Jerry,

I think that story illustrates a positive point, rather than a negative one, about the OR plan. I'm not saying that the cancer patient shouldn't have Taracel if she wants it, but a publicly funded health insurance plan shouldn't pay for it since she is in an "end of life" condition, and the drug can only prolong her life - and additional medical expenses for a few extra months - but not "cure" her cancer. She's going to die from cancer, and it will occur soon. How much should a public health program spend on an uncurable fatal condition?

This is exactly the situation where a private supplemental insurance plan would serve a purpose for those who are wealthy enough to afford it and choose to employ extreme measures to prolong their life even though they are in an end of life condition.

All health plans, and particularly publicly funded health plans must acknowledge that they cannot defy the inevitable death of patients with terminal conditions. The uber compassionate humanitarians are being just that, but those attributes lack objectivity and fiscal practicality, the additional features that I would expect in a responsible conservative health care plan. No matter how nice all or most of us might agree that unlimited health care would be desirable, the flat out facts of fiscal economic life demonstrate that we as a nation simply cannot afford that option. The OR plan is probably the best balance of humaneness and fiscal responsibility.

The bureaucrats who decide what reasonable care are should include a mix of people who are: medically qualified, have no financial interest in patient outcomes, have no religious interest in treatment options or patient outcomes, can conduct a benefit:cost analysis so that the decision makers understand what they are actually getting for specified treatments, and undoubtably other characteristics that don't occur to me at the moment.

Sg