Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazing how many people pick this story up without reading the two important facts.
She has a nearly 0% chance even with full treatment.
The oncology drugs and treatments for her condition can run over $10,000 per treatment, the entire regiment for 6 months of treatment would cost $240,000.
I feel sorry for her, but that's enough money to give 1,000 kids clinic treatments and the pharmaceuticals they need. Should we really use it for one person who has a 0% chance to live 6 months with treatment?
I don't see a bit of problem with this especially since it's kind, it's loving. means less pain to the incurably ill, and there is historical precedent for it.
I wish these people would learn the whole story before posting. It gets tiresome facing all these untruths about the health care legislation. I'm not saying there's no need for concern or that any system will be perfect, but insurance companies profit from not healing people. It's a pretty simple business model.
I think all this hyperbolic rhetoric about "socialized" this and that needs to end. We've been fine with Medicare and nothing in the legislation is nearly as extensive as that. It's just proposing options so that all citizens can be protected.
One would think one nation, under God, indivisible would at least have enough heart to ensure everybody's health is taken care of and nobody has to compete for their very lives. Pretty barbaric if you ask me.
Indeed, but since we acknowledge that the government health care will lose money based on your opposition to health care that profits, where does that money come from that we know we will be losing? Do we just print more? And how does losing money by design translate to better medical care?
The question is not whether all citizens can be protected, indeed any citizen or non-citizen can waltz in to a public hospital. So what exactly is the money losing government option designed to do then?
The question is not whether all citizens can be protected, indeed any citizen or non-citizen can waltz in to a public hospital. So what exactly is the money losing government option designed to do then?
Any one can walk in to a public hospital, but unless it is life threating, they are just going to end up walking out without treatment unless they have insurance or cash. What is needed is health services to provide treatment before it is a last chance situation.
This is the 5th thread on the exact same story, but I'll repeat myself:
at the time of this story (early 2008) Tarceva had yet to be approved by Oregon (and about 20 other states) and was considered experimental.
The letter from OHP (Oregon's Medicaid) specifically said they would pay for palliative care and hospice.
Tarceva does not cure cancer in any way - what it does, in clinical trials, is extend someone's life 6.5 months instead of 4.7 months people on the placebo averaged.
OHP had paid for her previous surgery, chemotherapy, home health nurse, 100%, but denied Tarceva because it was experimental and because they don't pay for drugs that don't have AT LEAST a 5% 5 year survival rate. Tarceva can't even claim that 5% rate for 1 year, much less 5.
Is it harsh to ration medical care this way? Yes. On the other hand, if you google the terms "tarceva insurance denied" you'll come up with pages and pages of stories about private firms - and one state - denying Tarceva because of its limited benefit.
What she said. Who is digging up these old stories and making such an issue out of them, anyway. Any guesses?
Yes I do say you are spinning it when you say that there will be no rationed health care and that death panels are a myth.
The thing is, with private insurance, I have choices and the ability to choose different providers. One may not cover, but another may at greater cost. With private insurance, at least I have more control over my fate/life.
And NONE of them would have covered her care.
If you think I'm wrong PROVE IT.
ALL insurance companies have limits on what they will cover.
ALL insurance companies have limits on what they will cover.
ALL insurance companies have limits on what they will cover.
The woman in the case you mention was diagnosed as terminal. Virtually NO insurance company would have paid for the treatment.
Here's a well-known case where CIGNA (#5 largest health insurance company in the US) denied coverage of a needed transplant - until it was too late (the 17-year-old girl died hours after Cigna finally agreed to pay for new liver):
In fact, here's a list of just a few of the insurance companies that have been found guilty of doing those very types of things - wrongfully denying claims, deliberately dragging their feet in approving claims (in hopes the patient would simply give up), etc, etc, etc. It's a who's who of big medical insurance companies:
This kind of BS happens ALL THE TIME under OUR CURRENT SYSTEM - the one that YOU seem to think is so great. Why don't you ask the people involved in the cases above think OUR SYSTEM is so great.
Any one can walk in to a public hospital, but unless it is life threating, they are just going to end up walking out without treatment unless they have insurance or cash. What is needed is health services to provide treatment before it is a last chance situation.
For what specifically? Medical issues related to smoking or alcohol use? Obesity? What exactly is not available now that will justify a radical change in our system?
Amazing how many people pick this story up without reading the two important facts.
She has a nearly 0% chance even with full treatment.
The oncology drugs and treatments for her condition can run over $10,000 per treatment, the entire regiment for 6 months of treatment would cost $240,000.
The problem is that you are making the assumption the folks that post this story over and over again actually CARE about the real facts of the case.
i think this is a great offer but instead of offering it to cancer patients they need to offer it when congressmen refuse to do their job, that is put together a budget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
