?

In any case, the general impression that most people seem to have about universal health care is that it will take care of all their needs, and that is clearly not the case. The worst part is that Oregon was willing to pay for his woman to be killed by her doctor, but not for treatment for her cancer. Whether or not the 5% chances are enough for any insurance or government plan to pay for it still doesn’t change the offense that they were happy to pay for her death instead of treatment, or that health care would definitely be rationed when paid for by the government. Catholic Mom (see my previous link) has some excellent points about healthcare in this country.

Personally, I’ve also dealt with my insurance company declining certain treatments and care, so I know just how it works, too. (For the record, the care was adjusted so that similar care could be provided with coverage, and it was for hyperemesis during my second pregnancy.)

As far as insurance companies go vs. government health care, rationing does, indeed, happen with both. As the article above states, the pharmaceutical company stepped in and offered the drugs to her for free, and this is actually not unusual. My aunt died just under a month ago from a brain tumor, and her insurance covered precious little of her medical care. She was not turned away, and she certainly was not treated as inferior because of it, either. Whether or not my family had the ability to pay for everything, she was seen at MD Anderson by a top-quality specialist, and the pharmaceutical company offered them the drugs she was taking at a reduced price when insurance turned them down flat.

Again, as far as the “line-drawing” goes, and others have brought this up, as well, I don’t see how saying such things reflects our Catholic belief in the inherent dignity of this woman’s life. I’m sure that we all agree that the fact that the “free” healthcare Oregon offers included allowing her doctor to kill her while not even assisting in paying for the drugs she needed to fight the cancer is a true tragedy. But in addition to the rationing of healthcare, under a universal system such as the one proposed by the Democrats (both Obama and Clinton), there would be plenty of other difficulties. Ask anyone who has been in the military what it’s like to get help under the government-run medical system. It’s not pleasant, and you tend to get a real run-around for the most simple procedures. (A very recent account of a military family’s situation was posted at Catholic Matriarch in my Domestic Church; this link is for part two, but you can find part one within a click-through at the post.)

Cigna, by the way, wasn’t trying to “keep shareholders happy,” given that it didn’t have to pay for the procedure at all; instead, it was functioning merely as an administrator of a health plan that was paid for by someone else. Try to be more accurate.

MM on a previous post about a girl in California who was about to die anyway and who was denied an unproven experimental procedure that wouldn’t have saved her life:
http://vox-nova.com/2007/12/21/negligent-insurance-companies-claim-another-victim/#comments

THis is simply inevitable when the profit motive underpins health care. The extra adninistrative cost of the US health care industry, compared with government insurance programs in other countries, is $84 billion a year. That means money spent to screen patients and deny claims.

And:

It is quite right to point one’s finger at the insurance company. As I said, they are in business to make money. Paying out insurance claims is deemed a “medical loss” in their parlance.

Moral: MM is very flexible and can argue for completely inconsistent positions. If an insurance company is the entity denying payment for a worthless experimental procedure that is likely worthless, MM will point the finger, cast blame, and insinuate that this sort of event wouldn’t happen in a universal system that lacked the “profit motive.” If it’s a state system is the entity denying payment, then he’ll scrap about for excuses.

As justification for you saying this:

“But that isn’t going to stop people from posing for holy picutres about how evil the government is for denying care in this instance.

* A line has to be drawn some where.”

So I’m not sure what I said that I don’t know about…

You have no clue what you are talking about. Before you “carelessly” impugn me, figure out what you are talking about.

Isn’t that the very reason certain people are turned down for private insurance? Doesn’t Obama want people to be covered no matter their pre-existing conditions? Where’s the money going to come from?