RSS
Home
State health care plan denies cancer drugs, offers cheaper suicide pill instead
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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:
Related Articles:
Comments
