Posted on 09/16/2010 4:11:54 PM PDT by STARWISE
As the government moves to involve itself in more of our healthcare in the ramp-up to the implementation of Obamacare, the old ways in which it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship serve as a stark reminder of what is come.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the regulatory body that basically sets the tone for which drugs patients have access to, is preparing to dramatically shift the drug approval process for the United States.
It appears that using the late-stage cancer drug Avastin as a test case, the FDA is using cost as a factor in the drug approval process.
The result of the “de-labeling” of the drug is that only those who can afford to pay for the drug will have access to it. Medicare and private insurance companies will be able to deny breast cancer patients coverage for this life-extending drug
CNN reports on what the decision could mean to cancer patients, including Marcia Gilbert who has fought breast cancer for 15 years and relies on Avastin to keep cancer away. For cancer patients like Gilbert, the FDA’s decision creates fear and anxiety about the future.
The senior citizens rights group 60 Plus has measured this anxiety with a new poll of the American people. It’s not just cancer patients that fear what the FDA is proposing. Seniors and women — especially swing seniors and women — are upset about it.
Rest @ link
“Well, you pretty much have to be a millionaire to be able to
afford VERY much health care on your own.”
Well, it’s not quite that bad, yet. But yes, good health is a blessing.
The point is that there is a mindset that medicare is “free” and should provide whatever someone wants, medically, and we have a medical system set up to provide it.
The only (viable) way to lower costs for medicare is to provide less care. Of course, government being what it is always tries to simply “pay less” to lower costs - which then get passed along to you and me in the form of increased costs.
To the extent that costs for medical treatment are socialized, then they will be out of control.
Let’s hope that we figure that out as a country before too many people die, or are bankrupted.
I agree, but if you look at the amount folks like me have paid into Medicare over their career, it's not much.
There's no way it could begin to cover my expected average medical expenses from 65 on.
The system is a Bernie Madoff concoction.
I’m afraid the younger generations will be paying for these
criminal activities of the Keystone Kops who are in charge for more
years than we can contemplate!
“Wow, you have been pretty arrogant on this thread.”
You call it arrogance, I call it reality expressed unabashedly.
Do you really think that the solution is more government spending for Medicare?
Do you think that cost should not be a factor in medical decision, especially costs paid by government?
I am not justifying anything. I recognize that our present government medical programs are failures, and that our present insurance system is also broken. The reality is that we cannot afford to give everybody everything they want for free.
There is plenty of blame and plenty of greed to go around with this story.
The way to fix it is for people to pay for what they want, and not expect someone else to do it for them.
We’ll eventually get to that point, like it or not.
Well, it’s ALWAYS taken from us...whether in taxes or reduced
services. Time to clean house!
I am sooooooo ready for November and hope that there are lessons
learned from what has happened under the Fake President!
NO
Do you think that cost should not be a factor in medical decision, especially costs paid by government?
Who said ANYTHING about WANTING the government to pay for their health care?? NO ONE ON THIS THREAD DID.
SO, Mr Arrogant, tell who here was INSISTING that GOVERNMENT PAY their health care?? WHO????
And my God man, talk about projection. You ASSUME the posters here are greedy. drop dead, the death panel will be more than happy to do that for you.
The government paying you enough for your troll duties???
“The government paying you enough for your troll duties??? “
You have no idea what I am talking about.
I also have no idea what you are talking about.
Why don’t we just agree not post to each other until such time as one of us figures out what the other is saying?
There’s no way it could begin to cover my expected average medical expenses from 65 on.
******************************
Of course not, that is the way fiat money systems work.
The money, over time, loses value, and the money you saved loses value. That is the idea. Little people aren’t to have REAL purchasing power, nope, can’t have that.
So, the main fault is the FED and their ponzi scheme of the fiat money system. Bernie Madoff is right, it is Bernie Madoff legalized by the FED fiat money. Bought and paid for since 1913, and by the cowards in CONgress that have allowed this to be. They have the legal authority to have a sound money system, but have allowed the FED to DICTATE to this entire nation an UNSOUND money system that DESTROYS savers.
Like you and me, honest hard working people who just want to be able to care for our families.
That is asking too much for some around here.
My only hope is that Democrats get full “credit” for the Social Security and Medicare systems they have created.
The current rule going against the use of a certain breast cancer drug, like the above example is based on statistics.
This statistical approach says that if the health care practice is very successful something less than most of the time (a % that may differ with each such type of ruling), then it should not be approved because the expense of it is "wasted", WHEN it is not very successful, often enough (whatever often enough means. The problem is that you only know exactly for whom it will be very successful when it is used on anyone for whom IT MIGHT BE very successful. Until it is used, who it is going to be most successful for cannot be determined. By denying approval of it to all, not only is the use of it denied to those for whom it might not have been very successful (which might in fact have been a majority), but to all those whom (statistically) it could have been very successful as well; if they had only had the opportunity to find out. This is health care rationing at its worst.
That will be interesting as this economy stalls. The entitlement mindset is stronger now than during the last Depression. But if the currency implodes, all bets are off, and what happens then is wide open to speculation. But anger and blame will be all over the place. Interesting times indeed.
That's exactly it. It's death panels in all but name.
Insurance does not mean you get everything you want. You get what they agree to give you - and they disclose it upfront. If everyone got expensive care then insurance costs would rise even more dramatically. At least that isn’t disconnected with fiscal reality like the folks who want the government to pay no matter what the cost.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course insurance doesn't pay for 100% of everything. However, if the FDA de-lable's medications (not because of efficacy issues but because of high costs determined by a gov't bureaucrat) you can be sure that those expensive medications that those who's private insurance currently DO pay for...will no longer.
Oh, and by the way, everyone who receives medical care in this country ALREADY receives expensive medical care. The best doctors, the best equipment, the best medication (etc) ALL come with a high price tag.
“Oh, and by the way, everyone who receives medical care in this country ALREADY receives expensive medical care. The best doctors, the best equipment, the best medication (etc) ALL come with a high price tag. “
You are correct.
The reason we are having the discussion is that we can no longer afford to give everyone the best of everything.
The high price tag has gotten too high.
Just because a drug exists, doesn’t mean that everyone should get it without regard to cost.
This is something that we as Americans are not used to hearing, but something that we, increasingly as supporters of blatantly socialist government programs can only expect more of - being told “no”.
You want the best? we have to get rid of socialism and government-funded health care. You also have to pay for what you want.
That is the only way that the system can return to a working state. This is among the last drug innovations, as expensive as it is, that we can expect to see until and unless people become willing to pay for the medical care they receive - the true cost.
***That’s exactly it. It’s death panels in all but name.***
You have got that right.
I have many relatives in Canada. I have seen them die without a hospital bed, denied palliative care while dying of cancer, and left blind when a simple outpatient procedure could have cured it because my uncle was ‘too old.’
The only one who got a doctor flown in from NY USA was the uncle who had been a city councilman in a Provence capital.
We will be left to die, while the connected and politicians will get the best and most expensive of care. Count on it.
Thanks STARWISE.
May God bless you a very long and healthy life.
“You are saying now that we have NO right to the new drugs that could very well prolong our lives.”
I am saying that if Medicaid says you can’t have it, then you won’t get it for free.
You have the right to pay for it yourself.
Why do you think you have a RIGHT to things paid for by other peoples earnings, including your grand children’s?
Socialism will always disappoint. Socialism is heartless and cruel but socialism will fail - and that is the only good news.
Just printed my new pistol targets from FR today. Has a Blue D inside a Blue circle for the bull.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.