“In no instance can it be justified to spend $100,000 in public resources to increase an individual’s expected survival by three months”
I can’t disagree with that.
I’d hate to be in the nursing home business under ObamaCare. Maybe they can be turned into drug treatment centers because God knows we’ll need plenty of those.
Bump
Next they will put illegal foreign invaders to the front of the line.
At the risk of being slammed, is it really so evil - or wrong at all - to withhold expensive treatment when it will only prolong life a few months? Whatever happened to the idea that when God decides it’s your time, then it’s time?
Seriously, how many people would spend the money on these end-of-life expensive treatments if it were their money?
Healthcare now equals
You have cancer - no chemo
You have heart problems - no stint or bypass for you
You are pregnant and don’t want to be - yes we will pay to murder your child
You are gay and have HIV - you are special and deserve special treatment we will do everything we can for you no matter what the cost
You got HIV from a blood transfusion but are not homosexual - how did you vote in the last election ?
Pretty soon hospitals will be little more than a local health clinic where you see nurses who dispense aspirins
because they will be using the insurance money to pay for more bureaucratic jobs for their people whose sole job is to decide if you can get anything more than an aspirin and God help you should you have to spend any time at all in that clinic because those bureaucrats will be deciding if you eat and drink too.
Basically leftists lie about wanting healthcare for all since they always ration healthcare to the sick.
On another note, I’d expect that once Obamacare’s rationing and deathpanels go into place we’ll see a corresponding drop in life expectency. Oh wait, they’ll just do with that what they did with the U3 unemployment numbers, or by excluding food and energy costs from inflation figures in order to maintain that all important upward slope ...
Here we go! Long term cancer patients- old OR young? -being denied care? Next will be critical burn patients,the critically injured, anyone requiring long term care or maintenance to live, all of the elderly( after all they are all terminal) until only the healthy(valuable) are worth medical care.
Congress and Senate and all old government types exempt, of course.
Does Oregon pay for sex change operations?
“claims to be merely concerned with what supposedly works and what doesn’t”
these are always no more than statistical averages
which means no matter how many persons for whom
a certain medical procedure may not be effective
or as effective, that is NEVER everyone, never every
case, and the blaket rationing of care based on such
statistics ALWAYS means that care will be denied
even to those, however many, whom it would have
helped
the justification that such rationing is “cost
effective” is not good enough, and particularly
not good enough when it is being made by
government fiat
A lot of people with pre-existing conditions enthusiastically support Obamacare because they think the government will pay for the expensive treatment of their ailments. They have yet to realize that they are prime candidates for the Death Panels. And not just the elderly, either. A premature infant could be denied an incubator under this law. A child could be denied a much-needed transplant. Any chronic condition would not be considered cost-effective by the Obamacare bureaucrats. They will be as competent as the Post Office, and as compassionate as the IRS.
Should Welfare recipients receive the same level of medicine that ensured people do? I would say no. That's part of what it means to be on charity. You don't get the same things as people who pay. As a taxpayer my priority is not that more and more and more tax dollars are spent taking care of the least productive members of society.
Last I checked Medicare was a liberal program, put in place and supported by liberals. In a true free market system there would be no medicare. Their would be charity hospitals where you would also likely not get hundred-thousand dollar anti-cancer treatments.
Now, we as Conservatives are supposed to be up in arms because the state of Oregon is limiting expensive treatments for poor people on welfare. This seems extremely misguided. This is probably one good thing that Oregon is doing vis-a-vis welfare (too many poor people, not enough tax money) to deal with a tough situation as well as is possible.
We need to stick to first principles. I realize mine might be different than Life News. Maybe we don't all fit in the big GOP tent so easily anymore?
