If you aren't on this ping list and are interested
in articles about Oregon, please FReepmail me.
Posted on 08/09/2013 11:33:53 AM PDT by Morgana
Oregon rations healthcare to Medicaid recipients. Terminal cancer patients are denied chemotherapy to extend life–and now the Oregon rationing board wants to go deeper into the weeds.
From Hope Landsem’s Wall Street Journal blog:
Liberal states often preview health-care central planning before the same regulations go national, which ought to make an Oregon cost-control commission especially scary. On Thursday a state board could change Oregon’s Medicaid program to deny costly care to poor patients who need it most.
Like most such panels, including the Affordable Care Act’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, the Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission, or HERC, claims to be merely concerned with what supposedly works and what doesn’t. Their real targets are usually advanced, costly treatments. That’s why HERC, for example, proposed in May that Medicaid should not cover “treatment with intent to prolong survival” for cancer patients who likely have fewer than two years left to live. HERC presents an example to show their reasoning for such a decision: “In no instance can it be justified to spend $100,000 in public resources to increase an individual’s expected survival by three months when hundreds of thousands of Oregonians are without any form of health insurance.”
Let us not forget that Oregon Medicaid happily pays for assisted suicide–and indeed, has offered terminal cancer patients that option while denying life-extending treatment.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Also, Vermont–which legalized assisted suicide recently–as a single payer plan the state can’t pay for. And guess what: Using assisted suicide and rationing are both on the table as means of paying for the program. No question: Centralized control, mixed with culture of death values make for a toxic brew.
As for the eventual push to turn Obamacare into single payer: As I wrote at length, health care rationing is central to the operation of single payer systems. Obamacarians want more!
Against.
Against.
Define “public” please.
Emergency rooms are cool as long as those using them pay for them.
“State” institutions, if they’re really run by State pass Constitutional muster as long as no Federal dollars are involved.
Against. Pay for your own damned vaccinations.
If by “public” you mean Federal dollars I’m against them, too.
Go read the Constitution sometime.
You will work will in government control until they kill you.
So you are supporting killing people?
Great testimony.
God is pro-life. Are you?
What happens if you get lukemia?
And that IS the KEY....Who the decisionmaker
about a family members health...the family? Or the
State?
Did the govt pay for her chemo? Just wondering.
No. The evil pharmaceutical company put her in a trial.
The problem is no one knows before an operation that the patient will die in three months. There is no crystal ball. Many people gain years when it is not expected. Anyone whether 65 or not could die within three months after any procedure. To deny a person a procedure based upon age is genocide.
Oh you bet - starting with people who ask stupid questions.
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?
Medicare is a commitment that people have helped finance. Medicaid is welfare. No one should expect a certain level of welfare, it's a pure gift and like all gifts is utterly dependent on the generosity of the giver.
That's true. And I'd like to see it done away with over time, taking into account that we've all been contributing for our whole lives, somehow.
But this article was about medicaid. That too was a liberal program (LBJ) and should be abolished, IMHO.
So while I stand by my comments they were a bit off topic.
Charity should be voluntary, not coerced by government. The Constitution does not permit taxing Jack to pay for John's healtcare becaues John doesn't have money of his own to pay for it.
People who want to continue these systems are not Constitutionalists, though they may be conservatives I guess, it's a type of deal-with-the-devil, big-government conservatives we don't usually support here at FR.
Big difference between health care and health insurance. They are all in favor of health insurance as if that guaranteed treatment, when they clearly are making sure that the insurance guidelines deny you treatment.
It’s just a big scam to bring in more money from taxpayors to dole out to their supporters and friends. The young and the old will be denied care, unless they are connected Others - it will depend on the beauracrats.
I’ll be against providing care to elderly people on medicare and veterans when Washington quits paying medical bills for the likes of Senator Kennedy.
correct spelling for bureaucrats
The real question should be why the treatment costs $100,000.00 in the first place.
The same drug is probably available in Mexico for $30.00.
There is no such thing as public resources.
Maybe with your convictions you should do the right thing and check out early, save the public some money, after all you will surely be a burden for the state in the future.
The right to die with dignity crap that the Oregon Progressives pushed into law, was never about your rights as all, it was and is about the right of the state to kill you, and it is reveling itself now, just as surely as Hitler did over 70 years ago.
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.