[markomalley]

If SCOTUS lets Obamacare remain intact...or if the RINO Congress tries to recraft an Obamacare-lite version, we will see this happen all too often here, as well.

[No One Special]

What’s even worse is these drugs will not be developed for lack of a return on investment.

[pepsionice]

The British system has a unique feature...if you are terminal in just about any fashion....even if the end is eighteen months away....other than pain medication, you won’t get nothing else.

It’s the same way if you weight over 300 pounds and need a knee replacement...you won’t get it until you usually get down to 200 pounds. With a bad knee, there’s virtually no way that you can lose weight...so you just get pain-killers until the day you pass away.

It might take twenty years, but if Obamacare stays intact....we will all be inviting regulations to dominate our health in the end. You may one day have to buy a ticket to Costa Rica....just to get the care that you think you deserve.

[Caulkhead]

“If SCOTUS lets Obamacare remain intact...or if the RINO Congress tries to recraft an Obamacare-lite version, we will see this happen all too often here, as well.”

I’m not sure I see the problem. Just because the NHS doesn’t think the drug is worth the money doesn’t mean people can’t put their hand in their pocket and buy it for themselves if they disagree. The NHS doesn’t ban people from private healthcare providers or paying for it yourself.

Is that the intention of Obamacare - to replace all private healthcare and ban people from buying drugs and treatment themselves making Obamacare a mandatory monopoly? If it is I can see why people are so concerned, but that’s not how the NHS operates.

[1010RD]

This is exactly what American medicine needs - more bureaucracy.

Have you seen this?: “As scientists operating a small business, one of the biggest challenges they face is regulatory uncertainty, Vikram said. “Large companies have the manpower and bandwidth to keep an eye on changing governmental regulations. Smaller businesses don’t.”

It’s from here: Insera Therapeutics Slide 5 http://www.livescience.com/13210-science-business-success-nsf.html

Reality is all over, but liberals don’t want to see it.

[Gaffer]

The drug named Zelboraf, or vemurafenib, is for malignant melanoma that has spread and carries a specific genetic mutation and costs around £1,750 per patient per week.

Yet the same government that is responsible for the NHS is more than perfectly willing to put up a Zambian brood mare and her family in a 2 million pound townhome, virtually rent free. Equality? I'd say it's quite a bit more than equality.

[Diogenesis]

ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE does not impact Moslems
and Congress.

Very fair, is it not?

[Gay State Conservative]

Coming soon to a large North American nation near you! Of course the “1%” of that nation will never be denied medications...or put on waiting lists...or be ruled by death panels,will they Mr Soros? Will they Miss Streisand? Will they,Mr algore? Will they,Osama Obama?

[radioone]

1) Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)

[Shady]

My wife died of malignant melanoma. This is a crime against humanity. Period.

[RFEngineer]

“If SCOTUS lets Obamacare remain intact...or if the RINO Congress tries to recraft an Obamacare-lite version, we will see this happen all too often here, as well. “

You will see this in any system that is not the customer paying directly for something they want.

There is an upper limit to what socialist systems will pay. People in the US aren’t used to socialism having limits because there were no limits to what we were willing to borrow. That is changing.

NHS = Medicare = Obamacare = Socialism

They are all the same in that they force people to give their property to someone else.

[Sooth2222]

In the US, health insurance policies may or may not cover payment for outpatient chemotherapy.

But Obamacare mandates coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.

I would be more concerned about shelling out $100,000 or more annually for outpatient chemotherapy than $10 per month for contraceptives, and I suspect the overall cost of covering the former is less than the cost of covering the latter -- but hey, which will bring more clueless voters into the 'rats column at election time?

[uncbob]

It is thought the drug may extend life from around 9.6 months to more than 13 months, a spokesman for Roche said.

What a break through !!!!!!!!

[Sherman Logan]

costs around £1,750 per patient per week.

Or about $2700/week, $136,500/year.

It is thought the drug may extend life from around 9.6 months to more than 13 months

That adds up to $150,000 for an additional 3.4 months. Or about $44,000/month, $10,000/week.

I must be the only conservative left who wonders if this is indeed worth the price.

If it were my own money, I would certainly never spend $150,000 of what I could otherwise leave my children in order to get another 3.4 months.

But I guess if it's the government's money or the insurance company's money such considerations don't matter.

Which brings up the interesting question of how much IS too much.

Should we spend $1M to extend an individual patient's life by a week? $10M? $100M?

There are very real constraints on what we, as a society, can spend. $1M spent on A cannot be spent on anything else. So we really ought to be asking ourselves, "Where do we want to spend that money?"

Conservatism by definition recognizes there is no such thing as a free lunch. The essence of life is dealing with tradeoffs. It is liberalism that insists we cannot only have it all, we can have it for free, or at least make somebody else pay for it.