Terminally Ill Woman’s Insurance Company Will Pay for Her Assisted Suicide, But Not for Chemo

a reply to: seasonal

You're free to blame capitalism.

I'm still going to blame the government and Obama.

This actually makes good sense... There's a fact resounding terminal illness that chemo does NOT help, it on the other hand makes the last days of her life totally crap.

Chemo is not a miracle cure, don't know why people treat it like so.

Don't you know that chemo besides killing off cancer cells also destroy the healthy cells? Which is why people who are terminally ill risk of dying from the chemo treatment instead of getting better.

The whole subject on prolonging terminal life is a joke in my view and religion is to blame. You live an entire life being lead to believe that you have to fear what comes next. That if you believe in some mind numbing religion it would somehow negate the inevitable... stupid and ignorant.

So throwing money at chemo is costly and doesn't really matter to those who are dying. That's another side of it, the next of kin to dying people are often egotisical sods... "oh I can't bear to lose him / her"... but guess what, you will, and you can't stop it, you can however make sure that the last days of that person's life are not awful by coming to terms with this and thinking about the needs of said person instead of how tough it will be on you instead.

I have a standing agreement with my girlfriend, that if either of us ever get to the point where we are terminally ill, that the other would stand by and accept that the dying one of us is euthanized before we lose the ability to take care of ourselves. I could imagine nothing more depriving and destructive than lying motionless in a bed for a couple of weeks or months in pain, just because my next of kin wanted to hold my hand!!

So more power to this insurrance company! We need more like them.

a reply to: flice

Uh, ok.

I can only say that I strongly disagree.

a reply to: flice

It seems that I erroneously believed that RELIGION was invented to comfort us, so we didn't fear physical death. Thanks for correcting the record on this matter, Flice.

a reply to: DBCowboy

You don't see the style of capitalism being practiced in the medical fields maybe being an in-see little part of the problem?
And are you OK with the US paying far higher prices for everything medical/pharma and getting #37 for quality of outcome when compared to other nations?

a reply to: DBCowboy

No. This is not your future in socialised medicine, and I can tell you that because an insurance company is involved.

See, in the UK, we HAVE socialised medicine, and while it is not perfect, if you are sick you get treated. You do not call your insurance people to deal with matters such as these, you call the people who matter, the hospital itself. You do not get offered a kill pill.

Socialised medicine does not involve insurance companies at service user level. The problem with your system is that it has too many private companies involved with it, and too little socialisation, not the other way around. That is largely the fault of congress, no one else.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds dangerously close to a real death panel.

And as I've said, it is the insurance company. The corporation "reducing costs." The state passed a law designed to allow people a choice to end their lives in extreme circumstances. The insurance company sees it as a financial loophole.

Just like "pre-existing conditions."

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds dangerously close to a real death panel.

That has always been the way with insurance companies, it is nothing new.

Hell your lucky to even get a panel. It is normally just a untrained under writer.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: seasonal

You're free to blame capitalism.

I'm still going to blame the government and Obama.

:
I worked in an insurance company (document creation) and its all about off-loading costs, creating fine print to limit their pay-outs, and making as much money as possible for their shareholders off each "product."

So in this company, some genius presented the "savings in pay-outs" and the "estimated annual profit increase" by not allowing treatment for terminal (so called) patients.

The Government wasn't in the room when that happened, other than someone trying to find out if they could legally do that. I'm guessing there was a loophole regarding "alternative treatment" that the Government hadn't anticipated and when they realize what is happening, they will regulate the insurance companies so they can't do that anymore.

Your paradigm of blame is simply wrong.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Do you really think insurance companies have the authority (as they do know) to simply deny services and kill people without having the backing of government?

TERMINALLY ILL:

Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time.

Why should the insurance continue to pay for an expensive medical treatment that is not going to help?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Easy to say if it isn't you or your partner and you want another year, six months.

Under a socialized , single-payer system, do any of you see this stopping or moving forward?

Personally, I see government-run healthcare moving forward and encouraging euthanasia.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The UK had it for over half a century.

We have our own problems but we are no were near that.


I think your mofe likely to get euthanasia from the private sector who just care about mo ey.

a reply to: crazyewok

The problem is that e have been conditioned to either place our trust in government or the private sector to determine our healthcare needs.

That decision should always be up to the individual.

But costs have sky-rocketed so much that we have had to get 3rd party assistance to pay for it. Once you do that, your health decisions are no longer yours.

We need to find a way to lower costs, so that the individual can make their own decisions on their health.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Uk the costs for private are pretty low.

The NHS is always there. But if you want to spend the money there are plenty of private hospitals that offer prices a fraction of the USA.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Show me how the government "backed" this?

Why do you think legislation gets so complicated? Because people who want to work around the law will find a loophole. When they do, in the case of health insurance companies, it can kill people. Or simply let them die.

Each state has an insurance regulator or "Insurance Commissioner." Part of their job is to catch insurance companies when they do shady crap like this. The family should call them and complain.

If what the insurance company is doing is technically legal (though despicable) the best the Ins Commisioner can do is make legislators aware of the loophole and advocate for an amendment to whatever law makes sense. (They might amend the new euthanasia drug law, for example, so insurance companies can't consider it an alternative treatment, if that's what they are doing). It is also possible to call the State Reps and advocate for a change to the law.

Yes, you may have a Rep that is "in the pocket" of the insurance company, but they also have to get reelected usually and they don't want it coming out that they didn't act in something horrible like this. So then there is the Press, which is telling this family's story in the hope of making people aware of what is happening now.

Now let me ask you, does the insurance company have no moral or ethical obligation themselves not to let people die because they've found a way to make more money?

Why is it all on the government? Obama wasn't in the room when the insurance executives approved denying "expensive" Chemo for so called "terminal" patients. (We are all "terminal" if it comes down to it.).

Why are you giving the insurance company a pass on this? Why are you blaming the people who act as the check and balance to corporate greed?

If you want the regulators and regulations to be eliminated because "government" you will find greedy sociopathic insurance "rules" like this multiplying everywhere.

Competition of the free market won't eliminate their unethical actions as they will simply agree with each other to do the same things to make money - they will set the rules as an industry. And it won't be for the good of "the people."

Peace,

AB.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

By your own logic...

Everyone dies eventually. No amount of healthcare is going to change that. So why bother with healthcare at all? Get sick and you're done.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AboveBoard

Points taken.

Insurance companies are just as bad as government.

I guess we are just so conditioned to accept the high costs and reliance on either government or insurance that we ignore the hidden 3rd option of actually lowering costs so that we don't need to rely on either insurance OR government.

There was a lady who broke her arm really badly. It was a complete mess. She went into the emergency department and had surgery on it. Afterwards they told her altogether it would take three surgeries to completely repair it, and get it back to functioning normally. They did the first surgery, and told her they would do the second in three months, after the first one had had time to completely heal.

When she went in for the second surgery, she was told sorry, her claim was denied. The second surgery was considered a "preexisting condition".

That's the sort of BS we get without government intervention.

There is no end to the greed of insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals. We've got to try to reel them in somehow.