A Step Closer to Death Panels

[JFK_USA]

The more the Fed will need to pay out in costs, the more desperate, it will be in finding excuses not to.

I expect this is the first in long train of FDA Unapprovals.

Afterall, Obama said that all we need is aspirin. And that's all that will be left on the approved list for the little people. The Politically Connected Elite will still have access to these medicines.

We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death:

"No one should subscribe to the reasoning of a bioethicist, even one as eminent as Dr Emanuel, without kicking the tyres. He should be asked two questions: what makes us human and what makes right right and wrong wrong. If we can agree on the philosophical bits, it is much more likely that we will agree on the practical consequences which flow from them.

Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring? When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is. In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee.

No doubt the ASBH would respond, “Trust us! We are honourable men. Decent people like us would never ignore your mother's dignity.” Hopefully this is true of most members of the ASBH. But “trust us” is not a very persuasive argument.”
Bioethicists cannot cope with the death panels issue
(emphasis mine)

Lets focus on your one statement:

"We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death"

So if you are sick, you have one person that will help pay your cost without asking for anything back because they care about the people. You have another person who you pay every month to help you pay for the costs later on, but then when you get sick, they decline to help pay for it because its not good business for them.

So who is the person who is going to help you out? Thats right the government. Because if you have a drug for $80,000/year, who is more likely to pay for that drug. Someone who looks out for others or someone who looks out for their bottom line?

So once again here is what you exactly said:

"We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death"

So your choice, will you trust someone who looks out for your best interest or someone who is looking out for their own.

Welcome to the Democratic Party.

 

[Revere]

Government does not give you all the health care you want.

 

[uscitizen]

The government needs for seniors especially, to die off, sooner than later. We will be hearing about new ways to accomplish that, in the future. My 69 year old aunt, is not looking forward to them. I think the drug you are talking about here is the one Canadians come to our country for treatment? Canada won't pay for it? Correct me if I am wrong, please.

Umm later in the case of this drug seems to be only a few months later for an extreme amount of money. It does not seem to cure anything, is only used on terminal patients, and it is even questionable if it extends life even by three months and at what quality level?

 

[Revere]

There are lots of end stage treatments which don't cure terminal diseases, but merely prolong life.

 

[loosecannon]

I expect this is the first in long train of FDA Unapprovals.

Afterall, Obama said that all we need is aspirin. And that's all that will be left on the approved list for the little people. The Politically Connected Elite will still have access to these medicines.

We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death:

"No one should subscribe to the reasoning of a bioethicist, even one as eminent as Dr Emanuel, without kicking the tyres. He should be asked two questions: what makes us human and what makes right right and wrong wrong. If we can agree on the philosophical bits, it is much more likely that we will agree on the practical consequences which flow from them.

Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring? When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is. In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee.

No doubt the ASBH would respond, “Trust us! We are honourable men. Decent people like us would never ignore your mother's dignity.” Hopefully this is true of most members of the ASBH. But “trust us” is not a very persuasive argument.”
Bioethicists cannot cope with the death panels issue
(emphasis mine)

Lets focus on your one statement:

"We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death"

So if you are sick, you have one person that will help pay your cost without asking for anything back because they care about the people. You have another person who you pay every month to help you pay for the costs later on, but then when you get sick, they decline to help pay for it because its not good business for them.

So who is the person who is going to help you out? Thats right the government. Because if you have a drug for $80,000/year, who is more likely to pay for that drug. Someone who looks out for others or someone who looks out for their bottom line?

So once again here is what you exactly said:

"We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death"

So your choice, will you trust someone who looks out for your best interest or someone who is looking out for their own.

Welcome to the Democratic Party.

The government has to look out for the bottom line just like private insurance does. The difference being that the government does not have an innate agenda to pad that bottom line with as much profit as it can possibly glean from your body or the bodies of the balance of society who subsidize your treatment.

 

[uscitizen]

How many would spend a couple of hundred thousand or more of their own money to live 3 more months or so in a low quality of life if they had it to spend?

would they sell their families home to live a few more months in pain?

 

[Revere]

We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death:

"No one should subscribe to the reasoning of a bioethicist, even one as eminent as Dr Emanuel, without kicking the tyres. He should be asked two questions: what makes us human and what makes right right and wrong wrong. If we can agree on the philosophical bits, it is much more likely that we will agree on the practical consequences which flow from them.

Let's say that your mother has Alzheimer's and breaks her hip. Let's say that all the bioethicists on the hospital ethics committee have degrees in behavioral economics, psychology, decision theory or sociology. Would you find that reassuring? When tough decisions have to be made about her future, would you expect them to treat your mother as a unique human being with inalienable dignity? Probably not. Probably the thought would cross your mind that these guys may know a lot about quality-adjusted life years, but not a lot about how precious a human life is. In fact, the thought might cross your mind that this looks more like a death panel than an ethics committee.

No doubt the ASBH would respond, “Trust us! We are honourable men. Decent people like us would never ignore your mother's dignity.” Hopefully this is true of most members of the ASBH. But “trust us” is not a very persuasive argument.”
Bioethicists cannot cope with the death panels issue
(emphasis mine)

Lets focus on your one statement:

"We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death"

So if you are sick, you have one person that will help pay your cost without asking for anything back because they care about the people. You have another person who you pay every month to help you pay for the costs later on, but then when you get sick, they decline to help pay for it because its not good business for them.

So who is the person who is going to help you out? Thats right the government. Because if you have a drug for $80,000/year, who is more likely to pay for that drug. Someone who looks out for others or someone who looks out for their bottom line?

So once again here is what you exactly said:

"We should be very careful as to whom we give power of life and death"

So your choice, will you trust someone who looks out for your best interest or someone who is looking out for their own.

Welcome to the Democratic Party.

The government has to look out for the bottom line just like private insurance does. The difference being that the government does not have an innate agenda to pad that bottom line with as much profit as it can possibly glean from your body or the bodies of the balance of society who subsidize your treatment.

The bottom line for government is rationing. There is no appeal, no ability to shop around.

 

[Revere]

How many would spend a couple of hundred thousand or more of their own money to live 3 more months or so in a low quality of life if they had it to spend?

would they sell their families home to live a few more months in pain?

Why should government take that choice away from you?

 

[uscitizen]

How many would spend a couple of hundred thousand or more of their own money to live 3 more months or so in a low quality of life if they had it to spend?

would they sell their families home to live a few more months in pain?

Why should government take that choice away from you?

They do not take that choice away from you, just the choice to have someone else pay for it for you.

You seem to have a problem understanding basic concepts of logic.

 

[Revere]

If your private insurance agrees to pay for it, why is it government's place to de-list it over cost only?

 

[Revere]

And, of course, the ruling class will always get what it wants.

Pelosi pulled strings to let dying Dallas lawyer Baron try experimental cancer drug | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News

In 2002, Baron was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By October 2008, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic were telling him he had just days to live.

They also offered a glimmer of hope. Over the years, the couple had donated about $1 million to Mayo. The staff was especially diligent, Blue said. They tested an arsenal of drugs and finally discovered that Baron's cancer responded surprisingly well, in the lab, to a drug called Tysabri.

Mayo had an ample supply, but the drug was – and still is – approved only for treatment of multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease. The manufacturer, Biogen Idec, refused to give permission, even under special "compassionate use" rules that protect a drug-maker from a black mark in case of an adverse outcome.

Biogen said it didn't want to jeopardize the drug's availability to other patients. (The company did not respond to a request for comment last week.)

"I told Mayo, 'I'll sign anything, I'll release anything. Just give him the drug,' " Blue said.

Blue, also a top lawyer, began making calls. She started with Lance Armstrong, the bicyclist and cancer survivor, whom she had represented.

"I started going through Fred's Rolodex," she said. "I called every politician, every celebrity that I knew and just begged them to help. ... I must have made 200 calls."

She called clinics in Canada, trying in vain to find doctors willing to administer the drug without Biogen's OK. She hired a lawyer and prepared to sue Mayo to force it to dispense the drug. She even bought some Tysabri online from Australia, intending to send stepson Andrew Baron to smuggle it back, she said.

The younger Baron posted an open plea online to Biogen, noting that Bill Clinton, Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and even the head of the Food and Drug Administration had urged the company to reconsider.

"You talk about mental anguish," Blue recounted. "Fred, every day, would wake up and he said, 'Am I going to get the drug?' "

Others were supportive, she said, but Pelosi "put her heart and soul" into the cause, as did Harkin.

Somehow – Blue still isn't sure how – Pelosi cajoled the FDA to find a legal justification that let Mayo administer the drug, even without Biogen's consent

 

[uscitizen]

It is the american way, you get as much "justice", medical care , etc as you can afford thru politics, money, celebrety status, etc.

So you support single payor socialized medicine Revere?

I do, but I did not think you did.

 

[Revere]

Government does not give give you all the health care you want, and it does a shitty job of redistributing any resources equally.

We're to compare this system where everyone is equally miserable?

Fuck that.

 

[Revere]

And the ruling class will still get preferential treatment, single payor or not.

 

[uscitizen]

Government does not give give you all the health care you want, and it does a shitty job of redistributing any resources equally.

We're to compare this system where everyone is equally miserable?

Fuck that.

Actually the administrative costs of medicare is pretty efficient.
And yes the rich will always get ptreferrential treatment, but we should not as a country actively support that.
I have no desire to put more money in the already rich's pockets.
I try not to be a tool of the mega corps.

 

[Revere]

Medicare shifts costs to private insurance.

Why would Americans trade a system most of them are happy with for the promises of people who have accomplished nothing?

 

[The T]

It is the american way, you get as much "justice", medical care , etc as you can afford thru politics, money, celebrety status, etc.

So you support single payor socialized medicine Revere?

I do, but I did not think you did.

Why do you leave out hard work to actually EARN IT?

 

[uscitizen]

LOL Medicare advantage shifts costs to private insurance companies?
that is obviously why private companies like Humana spends millions on ads getting people to buy it.

 

[Revere]

Nobody takes a bath on Medicare patients unless they can make up the difference with private insurance.

 

[shintao]

And the ruling class will still get preferential treatment, single payor or not.

That is correct, so they are not even part of the equation.