Whats wrong with this picture?

[Cheese]

An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.


Oregon Health Plan Covers Assisted Suicide, Not Drugs for Cancer Patient


Yet Billions are spent overseas fighting for Oil.....

[iggypop]

Wait, Cheese is back?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by iggypop

Wait, Cheese is back?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Yet Billions are spent overseas fighting for Oil.....

And trillions are spent on a health care system that can't even provide 'life-extending' drugs to people who need them.

Before you actually make stupid comments like that, maybe you should take a look at how much money is actually being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.
The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.


Oregon Health Plan Covers Assisted Suicide, Not Drugs for Cancer Patient


Yet Billions are spent overseas fighting for Oil.....

Insurance companies have spent billions overseas fighting for oil? Don't compare apples to oranges please.

You have a great issue here, why ruin it with that lame last line?

[Devils'Advocate]

The whole "assisted suicide" vs "Tarceva" thing is a red herring. I think it absolutely right for OHP to fund assisted suicide. And all insurance companies have a list of drugs that they cannot provide because they are too expensive. Even in Canada, most provinces will not cover the cost of Elaprase because it costs $400,000/year/patient.

Someone from the OHP SUGGESTING assisted suicide should have criminal charges. That should be the real story.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Insurance companies have spent billions overseas fighting for oil? Don't compare apples to oranges please.

You have a great issue here, why ruin it with that lame last line?

Wow...talk about having a stick up yur arse..."see the whistly emoticon"? I didnt mean it to be 100% serious for craps sake. You guys need to take a deep breath.
As to whats been spent so far...estimates range between $500million and 1 trillion. I guess thats ok though in a "justified" war. Oh one other thing Dis...my smart ass comment wasnt about Insurance Companies...although I get the slant you pulled...its about your government actually helping its people and instead of spending $$????on a war perhaps spending it on a healthcare system. Of course thde average American would NEVER want that though would they?
What makes you ruin posts with your lame comments when you know exactly what I meant.

[Azure]

The point is that spending even MORE money on health care doesn't 'solve' problems like this.

So to say that spending billions in Iraq while people at home can't even have proper health care, well, it doesn't make any sense.

Not to derail the subject, but the cost of the 'Global war on terror' for 2009 will be somewhere around $145 billion. Multiply that by 8 years, = 1.1 trillion dollars. US budget in 2009 will be $3.1 trillion. Say the average budget the past 8 years since 9/11 has been $2.8 trillion, that equals $22.4 trillion. Cost of the 'Global War on Terror' in those 8 years has accounted for less than 1/20 of the US annual budget.

In other words, not a heck of a lot of money. But of course, that isn't the point. The point is that having $1.1 trillion freed up to spend on health care wouldn't have solved this problem. Both of us know that throwing money at something like this doesn't solve it. That is the EXACT problem with US health care.

[Vulcan]

It's pretty simple to me. In one case the average Joe is spending money, to kill people and in the other case, he's spending money to hopefully, save people. Insurance or taxes it all comes from the same pocket.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It's pretty simple to me. In one case the average Joe is spending money, to kill people and in the other case, he's spending money to hopefully, save people. Insurance or taxes it all comes from the same pocket.

Yeah, if you have such a narrow-minded viewpoint.

Money isn't the issue here. I have yet to see ANY evidence that shortage of money, or money being spent elsewhere, or even dumber, money being spent on fighting the 'global war on terror' has anything to do with someone not receiving proper healthcare.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Wow...talk about having a stick up yur arse..."see the whistly emoticon"? I didnt mean it to be 100% serious for craps sake. You guys need to take a deep breath.
As to whats been spent so far...estimates range between $500million and 1 trillion. I guess thats ok though in a "justified" war. Oh one other thing Dis...my smart ass comment wasnt about Insurance Companies...although I get the slant you pulled...its about your government actually helping its people and instead of spending $$????on a war perhaps spending it on a healthcare system. Of course thde average American would NEVER want that though would they?
What makes you ruin posts with your lame comments when you know exactly what I meant.

Too funny.

As if the choice was, spend billions killing Iraqis or spend billions on a universal health care system.

You're right, it's just that black and white.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, if you have such a narrow-minded viewpoint.

Money isn't the issue here. I have yet to see ANY evidence that shortage of money, or money being spent elsewhere, or even dumber, money being spent on fighting the 'global war on terror' has anything to do with someone not receiving proper healthcare.

Well if you're in that ladies situation, and hopefully you never are denied care, you'd have a so called narrow minded viewpoint too.

You still actually believe the money is being spent on the so called 'global war on terror'?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well if you're in that ladies situation, and hopefully you never are denied care, you'd have a so called narrow minded viewpoint too.

You still actually believe the money is being spent on the so called 'global war on terror'?

If you would actually bother to read the official budget release by the Department of the Treasury, yes, that is exactly what it is called.

And no, I wouldn't change my mind if I were in that situation. Anyone who thinks they're not getting health care because 5% out of a massive $22 trillion dollars has been spent on the GWOT, I'd say they lack common sense.

Unless of course you have some sort of frickin' evidence that proves the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could FIX the stupid health care problem that exists in the United States right now, and ends up creating situations like this.

Somehow I doubt that though. For some dumb reason it is 'cool' to jump on the 'anti-war' bandwagon, and blame the costs of Iraq/Afghanistan on every social program in the US that is screwed up. Money is not the issue here, money has never BEEN the issue, but because people are too lazy to research or even CARE about what is going on, money will continue to be the ideal thing to blame, and whenever there is a problem, people will always want to throw more money at it, hoping for a solution.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you would actually bother to read the official budget release by the Department of the Treasury, yes, that is exactly what it is called.

And no, I wouldn't change my mind if I were in that situation. Anyone who thinks they're not getting health care because 5% out of a massive $22 trillion dollars has been spent on the GWOT, I'd say they lack common sense.

Unless of course you have some sort of frickin' evidence that proves the money being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could FIX the stupid health care problem that exists in the United States right now, and ends up creating situations like this.

Somehow I doubt that though. For some dumb reason it is 'cool' to jump on the 'anti-war' bandwagon, and blame the costs of Iraq/Afghanistan on every social program in the US that is screwed up. Money is not the issue here, money has never BEEN the issue, but because people are too lazy to research or even CARE about what is going on, money will continue to be the ideal thing to blame, and whenever there is a problem, people will always want to throw more money at it, hoping for a solution.

Maybe you should read less and ponder more.

[jammies]

Y'know, I have to agree with Azure and DFF here - you're making a linkage that simply doesn't fly. While I agree that spending money on destroying and then rebuilding Iraq isn't the most sensible use of billions and billions of dollars, it's not an either/or situation where that money WOULD have gone to health care otherwise. Nor is it likely that putting more money into US health care would solve much of anything - it's not that they don't spend the money (they spend more per capita than anyone else, and by a fair margin), it's that they spend the money inefficiently, and disproportionately on the wealthy compared to the poor.

And while we're on the subject, there are good reasons for insurance companies - be they government or private - not to cover treatments of astronomical cost. If they did, the pharma companies would be inclined to make many other new drugs much more expensive than they are now, because they would be able to take advantage of the willingness to pay of the eventual "customer", the insurance regime. Which would either cost everyone plenty of money or reduce dollars spent on health care elsewhere; either way, not the best solution either.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Y'know, I have to agree with Azure and DFF here - you're making a linkage that simply doesn't fly. While I agree that spending money on destroying and then rebuilding Iraq isn't the most sensible use of billions and billions of dollars, it's not an either/or situation where that money WOULD have gone to health care otherwise. Nor is it likely that putting more money into US health care would solve much of anything - it's not that they don't spend the money (they spend more per capita than anyone else, and by a fair margin), it's that they spend the money inefficiently, and disproportionately on the wealthy compared to the poor.

And while we're on the subject, there are good reasons for insurance companies - be they government or private - not to cover treatments of astronomical cost. If they did, the pharma companies would be inclined to make many other new drugs much more expensive than they are now, because they would be able to take advantage of the willingness to pay of the eventual "customer", the insurance regime. Which would either cost everyone plenty of money or reduce dollars spent on health care elsewhere; either way, not the best solution either.

Thank you. Maybe Vulcan will 'get it' when you say it. I didn't even think of the fact that the US spends more per capita than anyone else.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Maybe you should read less and ponder more.

Is that like the response where you know you're wrong, but won't admit it?

Because seriously, I can appreciate the frustration with the money being poured into Iraq, but to say that it has ANYTHING to do with the Health Care system is ridiculous.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you. Maybe Vulcan will 'get it' when you say it. I didn't even think of the fact that the US spends more per capita than anyone else.

Well, I don't ALWAYS disagree with you, just when you're wrong

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by jammies

Y'know, I have to agree with Azure and DFF here - you're making a linkage that simply doesn't fly. While I agree that spending money on destroying and then rebuilding Iraq isn't the most sensible use of billions and billions of dollars, it's not an either/or situation where that money WOULD have gone to health care otherwise. Nor is it likely that putting more money into US health care would solve much of anything - it's not that they don't spend the money (they spend more per capita than anyone else, and by a fair margin), it's that they spend the money inefficiently, and disproportionately on the wealthy compared to the poor.

And while we're on the subject, there are good reasons for insurance companies - be they government or private - not to cover treatments of astronomical cost. If they did, the pharma companies would be inclined to make many other new drugs much more expensive than they are now, because they would be able to take advantage of the willingness to pay of the eventual "customer", the insurance regime. Which would either cost everyone plenty of money or reduce dollars spent on health care elsewhere; either way, not the best solution either.

It may not be an either or situation for the States right now but with the USA going further into debt every day [and one of the biggest wastes is Iraq], it cuts down on the possibility of increasing health care spending. In other countries this is an 'either or' [more commonly guns or food] situation so the moral question is right there. This is enough of a reason for me to say there is something wrong with this picture.

Hey, I'm all for keeping health costs down but when one side of the face is saying that, while the other side is wasting money on a fun war, I'm not impressed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

It may not be an either or situation for the States right now but with the USA going further into debt every day

Sure is.

[and one of the biggest wastes is Iraq]

Waste, really? Okay, from the outset, it WAS a bad idea. But now? You must have missed the AP article that actually 'said' the US was winning in Iraq. Micheal Yon has said the US has WON in Iraq. A waste? Don't you think the US owes it to the Iraqi people to at least rebuild their country after basically destroying it in 2003? I hardly call that a waste. Again, bad idea to begin with. Good idea to continue with.

And should I even mention that it has cost the US less than 5% of their budget the past 7 years? Again? Because you seemed to have missed that part the first time around.

Secondly, US GDP the past 7 years is clocked at over 91 'trillion' dollars. Yes, you read that right. So the 'GWOT' has cost 1/91 of the US GDP in the past 7 years. That would be 1% of the total GDP during that time. Staggering? It blows your argument out of the water. But of course, you can continue to discount actual 'facts' from the US Department of the Treasury, and keep rambling on about something that makes absolutely no sense if you want, but you're dead wrong.

it cuts down on the possibility of increasing health care spending.

Increasing health care spending? During the past 7 years, the US, as a country has spent $14 trillion dollars on health care. The US government has spent an average of $600 billion per YEAR on Medicare, and Medicaid, which in total equals $4.2 trillion spent by the Federal Government on Health Care the past 7 years. And you want to 'increase' health care spending? You do realize that by 2016, at the rate health care spending is increasing in the US right now, they're going to spend $4.2 trillion, per YEAR on health care? And here you are, worried that the US isn't putting enough money into their health care system.

In other countries this is an 'either or' [more commonly guns or food] situation so the moral question is right there. This is enough of a reason for me to say there is something wrong with this picture.

Yeah, you know whats wrong with it though? The fact that billions of dollars are being wasted each year on a broken system. THAT is whats wrong with this picture.

Hey, I'm all for keeping health costs down but when one side of the face is saying that, while the other side is wasting money on a fun war, I'm not impressed.

Again, the war has absolutely nothing to do with the poor quality of health care in the United States. I know you love to jump on the anti-war bandwagon whenever you can, but you're DEAD wrong here.

Its like beating a dead horse.