point is that people should be free to decide on the level of coverage, not government forcing competition out of the game.

in her case it wouldn't matter. she couldn't switch companies if it weren't for obamacare.

and insurance companies have always made these decisions

...for the same reason you can't switch auto insurance companies after a car crash. Forcing them to take on after accident coverage puts them out of business. A child running a Kool-Aid stand could tell you that.

The better option is less government mandates and more choices. We've seen the outcome of what the liberal's plan is, predictable as it was.

so then you understand that her insurance options are not limited by obamacare but by the market

 

[Weatherman2020]

Ahhhh yes the ever popular "utilitarian" approach to government. So, tell me. Is it OK to allow a mob to murder one person in the hope that no one else will be killed?

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

she wasn't losing treatment, but she was not getting a new form of treatment approved.

likely there was insufficient evidence or effectiveness for the insurance company to approve the new drug.

so should the insurance company have to pay for whatever treatment she desires?

A Doctor prescribed it.
29 and dead, leftist paradise.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

The point is that people should be free to decide on the level of coverage, not government forcing competition out of the game.

in her case it wouldn't matter. she couldn't switch companies if it weren't for obamacare.

and insurance companies have always made these decisions

...for the same reason you can't switch auto insurance companies after a car crash. Forcing them to take on after accident coverage puts them out of business. A child running a Kool-Aid stand could tell you that.

The better option is less government mandates and more choices. We've seen the outcome of what the liberal's plan is, predictable as it was.

so then you understand that her insurance options are not limited by obamacare but by the market

Pre existing conditions - unless it's something we don't want to pay for.

 

[ogibillm]

i would say not.

but if you have two patients needing an immediate heart transplant, one 90 and one 15, and one heart compatible with both, who gets it?

that answer seems obvious enough, but somewhere there is a decision that will be much tougher - so where do we draw the line?

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

she wasn't losing treatment, but she was not getting a new form of treatment approved.

likely there was insufficient evidence or effectiveness for the insurance company to approve the new drug.

so should the insurance company have to pay for whatever treatment she desires?

A Doctor prescribed it.
29 and dead, leftist paradise.

doctors can be shopped.
and doctors have their own biases and motivations.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How did you arrive at that analogy from the story? You went off into the weeds to find a strawman.

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

she wasn't losing treatment, but she was not getting a new form of treatment approved.

likely there was insufficient evidence or effectiveness for the insurance company to approve the new drug.

so should the insurance company have to pay for whatever treatment she desires?

A Doctor prescribed it.
29 and dead, leftist paradise.

doctors can be shopped.
and doctors have their own biases and motivations.

Insurance companies have doctors they tell you to go to.
As predicted, Death Panels exist.
Kiss Palin's ass.

 

[ogibillm]

no, i'm just illustrating that at a certain point we recognize a utilitarian argument as ethically correct in health care decisions.

so where is that point?

I disagree....if the person has the will to live on longer and wants to do such, like this woman...insurance should cover the drugs to do so.

She had already passed her DEATH DATE of living 3 years, she had the DESIRE and WILL so inbred to LIVE, that she was already beating the odds....

MIND OVER MATTER... type of situation...

If we arbitrarily just have a cut off of saying, NO MORE HEALTH CARE for any person with a terminal condition, we will be giving the okay to kill off, even those who have this overwhelming desire and fight in them, to live....

Many people will give up on their own and not insist on further Chemo or further treatment...my father in law was one of them, he just was ready to pass onward... so he didn't ask for further treatments.

But this woman, is different and there are others just like her, than can beat the odds and maybe double the time of their death sentence from 3 years to 6 or 10 years....

AND TO DENY THEM, to me, is simply, INHUMANE.

she wasn't losing treatment, but she was not getting a new form of treatment approved.

likely there was insufficient evidence or effectiveness for the insurance company to approve the new drug.

so should the insurance company have to pay for whatever treatment she desires?

A Doctor prescribed it.
29 and dead, leftist paradise.

doctors can be shopped.
and doctors have their own biases and motivations.

Insurance companies have doctors they tell you to go to.
As predicted, Death Panels exist.
Kiss Palin's ass.

palin predicted the formation of government death panels. This is a private insurance company deciding coverage on a terminally ill woman. Not the same thing at all.