Oregon's plan expressly does not cover "medical equipment or supplies which will not benefit the patient for a reasonable length of time." Reasonableness is determined by green-eyeshade, budget-crunching bureaucrats rather than by doctors.

Catholic news agency? Are you kidding?

Here's another article they wrote:

Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa recently criticized the health care reform legislation under consideration in a letter to his diocese. He explained to CNA why health care beyond the basics is a "political right" and what the government should consider in any reform effort.

In his letter, titled “Voice your concern over health care reform” posted on the Sioux City diocesan website, the bishop noted that health care is not a natural right, such as food, water and air, but rather it is a political one.

In an email to CNA, Nickless explained that when he calls health care a “political right,” he means “that it depends on other factors than just the nature and dignity of the human person,” such as “practical details” and “our political structures.”

My point is the Catholic church is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. She either didn't have a right beyond the basics or she deserves all they can do for her? Which is it?
They oppose any health care that goes against it's religious beliefs....like providing contraceptives or a right to die. More intrusive than any governement and not a credible source imo.

Did you all read up on the drug Tarceva? This Oregon lady is the walking dead and this medicine only prolongs her death by a few months at best.

Mr. Compassionate over here would probably just suggest the assisted suicide option........

"Tarceva met its primary endpoint of improving overall survival (hazard ratio = 0.73). In addition to demonstrating a 42 percent improvement in median survival (6.7 versus 4.7 months), 31.2 percent of patients receiving Tarceva in the study were alive after one year versus 21.5 percent in the placebo arm. Tarceva also met all secondary endpoints of the trial, including delaying time to symptom deterioration, improving progression-free survival, and increasing tumor response rate."

I don't like those odds.......

Gotta love what the drug has done to the test subjects:

There have been infrequent reports of serious Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD)-like events, including fatalities, in patients receiving Tarceva for treatment of NSCLC, pancreatic cancer or other advanced solid tumors.
Cases of hepatic failure, hepatorenal syndrome, acute renal failure (all including fatalities), and renal insufficiency have been reported during use of Tarceva.
Gastrointestinal perforation (including fatalities) has been reported in patients receiving Tarceva.
Bullous, blistering and exfoliative skin conditions have been reported including cases suggestive of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, which in some cases were fatal.
In the pancreatic cancer trial, other serious adverse reactions associated with Tarceva plus gemcitabine and which may have included fatalities, were myocardial infarction/ischemia, cerebrovascular accident and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia with thrombocytopenia.

Ouch!!!!!

This drug will NOT save her life. Only prolongs that pain, suffering, and expenses out a couple more months at best. Should healthcare cover that? At some point, it's no longer "health care". This lady is past that point.

And? Isn't that what insurance companies are being accused of now? So you are saying we need an alternative or no?

Here's the UK article:

"More than 1,000 cancer patients have been refused drugs in the past three years because the medication was not licensed for their disease, new figures suggest."

This is equivalent to our FDA saying "this drug is only approved to treat X condition". By using it otherwise would break federal law. has nothing to do with universal health care.

It also goes on to say:

"The Rarer Cancers Forum, who obtained the figures, said that patients in France were up to 55 per cent more likely to get so-called “near-label” treatment, drugs licensed for a similar disease, than those in Britain."
btw France is well known for its excellent universal health insurance.

"A total of three Primary Care Trusts, North Staffordshire PCT, Oldham PCT and Western Cheshire PCT, turned down all applications.

In contrast, another 11 funded them all. "
Sounds like some bad apples in the very large NHS.

Pretty much equates to the hot coffee in the lap McD's suit being used to remove all citizens right to sue.

The second article is complete hogwash and seems to make the assumption that our entire FDA will be replaced and run by politicians as if it isn't now.

Forget cancer, how do you feel about that part of Oregons plan? and who decides what reasonable is?

Who decides in your plan now Jerry? Are you saying you can go out and get any treatment you like, like stem cells, without approval?

Known for a few others things as well......like running in the red and looking at raising taxes even futher..... Here is an unbiased assessment of the French medical pro's and con's. I found it very interesting.

For now the goal is about lowering health care costs not meeting your personal needs.

Wanna be healthy?


...go exercise!!

Whats really wrong with the plan is the whole thing.

When are people going to realize that you get exactly out of life waht you put into it. Quit expecting the Governtment to bail you out. If you want the best insurance money can buy, excell to a better job or take another job. This whole attitude about poor me is just a bunch of sorry ass people who are too lazy to work for something. Now if you have a disability, thats different. I realize some of you will never be able to work a real job due to phsical limitaions put on you by a past event or other problems. This doesn't mean that you can sit on the couch and wine aobut not having a job. This whole country has become lazy and obese. There are more leaches in the system now because we allow it. Nothing in life is appreciated more than working hard for what you have. If you disagree with this, then you must be looking forward to someone helping you pay for your healthcare. ( keep in mind if you served this county, you should never be expected to pay a penny for care and it should be as good as anything the government has now)

Todd, You boast about all the money you are making and how much you work. If you are doing so well, then you shouldbe able to afford a major medical plan for less than 600$ a month. It all comes down to priorities and it is clear where yours are at.

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

Whatever healthcare plan is agreed on, should be the same plan for all people, whether or not you are a government employee or not. This silver lined plan that the white house in on is too good for the people who pay for it. That's BS. Fair is fair and we the people are getting the shaft.

Nothing... Fact is, we are all suffering from an incurable fatal condition... its called life.

The Government should not be in the health care business. It is having a hard enough time running all the other business it has taken on...

You are correct in that statement, but it also will provide health care for those that choose not to work, including illegal alliens. Why should those who work hard to make a living be responcible for paying the way for those that don't. Not only that, its a total slap in the face for the members of the silver lined package to have such a great policy while they feel we are not good enough to have the same. Why are they so much better?

I guess im against the government having anything to do with health care. They spend more now than teh tax payers can put in the system, so why on earth do we want to spend more? It seems to me that this whole buy now pay later has gotten us to the huge hole we are in. How are we gonna pay for this ne plan? Taxes? When does the working men and women have a chance to get their head above water. Our unborn children are going to be paying for this and not even had a say in it.

BlueWater, why would anyone want to invest in an insurance company stock, ie, be a share holder in a company or industry that would have to go head to head with the federal government, an entity that does not have to show a profit and has an endless supply of capital, yours and mine?

BTW, congrats to your Dad and his Dr's!!!

It's funny that Conservatives are all suddenly concerned about the tax burden their children may have to bear.
Suddenly because they were all for running up the Debt when it was their guy running the country into the ground.
They were all so quiet and content while Bush emptied the treasury prancing around the world in his underwear with a tower tied around his neck bombing "Evildoers."
Same with Reagan. Conservatives only complain when they aren't the ones in power.

Its funny that you bring up the FEDEX/UPS/USPS comparison as Pres Obama did a few weeks ago too. Did you know that the USPS is scheduled to loose $7 Billion dollars this year? Government run efficiency at its finest.

Irie, whats really funny is that Dems were complaining about fiscal responsibility until they got the Congress and later the White House. Never saw Pelosi or Reid or Schumer or Teddy mugging for the cameras complaining during the previous 8 years did you? Probably didn't notice it since the choir was all signing together.

The USPS is not government run and if it no longer existed, yeah UPS and FEDEX would be happy to deliver your letter for about 100 times the cost.

I'm still wondering what ya'll think about Medicare and the VA? GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE.
If it weren't for Medicare there would be Senior citizens dying in droves as private health care would either refuse to cover them or charge them more than the vast majority could afford. So, either we the people would foot the bill or let them die. Talk about pulling the plug on granny.

So AM, you advocate doing away with Medicare and the VA and leaving even more people to fend for themselves insurance wise?

So is my medicare "account" that I've paid into forever go to Obamacare?

It is completely structured as a public corporation sans the shareholders and less tax payer funded than almost any other major corporation.

Here's a write up of the debate:

The Modern Postal Service: Agency or Business?
Until adoption of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, the U.S. Postal Service functioned as a regular, tax-supported, agency of the federal government.

According to the laws under which it now operates, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit.

In 1982, U.S. postage stamps became "postal products," rather than a form of taxation. Since then, The bulk of the cost of operating the postal system has been paid for by customers through the sale of "postal products" and services rather than taxes.

Each class of mail is also expected to cover its share of the costs, a requirement that causes the percentage rate adjustments to vary in different classes of mail, according the costs associated with the processing and delivery characteristics of each class.

According to the costs of operations, U.S. Postal Service rates are set by the Postal Regulatory Commission according to the recommendations of the Postal Board of Governors.

Look, the USPS is an Agency!
The USPS is created as a government agency under Title 39, Section 101.1 of the United States Code which states, in part:


(a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

Under paragraph (d) of Title 39, Section 101.1, "Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis."

No, the USPS is a Business!
the Postal Service takes on some several very non-governmental attributes via the powers granted to it under Title 39, Section 401, which include:


power to sue (and be sued) under its own name;


power to adopt, amend and repeal its own regulations;


power to "enter into and perform contracts, execute instruments, and determine the character of, and necessity for, its expenditures";


power to buy, sell and lease private property; and,


power to build, operate, lease and maintain buildings and facilities.

All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies, and for keeping some rural posts offices in operation.

Under federal law, only the Postal Service can handle or charge postage for handling letters. Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even. Still, the US Postal Service has averaged a profit of over $1 billion per year in each of the last five years. Yet, Postal Service officials argue that they must continue to raise postage at regular intervals in order make up for the increased use of email.