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

[Weatherman2020]

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.

She had a preexisting condition, dufus.
Obamacare murdered her.

 

[hadit]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

Next are the handicapped. Then they gypsy's. Then the Jews. Then the Christians.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

She had a preexisting condition, dufus.
Obamacare murdered her.

please, explain that one. how did obamacare kill her due to her preexisting condition?

 

[koshergrl]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

'Let the terminally ill and elderly and babies die".

Unless, of course, the parents of a terminally ill child opt not to perform experiments on their child, in which case it's "HOW DARE PARENTS INTERFERE WITH STATE EXPERIMENTATION ON SICK CHILDREN!"

In other words, all vulnerable populations are at risk.

 

[ogibillm]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

we already have to make these determinations, so the slippery slope argument doesn't hold a lot of water in my opinion.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

 

[hadit]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

we already have to make these determinations, so the slippery slope argument doesn't hold a lot of water in my opinion.

In today's world, patients can still access treatment if they can find ways to afford it. Under the original Hillarycare, it would have been illegal to make a private contract with a doctor, thus forcing everyone into the system. I predict that will be resurrected in the near future.

 

[hadit]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

 

[ogibillm]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

we already have to make these determinations, so the slippery slope argument doesn't hold a lot of water in my opinion.

In today's world, patients can still access treatment if they can find ways to afford it. Under the original Hillarycare, it would have been illegal to make a private contract with a doctor, thus forcing everyone into the system. I predict that will be resurrected in the near future.

so it's more ethical to provide treatment to a rich patient than to one without means?

back to the heart transplant - should the rich 90 year old be able to buy the heart, saving himself and condemning the poor teen?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

we are still solidly in the 'at all costs' camp

 

[ogibillm]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

what other recourse is there?

 

[hadit]

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

And that's the top of the hill. Once society officially deems a group of people not worth caring for, the bar always moves toward caring for fewer and fewer. Today it's "Let's let the terminally ill and elderly die". Tomorrow it's, "Let's help them die quicker because it's more merciful". Then we eliminate the severely mentally ill, for their own good of course. Then the not so severely mentally ill. Then, the disabled who require expensive accommodations. Finally, the ones deemed responsible for society's ills. Sound familiar? It's happened before.

we already have to make these determinations, so the slippery slope argument doesn't hold a lot of water in my opinion.

In today's world, patients can still access treatment if they can find ways to afford it. Under the original Hillarycare, it would have been illegal to make a private contract with a doctor, thus forcing everyone into the system. I predict that will be resurrected in the near future.

so it's more ethical to provide treatment to a rich patient than to one without means?

Why should someone who can afford a private contract with a doctor be forbidden to have one?

back to the heart transplant - should the rich 90 year old be able to buy the heart, saving himself and condemning the poor teen?

That problem would evaporate overnight if we did one simple thing: change the organ donor rules from an opt in to an opt out. Right now, you have to not only register yourself as a donor, you have to convince your family to not interfere, so most people don't donate. Changing that one rule would dramatically increase the number of donor organs.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

Obamacare has death panels, end of discussion.

 

[hadit]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

what other recourse is there?

Crowdfunding, private donations, a different insurance company, a philanthropic doctor, etc.

 

[hadit]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

we are still solidly in the 'at all costs' camp

That wasn't the question.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

what other recourse is there?

Let the mentally handicapped die.
Then the physically handicapped.

 

[hadit]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

Obamacare has death panels, end of discussion.

And even if it didn't, single payer would. Whenever somebody other than the patient pays for treatment, it gets rationed.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

It is EXACTLY the same thing lol.

right. private insurance companies deciding what treatments they do and do not cover, as they always have, is exactly the same thing as the government forming panels and mandating on an individual basis who does and does not receive treatment.

And in which direction are we as a nation heading?

Sure, today insurance companies make that determination, which still allows the patient to seek recourse elsewhere. What happens tomorrow when the government, and only the government, decides who gets treated and who does not and there is no other recourse?

what other recourse is there?

Let the mentally handicapped die.
Then the physically handicapped.

Then let those not members of the Democrat party die.

So simple.