Posted on 07/16/2009 2:27:54 PM PDT by Nachum
You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?
If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasnt going to be good. But suppose its not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man and everyone else like him with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someones life? If there is any point at which you say, No, an extra six months isnt worth that much, then you think that health care should be rationed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
its even cheaper to just kill everyone who gets sick.
B U M P
This is the guy who says it’s OK to kill your baby during the first year. Lovely guy.
If Singer gets cancer, guess whose credit cards will get cranked to the max ?? ;-)
“Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someones life?”
The complete devaluation of life is almost complete. Whey don’t we just shutdown healthcare, we can really save money then.
How about spending $500,000 on a crack addicted baby?
Reagan: Morning in America
Obama: Mourning for America
Here is the issue:
YOU don’t make the choice on how much it is worth.
THE GOVERNMENT makes the choice on how much it is worth.
wait till this ghoul has a killer illness.. i’m betting he won’t volunteer to take the soma he advocates for others.
that way of thinking only works if it’s about the other guy
Re: “If Singer gets cancer, guess whose credit cards will get cranked to the max ?? ;-) “
***********
Ding ding ding!!! We have our winning post on this topic. Right on the money!
I had to read tripe by this deranged moonbat for an ethics class once.
And here is the other thing:
The people who are pushing this the hardest, ALL have mindsets similar to this guy.
If you could hear them all talking about this at cocktail parties, you would not be at all surprised at the monolithic viewpoint.
When his mother had a terminal illness he didn’t take the approach he advocates. What he recommends is for the non-elite. He and his family (along with others that he thinks are “elite”) won’t be subject to these rules.
I’d have taken the F.
I don’t want to pay the mortgage on your house
And you don’t want to pay for my health care.
My question-—don’t “they” use that insurance companies refuse expensive treatments, one of the main points for pushing Obamacare?
Actually, the first form of rationing you'll see is wait lists (and other forms of bureaucratic foot-dragging).
Evil.
Just plain evil.
My wife is fighting Leukemia. I wonder if Obama and his crew will terminate her. Who would have imagine this crap happening in the U.S.A.
Last I checked we didn’t have a “health care shortage” in our country.
But if the Dems have their way, we’ll have a shortage and rationing will become the norm.
Of course right now people and employers ration their spending to include healthcare, and for those who choose to abuse the Emergency Services system in the U.S., one can just go to an Emergency Room and receive care and many just ignore the bill that follows afterward.
We should start the rationing process with Pete and his family.
Princeton
Home of Sean Willentz the so called historian who believed lying to a federal judge was not an impeachable offense
Home of Omarosa Obama
Home of Sonia Sotomayor
What an illustrious group of alumni.
Ugh
What the author is proposing isn't a change to a system where health care is rationed, it's a change to a system where health care is rationed based on political considerations. That's what socialism is all about: allocation of resources based on politics, and not based on economics, personal merit or individual liberty.
Thet want to nationalize health care, and the 1st thing outa their mouth is rationing it. No thanks gerbil-head.
You & the feds 1st, Pete.
Exactly
http://standinthetrenches.blogspot.com/2005/10/peter-singer-on-ethics-of-eyebrow.html
article about Pete Singer, the “ethicist” from Princeton
http://standinthetrenches.blogspot.com/2005/10/peter-singer-on-ethics-of-eyebrow.html
article about Pete Singer, the “ethicist” from Princeton
http://standinthetrenches.blogspot.com/2005/10/peter-singer-on-ethics-of-eyebrow.html
article about Pete Singer, the “ethicist” from Princeton
The CongressCriminals (TM) have already exempted themselves.
“I dont want to pay the mortgage on your house And you dont want to pay for my health care”
A mortgage is a choice. When health care issues arise, it is not always a choice or preventable. The feds simply need to be out of this business. I think much could be done to restructure payment on a local level, but doing something nationally is just nuts.
I don't want to die when a bureaucrat quotes a government regulation that tells me it is time to die.
Peter Singer, if it’s the same man, came to the US to be a full-tenured professor at one of the ivy league schools (Princeton, I think). From Australia. He is a proponent of animal rights. He is also a proponent of killing a child up to a year old.
Which one is Singer?
For example. For Arthritis suffers, a drug called Remicade is available. It's average cost is about $1,400 per infusion and the effects generally last only 6 to 8 weeks. So it's quite expensive, but living pain free is life altering.
My friend lives in fear Medicare will eliminate her treatments.
sw
Unfortunately it is a lot of seniors who will be paying the ultimate price for this evil plan. I hope that people rise up and reject this with both hands.
two words.... Logan’s Run.
At first it will be the terminally ill in the last few months of life
Then it will be those who only have 1-2 years of life
Then those who are elderly and in chronic condition
Then those who are just over 80 (then gets bumped down)
Then the unborn with “defects”
Then the seriosly infirmed or comatose
Then those who have a major brain injury
Then those who have a serious cancer (brain, pancreas, bone, etc.,) (elderly...then the age creeps down)
Then those who have genetic defects (before or after symptoms)
The young will be favored over the old
The rich will find outside alternatives
....you’re on your own
Today's widespread obesity with the attendant diabetes and concurrent worsening of any other health problem IS a direct result of people taking up bad habits.All it takes to control weight for the vast majority of people is to eat less and healthier food.
I guess the moral is: don't get sick and don't get old.
This is the way I see it. Only 10% of the population consume 90% of health care costs: cancer patients, elderly who are hospitalized with stroke , heart attacks, etc, and some chronic illnesses such as kidney disease, Chrone’s disease. Most people use very little of the health care budget. Dr visits are inexpensive compared to hospital stays. So here we are relatively healthy and paying into our HMO’s supporting the needs of the 10%. Eventually we will work our way up the ladder and we will fall into that 10% and there will be young healthy people paying into the HMo’s paying for our hospital stay.
So if you have Leukemia anything and everything should be done to make your quality of life better and I will be happy that my contribution to my HMO made it possible. When and if the government takes over all bets are off, our money will go to pay a new czar of band aids.
Your friends fears are well founded, as anyone over 65 should be.
Thank you. The interesting thing about this is the Physical Therapist who is helping my wife had the same cancer 14 years ago.
There will be no shortages with government healthcare. The propagandists will see to that!
IBD Editorials: "It's Not an Option"
Sure, when the program starts out, you will be able to keep your private coverage. But here is the kicker: You will not be able to change your insurance coverage, and the private insurers will not be allowed to enroll new subscribers past the date the government run program becomes law.
Gee. If you take ANY company, don't allow it to take on new customers, and have a government funded competitor offer 40% less for "a product"...what will be the end result?
Someone is going to go out of business.
And it ain't going to be The Government.
We need to get this information out there, I don't think it is common knowledge.
And, by the way, Radl...you and your wife are in my prayers.
I’ve had Kidney Cancer. I’m a survivor. I know a good friend who was just diagnosed with it.
A drug that will help us survive this dreaded killer disease, is worth every penny.
Over time, the price will drop.
The statist solution is to deny the treatment.
We are all doomed.
Bill from Nutley.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.