A Step Closer to Death Panels

[Intense]

Interesting because it's the insurance companies will be the ones paying for this. Which means that cost gets passed to everyone else through higher premiums. Now "your choice" is affecting me. Aren't you one of the ones who argues about "paying your own way and not mooching off of everyone else"? This seems like an awfully expensive drug to be using when it isn't proven to be completely effective, especially for a fiscal hawk such as yourself.

Now I'm not saying it should have its approval taken away, at least not for cost reasons. I don't think cost should be a primary factor when considering peoples health, but if the data isn't there to support it being effective then that's a different story.

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

The ObamaCare you support will get rid of any choice regarding coverage whatsoever.

I agree with all of that except the last sentence.
Where is that in the bill?

I believe the goal is first to limit and eliminate competition. The Second part is to later eliminate service and choice.

 

[Intense]

Interesting because it's the insurance companies will be the ones paying for this. Which means that cost gets passed to everyone else through higher premiums. Now "your choice" is affecting me. Aren't you one of the ones who argues about "paying your own way and not mooching off of everyone else"? This seems like an awfully expensive drug to be using when it isn't proven to be completely effective, especially for a fiscal hawk such as yourself.

Now I'm not saying it should have its approval taken away, at least not for cost reasons. I don't think cost should be a primary factor when considering peoples health, but if the data isn't there to support it being effective then that's a different story.

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

The ObamaCare you support will get rid of any choice regarding coverage whatsoever.

I'm just using the "logic" of the right here. I'm fully aware that it's pooled risk. But why should YOU get to have an $80k cancer drug that may or may not help you and the rest of us have to pay for it through increased rates when we don't need the drug??? </end right wing logic>

The status quo health care system you support already has death panels in place at every insurance company. Don't be dumb.

I know you are trying to be honest here, but.... What you represent is your impression of what Right Wing thinking is, which is significantly different than the reality of it.

 

[xotoxi]

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

You don't have any choice on whether or not Medicare covers it.

 

[boedicca]

Interesting because it's the insurance companies will be the ones paying for this. Which means that cost gets passed to everyone else through higher premiums. Now "your choice" is affecting me. Aren't you one of the ones who argues about "paying your own way and not mooching off of everyone else"? This seems like an awfully expensive drug to be using when it isn't proven to be completely effective, especially for a fiscal hawk such as yourself.

Now I'm not saying it should have its approval taken away, at least not for cost reasons. I don't think cost should be a primary factor when considering peoples health, but if the data isn't there to support it being effective then that's a different story.

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

The ObamaCare you support will get rid of any choice regarding coverage whatsoever.

I agree with all of that except the last sentence.
Where is that in the bill?

It's in the definition for what qualifies as an approved plan. Want evidence - look at all of the companies and organizations that are requesting waivers because their plans don't meet the "standards".

Once the regulators get their hands on the process, the definition of what is in and out will become more draconian, and our choices will dwindle to the Public Option - because that has been the objective all along.

 

[xotoxi]

Because health insurance is currently voluntary; and yes insurance companies make decisions on what to cover. But they don't have the power to take away all choice in the marketplace.

A great many things are expensive: open heart surgery, knee replacement, dialysis....

Instead of fostering a climate in which the insurance market can provide a variety of plans to suit a variety of preferences, you'd rather have the government decide How Much A Life Is Worth.

No thank you.

Do you realize that if FDA did not approve of medications and treatments that no insurance company would cover anything?

The only reason why an insurance company would even consider covering a medication like Avastin is because the Government forces them to cover it.

 

[boedicca]

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

You don't have any choice on whether or not Medicare covers it.

You're making a mistake in thinking I support Medicare. I hope by the time I retire that there are some better, free market alternatives - although if Obama gets his way, we'll all just buy aspiring and wait to die.

 

[xotoxi]

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

You don't have any choice on whether or not Medicare covers it.

You're making a mistake in thinking I support Medicare. I hope by the time I retire that there are some better, free market alternatives - although if Obama gets his way, we'll all just buy aspiring and wait to die.

I'm not thinking that you support Medicare.

But I'm just wondering if you support Medicare paying $80,000 for medication that will not increase someone's livelihood?

 

[boedicca]

That's what insurance is - pooled risk. If I want to purchase insurance coverage which includes Avastin as an approved med, I should be able to - just as you should be free to purchase insurance coverage which doesn't. If there is enough demand for both options, then the insurance companies can price them accordingly.

The ObamaCare you support will get rid of any choice regarding coverage whatsoever.

I agree with all of that except the last sentence.
Where is that in the bill?

I believe the goal is first to limit and eliminate competition. The Second part is to later eliminate service and choice.

That is the goal. The appointment of Berwick should make this self evident.

 

[Vanquish]

The OP boggles the mind

 

[boedicca]

You don't have any choice on whether or not Medicare covers it.

You're making a mistake in thinking I support Medicare. I hope by the time I retire that there are some better, free market alternatives - although if Obama gets his way, we'll all just buy aspiring and wait to die.

I'm not thinking that you support Medicare.

But I'm just wondering if you support Medicare paying $80,000 for medication that will not increase someone's livelihood?

Actually, Avastin does increase somebody's livelihood - the seller's.

Whether or not it increases longevity or quality of life depends upon the subject. The risk to try it should be a personal decision between the patient and the doctor.

To answer your question presupposes accepting that Medicare is a proper role of government. I don't.

 

[xotoxi]

You're making a mistake in thinking I support Medicare. I hope by the time I retire that there are some better, free market alternatives - although if Obama gets his way, we'll all just buy aspiring and wait to die.

I'm not thinking that you support Medicare.

But I'm just wondering if you support Medicare paying $80,000 for medication that will not increase someone's livelihood?

Actually, Avastin does increase somebody's livelihood - the seller's.

Whether or not it increases longevity or quality of life depends upon the subject. The risk to try it should be a personal decision between the patient and the doctor.

To answer your question presupposes accepting that Medicare is a proper role of government. I don't.

(Thanks for correcting my word.)

As for the personal decision between the patient and the doctor, that still can be made regardless of the FDA approval of the medication. The lack of FDA approval does not mean that it can not be used for anything.

The lack of FDA approval means that a third party may not pay for it. The FDA is not making a decision in the process at all.

As for whether or not Medicare is proper, is not up for a debate in this thread. It exists. You and I pay for it. It pays for expensive cancer treatments that do not improve longevity.

 

[boedicca]

That isn't true about Avastin. The results show some improved longevity - and some improved quality of life.

Whether or not the cost is worth it is not something that the government should decide.

 

[xotoxi]

That isn't true about Avastin. The results show some improved longevity - and some improved quality of life.

FDA: Avastin Does Not Work for Breast Cancer Treatment | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS

In a statement, the agency said that four independent trials have shown that Avastin does not increase life expectancy for breast cancer patients and that it has serious side effects, including high blood pressure, bleeding and hemorrhaging, holes in the intestines and stomach, and heart failure.

...

The FDA approved Avastin in 2008 using a fast-track accelerated approval program after one large study found that the drug could increase "progression-free survival time" -- or the amount of time a breast cancer patient lived before cancer got worse -- by five months on average.

But follow-up trials failed to find the same effect, or to show that the drug increased life expectancy.

 

[xotoxi]

What happened to our discussion?

Did I say something wrong?

Does my breath smell?

 

[loosecannon]

Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.

And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the advisory committee claims its recommendation had nothing to do with Avastin's cost. The FDA's top brass will doubtlessly take the same line and claim that its decision to ratify that recommendation was based solely on the drug's medical efficiency.

The truth is that Avastin is expensive. A year-long supply for breast cancer treatment costs upwards of $80,000.

However, many American women are getting something priceless in return for those dollars: life and vitality. In one clinical trial, nearly 50% of patients receiving Avastin witnessed their tumors shrink. Another study found that patients receiving the drug in conjunction with chemotherapy lived "progression-free" twice as long as patients without it.

What's more, for a select group of "super responders," Avastin can improve life span by years. That can mean years of extra time for, say, a mother to attend her son's soccer games, for a daughter to vacation with her husband, or for a grandmother to watch her grandchildren grow up. ...

The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com

If you want Avastin buy it yourself. No federally funded program should pay $80K/year merely to keep somebody alive when they are terminally ill.

Better to spend that money on wellness and preventative medicine for healthy people.

Death panels are the solution, not the problem.

BTW isn't a government that maintains your life artificially a NANNY state?

 

[Revere]

Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.

And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the advisory committee claims its recommendation had nothing to do with Avastin's cost. The FDA's top brass will doubtlessly take the same line and claim that its decision to ratify that recommendation was based solely on the drug's medical efficiency.

The truth is that Avastin is expensive. A year-long supply for breast cancer treatment costs upwards of $80,000.

However, many American women are getting something priceless in return for those dollars: life and vitality. In one clinical trial, nearly 50% of patients receiving Avastin witnessed their tumors shrink. Another study found that patients receiving the drug in conjunction with chemotherapy lived "progression-free" twice as long as patients without it.

What's more, for a select group of "super responders," Avastin can improve life span by years. That can mean years of extra time for, say, a mother to attend her son's soccer games, for a daughter to vacation with her husband, or for a grandmother to watch her grandchildren grow up. ...

The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com

If you want Avastin buy it yourself. No federally funded program should pay $80K/year merely to keep somebody alive when they are terminally ill.

Better to spend that money on wellness and preventative medicine for healthy people.

Death panels are the solution, not the problem.

BTW isn't a government that maintains your life artificially a NANNY state?

The FDA ruling green lights private insurance to cease to cover it.

Just like cutting off mammograms did last time around.

 

[loosecannon]

That isn't true about Avastin. The results show some improved longevity - and some improved quality of life.

Whether or not the cost is worth it is not something that the government should decide.

You think we should spend $80K/year/patient just to provide SOME improved longevity and SOME improved quality of life for folks who are terminally ill and yet you reject the notion of a nanny state? And you reject universal healthcare for ALL?

Are you nutz? Serious question.

 

[loosecannon]

Federal Health Authorities are expected to prevail in getting the FDA to unapprove Avastan (an $80K per year drug) for breast cancer patients.

And recall the position on reducing the use of mammograms some months ago. It's quite clear that the Feds are intent on reducing access to "expensive" procedures and drugs. In this case, the FDA is the means to reduce treatment.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the advisory committee claims its recommendation had nothing to do with Avastin's cost. The FDA's top brass will doubtlessly take the same line and claim that its decision to ratify that recommendation was based solely on the drug's medical efficiency.

The truth is that Avastin is expensive. A year-long supply for breast cancer treatment costs upwards of $80,000.

However, many American women are getting something priceless in return for those dollars: life and vitality. In one clinical trial, nearly 50% of patients receiving Avastin witnessed their tumors shrink. Another study found that patients receiving the drug in conjunction with chemotherapy lived "progression-free" twice as long as patients without it.

What's more, for a select group of "super responders," Avastin can improve life span by years. That can mean years of extra time for, say, a mother to attend her son's soccer games, for a daughter to vacation with her husband, or for a grandmother to watch her grandchildren grow up. ...

The Fatal Move From The FDA - Forbes.com

If you want Avastin buy it yourself. No federally funded program should pay $80K/year merely to keep somebody alive when they are terminally ill.

Better to spend that money on wellness and preventative medicine for healthy people.

Death panels are the solution, not the problem.

BTW isn't a government that maintains your life artificially a NANNY state?

The FDA ruling green lights private insurance to cease to cover it.

Just like cutting off mammograms did last time around.

Excellent, I wouldn't want the general public to be forced to subsidize this misuse of funds via their insurance premiums.

 

[Revere]

I should be able to buy a private insurance policy that covers that, yes, if the plan offers it.

In this case, it's government saying "no" with the FDA.

 

[Revere]

If you want Avastin buy it yourself. No federally funded program should pay $80K/year merely to keep somebody alive when they are terminally ill.

Better to spend that money on wellness and preventative medicine for healthy people.

Death panels are the solution, not the problem.

BTW isn't a government that maintains your life artificially a NANNY state?

The FDA ruling green lights private insurance to cease to cover it.

Just like cutting off mammograms did last time around.

Excellent, I wouldn't want the general public to be forced to subsidize this misuse of funds via their insurance premiums.

Private insurance is a risk pool you voluntarily contract to join.