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

[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.

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.

Yep, just ask the thousands of Vets who died waiting for healthcare.

 

[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

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.

would that be ethical? taking the organs of someone simply because they forgot to opt out?

(I'm for the idea, btw)

it doesn't answer the ethical question, though. does a patient of means have a right to more treatment than one without?

 

[hadit]

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.

EVERY power that government gains is exploited, corrupted, and ultimately used in ways it was never intended to be used. EVERY power. That's why government should very rarely gain new powers over the citizens. Unfortunately, that is not the scenario we see unfolding before us.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

 

[koshergrl]

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.

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

 

[ogibillm]

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.

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

phrase it however you want it doesn't change that healthcare is a finite resource that requires rationing

 

[hadit]

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.

would that be ethical? taking the organs of someone simply because they forgot to opt out?

(I'm for the idea, btw)

it doesn't answer the ethical question, though. does a patient of means have a right to more treatment than one without?

I come from that other direction. Why should a wealthy person be denied treatment that he could afford to purchase outright? Steve Jobs received a liver in large part because he was wealthy enough to game the system by getting his name on the list multiple times, whereas everyone else was on there once. Unethical? Sure, but can I blame him for doing it? Not really. Taking that a step further, why should a wealthy person be prevented from hiring a full time doctor to exclusively care for his family?

 

[hadit]

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.

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

would that be ethical? taking the organs of someone simply because they forgot to opt out?

(I'm for the idea, btw)

it doesn't answer the ethical question, though. does a patient of means have a right to more treatment than one without?

I come from that other direction. Why should a wealthy person be denied treatment that he could afford to purchase outright? Steve Jobs received a liver in large part because he was wealthy enough to game the system by getting his name on the list multiple times, whereas everyone else was on there once. Unethical? Sure, but can I blame him for doing it? Not really. Taking that a step further, why should a wealthy person be prevented from hiring a full time doctor to exclusively care for his family?

that is a solid argument. but you are still saying healthcare should go first to those that have the most resources

 

[hadit]

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.

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

 

[ogibillm]

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

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

 

[hadit]

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.

would that be ethical? taking the organs of someone simply because they forgot to opt out?

(I'm for the idea, btw)

it doesn't answer the ethical question, though. does a patient of means have a right to more treatment than one without?

I come from that other direction. Why should a wealthy person be denied treatment that he could afford to purchase outright? Steve Jobs received a liver in large part because he was wealthy enough to game the system by getting his name on the list multiple times, whereas everyone else was on there once. Unethical? Sure, but can I blame him for doing it? Not really. Taking that a step further, why should a wealthy person be prevented from hiring a full time doctor to exclusively care for his family?

that is a solid argument. but you are still saying healthcare should go first to those that have the most resources

No, I am saying that those who can afford it should not be barred from accessing it.

 

[hadit]

treatment is rationed no matter what. the question is how do we decide how to ration care

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

 

[ogibillm]

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.

would that be ethical? taking the organs of someone simply because they forgot to opt out?

(I'm for the idea, btw)

it doesn't answer the ethical question, though. does a patient of means have a right to more treatment than one without?

I come from that other direction. Why should a wealthy person be denied treatment that he could afford to purchase outright? Steve Jobs received a liver in large part because he was wealthy enough to game the system by getting his name on the list multiple times, whereas everyone else was on there once. Unethical? Sure, but can I blame him for doing it? Not really. Taking that a step further, why should a wealthy person be prevented from hiring a full time doctor to exclusively care for his family?

that is a solid argument. but you are still saying healthcare should go first to those that have the most resources

No, I am saying that those who can afford it should not be barred from accessing it.

which necessarily means thise without the resources to buy care come second

 

[ogibillm]

Which means 'how do we decide who to kill?"

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

 

[hadit]

If the wealthy are allowed to pay for expensive new treatments and procedures, they will help to lower the price for everyone else, for the same reason the new IPhone costs $700 when it comes out, then drops to commodity prices.

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

 

[GaryDog]

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

No.

But when a person dies because that doctor is monopolized by one patient, don't pretend you're morally superior merely because the less fortunate person wasn't screwed by the "gubmint."

 

[ogibillm]

that analogy doesn't really work...
so it is acceptable to deny treatment based on means because someday that treatment will be cheaper?

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

I'm honestly not sure. ethically just as far as health care is concerned i would say no. allowing someone to monopolize a resource at a sub-optimum level is not ethically acceptable

 

[hadit]

Would that be worse than a group of unaccountable bureaucrats deciding who gets treated and who does not based on their own biases?

that is the question.

but if you're the poor joe who can't compete with the rich guy for medical care you'll probably take your chances with the biases of a committee.

Should a wealthy man be prevented from having a private contract with a doctor to exclusively treat his family, to be on call 24/7/365, to do house calls once a month?

do you think that is the most equitable use of health care resources?

That doesn't address the question. Should such a scenario be illegal?

No.

But when a person dies because that doctor is monopolized by one patient, don't pretend you're morally superior merely because the less fortunate person wasn't screwed by the "gubmint."

Likewise, when people die by the thousands because a government panel decides their lives aren't worth healthcare expenditures, don't pretend you're morally superior merely because the person wasn't screwed by EEEVUUUULL Big Insurance.