President Obama
Many commentators in the current debate over national health insurance have used the argument that private insurance companies, working for a profit motive, deny care to folks who need it and can’t afford it because they are only concerned with the money. The alternative, they argue, is a public system; a government run health care program which will provide life saving treatments to vulnerable citizens with few options. I remember when Michael Moore said “If a patient needs it, and their doctor prescribes it, it should be provided”. (At someone else’s cost apparently). Tell that to Barbara Wagner, or at least you could have told her, but she is now dead from cancer. Treatment was available, but it was denied, by her public health care plan.
A 64 year old women, and cancer survivor, living in Oregon; Ms. Wagner learned her cancer had returned and would likely kill her. There was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug which her doctor felt she was a good candidate for. Sadly her insurance provider determined this was not a good allocation of resources and denied coverage. Ms. Wagner is now dead from cancer. Which insurance company denied her coverage? Which greedy corporation put profits ahead of people and let Ms. Wagner die when lifesaving care was available? As I stated above, Oregon's state run health insurance plan determined $4,000 was too large an expense for a 64 year old women who had already had cancer once before. A better use of funds would be a $50 assisted suicide pill. This is what was offered to Ms. Wagner in an unsigned letter, this was her “public option”. (Recap, the greedy drug manufacturer offered Ms. Wagner free cancer drugs after her Government health plan denied coverage)
When supporters of a government health care plan say their will not be rationing, or that these kinds of decisions will not be made, don't buy it. Opponents of the plan often speak of "death panels". While the term may be harsh, the reality may be harsher. You may believe, as Presidential Adviser Ezekiel Emmanuel seems to, that spending so much to keep someone of little future “benefit” to the rest of “society” is a waste of scarce resources. That would be your right, although I doubt Ms. Wagner’s friends and family would agree. The sad truth is, from a purely operational perspective the decision by the state of Oregon makes sense, there are only so many health care dollars to go around, and a limited tax base from which to draw funds to finance any Government program. As such, any Government health care program would eventually begin making similar determinations.
It is a simple question of allocation of resources. As in any other segment of the economy or in life, there will be winners, losers and many in the middle. The only question is control. Is the Government, and whomever they deign worthy, in control with access to resources, or will a free market allow us each to pursue our own goals and objectives? I for one do not want government functionaries making life and death decisions over me. I would rather take my chances in a free market, where I can shop around, look for alternatives and use competition to my advantage.
Facebook and Twitter:
Comments
Would you please cite your sources. Sensational stories fly off of the "page", often leaving the 'true' or 'whole' story behind. Without any kind of verification, or source reference, your article is just one in a long list of red herrings.
Sorry, meant "red herring."
My primary source was an ABC news story linked to in the first paragraph and a magazine article at the end of the second paragraph which contain interviews with Ms Wagner and representatives of the Oregon state plan. The rest of the links go back to various blogs which have different "takes" but agree on the basic facts. I do not know what else I could go to besides an interview with Ms. Wagner and the medical folks who denied her coverage. The rest is, of course, my own analysis and interpretation.
Wow, this is amazingly stupid. It's unlikely this woman would have had ANY INSURANCE WHATSOEVER if it weren't for the public insurance plan. She would probably have died much earlier.
And: "there was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug which her doctor felt she was a good candidate for" -- is completely made up. The article actually says: "Her oncologist prescribed the drug Tarceva to slow its growth, giving her another four to six months to live...median survival among patients who took erlotinib was 6.7 months compared to 4.7 month..."
And: "Tell that to Barbara Wagner, or at least you could have told her, but she is now dead from cancer." If you actually read the article you will see this: "the pharmaceutical company Genentech is giving her Tarceva free of charge." And then...she died two months later anyway.
Finally: the reason Tarceva costs so much is because of GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED MONOPOLIES. Actually making the drug probably costs $5/month.
That picture of Obama is priceless. The picture looks like an apt description of ObamaCare. MickeyMouseCare.
If a doctor prescribes a drug, said doctor must assume that whatever the patient presents with, is likely to be effectively treated by the drug, hence my statement that her doctor "felt she was a good candidate", the the doctor did not think it would have been helpful for her it would not have been prescribed.
I never said the drug would have "cured her cancer" and she would not have died, I said her doctor prescribed it, and the state health insurance plan denied it offering her a suicide pill instead. That is the issue, we can't afford to treat you but we can afford to kill you because you are waste of resources? T. As I stated in my set up, I am responding to all those folks who think a government plan will suddenly bring us free health care for everything. It will not, there will be rationing. A government program is not about treating the sick it is about control. I will take my chances with the market where I have control, not be locked into a rigid government program. Th
Robert Moon is spamming The Activity Pit again: twi.cc/lAlq
Wow, that comment's even dumber than the actual post.
You, now:
"I never said the drug would have 'cured her cancer' and she would not have died."
You, then:
"Ms. Wagner learned her cancer had returned and would likely kill her. There was a chance for her survival however, a $4,000 a month drug."
My question: is your name still "D. Christian Moore"? Or has that changed too in the past twelve hours?
"there was a chance for her survival" is not the same as "would have cured her cancer"; or is that too much nuance and meaning in the language for you to comprehend. I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to use the words which convey the full meaning I intend. Hence, "there was a chance". However small, that chance was there and the state plan told her to go kill herself instead. Exactly what I would expect from public health care.
Robert Moon is spamming The Activity Pit again: twi.cc/lAlq
Before my father died of a brain tumor, his HMO and his supplemental both told him to take morphine until he died. His family felt differently, but we were treated no differently than Ms. Wagner. Having watched my father lose that bet, I'm not so sure I'd care to bet my life against any insurance company's profit motive.
I live in NM, by the way. For every story like Ms. Wagner's in Oregon I have probably heard ten about insurance companies from people I've met personally, in the course of normal conversation.
There are some inconsistencies to this story. If the drug company offered her the drug for free, why did she die? And if you'd like to take your chances with the free market, it should be pointed out that once you find out that your insurance company is denying you coverage, it's too late to shop around for someone who's "nicer". Last, every time a gov't plan denied coverage, that's a new political career for somebody. If anything, we'd soon have the opposite probl
Dave, First stop calling it insurance, it is not. Insurance, like care insurance would be risk pools against catastrophic loss. Do you pay for oil changes or does you ins company? Who pays for light bulbs? If it operated like a real insurance "free" market, costs would be less and access more widespread. Second, It is not an "inconsistency" in her story that she died when she had cancer even though she got treatment, unless you know of the new "miracle cures" that 100% effective. Also, health care is not only NOT a right and so therefor it is not for the government to steal from me to give to you or vice versa, but the Government cannot effectively give everyone great health care. When they try costs will skyrocket (well not for you because it will be "free", but the cost of making it free is enormous) The high cost will force Government to ration (have you seen the horror stories coming out of Great Britain?)
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!