NYC Letter: "I'm Not Ready To Die"

Day 195 of CHOPE

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE
Patriotic Options: Pay Taxes Or Die.

Earlier we noted that Obamacare -- where life and death decisions belong to the government -- will ration health care based on costs, statistical ROI, and the countervailing benefit to the state. Of necessity it will marginalize health care for the very young, the very old, the very sick, the poor. Initially there is nothing intentionally sinister about the government's plan. [Pause.] However, Obamacare is chock-a-block with inevitable evils.

The below story from last year recently resurfaced and prefigures one such evil, pushing death as the preferred alternative to expensive health care.

Intro: The Oregon Health Plan says "No" to chemotherapy and "Yes" to assisted suicide. In a letter to a Eugene cancer patient, the state explains it will not cover the costs of her chemo but will pay for doctor-assisted suicide.

Video: Barbara Wagner has one wish -- for more time.

Ms. Wagner: I'm not ready. I'm not ready to die. I've got things I'd still like to do.

Her doctor offered hope. In this bottle. The new chemotherapy drug Tarceva. ... that hope shattered with this letter from the Oregon Health Plan telling her "we were unable to approve" the cancer treatment. It will pay for comfort care including "physcian-aid-in-dying" better known as assisted suicide.

We took our concerns to Dr. Som Saha, chairman of the commission that sets policy for the Oregon Health Plan.

Q: She's says to say to someone "we'll pay for you to die but not pay for you to live" is cruel.

Dr. Som Saha: I don't think anyone is saying that. I don't think anyone is saying that. That's, ah, I think maybe an unfortunate, ah, interpretation of the letter.

Assisted suicide critic [Dr.] William Tofler [Physcians For Compassionate Care] calls the message "disturbing". ... And he says the state has a financial incentive to offer death instead of life. Chemotherapy drugs like Tarceva cost $4,000 a month. Drugs for assisted suicide cost less than $100.

Q: Is it cheaper to pay for somebody to die than help them live?

Dr. Saha: That [Slight pause.] is, ah, not a question we think about. Ah, um, we don't think about, ah, um [Bemused pause.] we don't think about investing our health care dollars in that way.

But, of course, as the good doctor goes on to explain that is exactly the way the state thinks about investing its health care dollars. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air writes:

The doctor [scil., Dr. Saha] interviewed by the news station seems offended at the suggestion that Oregon would decide to save a few bucks by denying expensive health care and offering a case of hemlock in its place. However, saving money was the raison d’etre of single-payer systems, and the incentives all drive towards that decision. Single-payer systems have to handle medical services as a shortage market, rationing them by using “comparative effectiveness” paradigms to determine who gets medical attention, and who gets “physician-aid-in-dying” instead of it.

In an earlier post Mr. Morrissey scoffed:

Oregon’s state-run health care plan won’t cover a new drug that could extend her life — which is, after all, the entire point of health insurance and health care — but will gladly pay the bill if she decides to stop costing the state more money. What’s next — a Logan’s Run option for “renewal” at 30?

Here's the kicker.

Fortunately, Wagner got rescued from her own state government. Who played the hero? The evil pharmaceutical company that produces the drug she needs, who gave it to her for free out of disgust.

CHOPE.

If you are very sick, die. The rest of you, get back to work.