The article and what you clipped is a little misleading.

Here's a response from a person "in the know".
http://conservablogs.com/haemet/2008/07/28/the-real-face-of-choice/

The toughest part is that someone had to decide when enough is enough. It was more than likely some accountant that came up with it. Do we continue to have taxpayers pay for expensive treatment when the chances of survival are very slim? That's a tough call. The number they came up with is less than 5 percent chance of surviving 5 years. Those are slim odds.

Ending the life is not the only option as this clip suggests. It's just one of three options that they'll cover. Oregon voters wanted that option.

I ...

The article and what you clipped is a little misleading.

Here's a response from a person "in the know".
http://conservablogs.com/haemet/2008/07/28/the-real-face-of-choice/

The toughest part is that someone had to decide when enough is enough. It was more than likely some accountant that came up with it. Do we continue to have taxpayers pay for expensive treatment when the chances of survival are very slim? That's a tough call. The number they came up with is less than 5 percent chance of surviving 5 years. Those are slim odds.

Ending the life is not the only option as this clip suggests. It's just one of three options that they'll cover. Oregon voters wanted that option.

I have seen taxpayer-funded triple bypass surgery done on a semi-comatose nonegenarian (that’s a person in their 90s) with emphysema, pneumonia, and failing kidneys …taken from the ICU to surgery and back to ICU, where she lingered for another couple of weeks. Where is the medical reason for that?