# Dr Drip



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Errr I mean Kevorkian. Do any of you remember him? Oregon liked him. 
It would appear that it's a liberal thing to save money by letting the sick die. Oh, that doesn't sound like what liberals proclaim themselves to be. What's wrong with the pictures they paint for us and reality? What's wrong is they don't parallel. Now liberal stronghold Washington wants to get in on the let them die agenda too. Would you want to bet they will call it mercy killing. Remember that little thread I posted a couple of weeks ago about how a nation ends? It starts with twisting the meaning of words. Keep an eye on Washington state and how the liberals will make it sound downright cuddly to mercy kill someone. 
Washington needs a backup plan in the event Obama fails to kill thier parents before they burn up their inheritance.

For the full story: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1 
Quote: 
Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon 
Terminally Ill Denied Drugs for Life, But Can Opt for Suicide 
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES 
Aug. 6, 2008

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.

Barbara Wagner 
(Paul Carter/Register-Guard)The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.

The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Wow... just wow... it's her INSURANCE COMPANY that's denying the drugs, and yet you're using it as a reason against government involvement in healthcare, and to accuse liberals of letting old people die?!

As far as assisted suicide:

There is a BIG difference between allowing people with terminal illnesses who are in chronic, insufferable pain the same kindness we give to our pets at the end, and the proverbial shoving old or sick people out to sea on an iceberg like you accuse "liberals" of condoning.

You're the one trying to redefine words by drawing an illogical conclusion. It's the oh-so-friendly insurance company that you seem to love so much that's trying to let her die.

You say that issues are argued on their merits around here, but you never miss an opportunity poison the well by maligning "liberals" as blood-thirsty ghouls.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

omegax said:


> Wow... just wow... it's her INSURANCE COMPANY that's denying the drugs, and yet you're using it as a reason against government involvement in healthcare, and to accuse liberals of letting old people die?!
> 
> As far as assisted suicide:
> 
> ...


Blhunter3 said,

Being that Dems and Repubs can never agree on what they want, why do we try something new? If the Dems want a certain program let just dems pay for it and just Dems use that program and visa versa for Repubs. And lets see what works and what doesn't.

*It's the best idea going around!!*


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

omegax said:


> You say that issues are argued on their merits around here, but you never miss an opportunity poison the well by maligning "liberals" as blood-thirsty ghouls.


blood-thirsty? Now lets not go overboard here ...

What they are is "Money-thirsty"

Oh, and "Power-thirsty"

And I'll leave it at that


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Omegax as I understand the state made the decision.



> There is a BIG difference between allowing people with terminal illnesses who are in chronic, insufferable pain the same kindness we give to our pets at the end


Well, lets keep it a personal decision. You can be kind to your parents as you see fit and others can make their personal decisions. I just don't want you or Obama making decisions for me. Unless your parents have a living will I don't think you have the right to decide if they live or die.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing.


The state did enact the assisted suicide bill. IIRC it was passed in a public vote. The letter was from the insurance co... I have a hard time imagining the type of person who'd throw in the "Hey, we will pay for your suicide drugs, though" bit into that letter. I hope that it was a response to a request or something, and that I'm reading too much into it. If not, that sociopath needs to lose his job.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Her insurance company is one that is selected and agrees to abide by the rules and requirements set up by the state of Oregon. Go read their web page, learn a bit about it!

So like it or not the state had its hand in this!!!!!!!!


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Regardless... it wasn't the state that decided to not pay for her medication. That was a decision by her insurance company so they could keep an eye on their bottom line.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Go read the website Omegax, then report back!!!!! The OHC sets policy and the insurance companies that agree to participate meet them or are not allowed in!!! So who was it that set the policy?


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

omegax said:


> Regardless... it wasn't the state that decided to not pay for her medication. That was a decision by her insurance company so they could keep an eye on their bottom line.


It is not the insurance company that denies coverage, unless you have a plan that limits major medical procedures, requires a co-pay, has a deductable before coverage, etc.

My father was diagnosed with Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia in the late 90's. There were very few authorized options for treatment. Approved medications are approved by FDA. He had three options, one was chemo therapy and was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield(BCBS) and Medicare. Two, do nothing. Three, get treatment with a new drug that hadn't been approved for treatment in CLL. The third option was available through a clinical trial bases only and not covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield or Medicare. He opted for the Third choice. The reported cost for the treatment of "Retuxan" used was $3200, requiring four treatments or more per year at no cost to him, the hospital and drug company absorbed the costs. This new treatment did a number of things, most important is it gave him 12 extra years of quality life for a 69 year old.

The treatment was approved during his clinical trial and at that time Medicare and BCBS started paying for the treatment.

Required coverage for insurance companies is regulated by the state, after the approval of the FDA and medical trials.

Don't get me wrong, I would like lower heath care insurance costs too. I just don't agree on destroying the best health care in the world, to cover 11 million citizens out of the estimated 50 million that don't have heath care benefits and still padding the pockets of trial lawyers.

Think about this, if you get hurt on the job and can't work you receive a monthly income and training for a new career if you are unable to return to your previous job because of that injury. If you are injured by the Doctors procedure, the drugs you are prescribed or the hospitals testing you are likely to receive millions and your attorney will get 40%.

I'm in favor of "tuning up" or overhauling"" the current health care before we trade it in on a $$$ guzzling government run program.

Medicare is soon to go broke, fix that first.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The OHC sets policy and the insurance companies that agree to participate meet them or are not allowed in!!!


This is why people say there is no "competition" among insurance companies. Is because an insurance company needs to follow state guidelines otherwise they can't do business in the state. Remove some goverment guidelines to open up competition.

Then you would see more al la carte type policies. But many states don't allow that.

Have tort reform and other things and not a Federal run program.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> > The OHC sets policy and the insurance companies that agree to participate meet them or are not allowed in!!!
> 
> 
> This is why people say there is no "competition" among insurance companies. Is because an insurance company needs to follow state guidelines otherwise they can't do business in the state. Remove some goverment guidelines to open up competition.
> ...


You hit the nail on the head.

But we might be the major cause of out problem.

In the past people were being sold insurance, and we would buy the cheapest health insurance offered. Until you needed major medical care you didn't know what was covered and what wasn't or the maximum limit allowed because we couldn't understand or didn't read the "exclusions of coverage". Some of us remember the "million dollar major medical" plans offered in the 70's. So another law was enacted to require insurance to cover certain procedures and not exclude them from coverage. Over the years these new procedures were developed and new drugs were developed along with the insurance premium to cover the costs of the new procedures we wanted and demanded.

New drugs, by the big drug companies everyone hates, were developed to compliment the new procedures we demanded and then required by the state.

Now the lawmakers want to limit some of these procedures to save healthcare costs.

By the turn out at the "town hall meetings" I guessing most of the citizens want to keep those procedures available for themselves when the need arises, instead of a government deciding if they need it. I'm with them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was watching Specter drilled in townhall meetings this morning. A teacher had a very good point. Legislation should be written at junior high level so everyone understands it. Currently because about 50% of the congress is made up of attorneys you need a team of ten to interpret the health care bill now up before congress. The same should apply to health policies. Lets stop the verbose policies that hide surprises.


----------

