A Step Closer to Death Panels

[Revere]

Yeah, they are. They are the ones lying the most about everyong getting the same health care.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You folks are so naive.
The insurance companies LOBBY the state Legislatures and get whatever laws they want.
ALL an insurance commisioner can do is enforce the law.
I favor the free market but look what has happened. 1/2 of all premiums do not go for health care.
They go for lobbying, commisions and administration.
Government health care is terrible. Group health care managed by insurance companies is just as bad.
When ANY 3rd party is paying the bill be it government or an insurance company the consumer is not the customer.
Wake up. Until we go back to where YOU PAY THE DAMN BILL, and settle up later with YOUR insurance company or whatever we are fucked.

Lobbying can be stop if the government is forced to stop dealing with lobbist then liberals will not be able to use lobbist as their argument.

Lobbyists are not liberal or conservative or anything.
Lobbyists lobby for MONEY.
For MONEY they lobby your case.
YOU pay them $$ to represent YOU and they lobby for YOU.
Nothing to do with ideology.
A lobbyists' ideology is $$$.
Comprende?

Did I not make myself clear? Or do I need to explain it one more time?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You folks are so naive.
The insurance companies LOBBY the state Legislatures and get whatever laws they want.
ALL an insurance commisioner can do is enforce the law.
I favor the free market but look what has happened. 1/2 of all premiums do not go for health care.
They go for lobbying, commisions and administration.
Government health care is terrible. Group health care managed by insurance companies is just as bad.
When ANY 3rd party is paying the bill be it government or an insurance company the consumer is not the customer.
Wake up. Until we go back to where YOU PAY THE DAMN BILL, and settle up later with YOUR insurance company or whatever we are fucked.

Lobbying can be stop if the government is forced to stop dealing with lobbist then liberals will not be able to use lobbist as their argument.

Libruls? You think that the health insurance companies are libruls?

No but don't liberals use lobbyist as their argument as to why insurance costr are up? Atr least Gadawg did in his argument and many others do it also.

 

[Political Junky]

I'd like to know what the drug costs in the EU.

 

[GWV5903]

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

My assistant of 17+ years is battling her second round of breast cancer, stage 4, she is 73, she is one of the finest and most genuine human beings I have ever known.....

She has been on Avastin since March 2nd to control the tumors, her Oncologist is very upset they want to remove this option from her regiment, she takes it every three weeks and a chemo pill everyday, some of her tumors are gone and the few that remain are less than 5% of their original size, if you walked into our offices you would never know she was under treatment.....

We truly believe if Obamacare was fully implemented, they would be counseling her now, this is a perfect example of how cost out weighs care.....

Obamacare is flawed, this is a genuine example of it's faults, they better turn this around and turn it around quick, his bad intentions will leave too many without the very best care available today.....

This has nothing to do with Obama care.

Sure it does, you state below Death Panels are necessary, do you contradict yourself regularly in the same post???

This has to do with the fact that any medicine that can help prolong life in some circumstances only and that costs $80/K/year is prohibitively expensive unless you can pay for it yourself.

Now your God? It is a good thing they didn't have your budgetary approach with the development of penicillin, imagine where we would be today if they did.....

My mother was diagnosed with a pituitary gland brain tumor at the age of 24, roughly 1954. The neurosurgeon believed her life expectancy would be 17 more years after giving her radiation treatments, turned out she lived twice as long, nobody knows what the outcomes will be......

We do not need to spend $100k/year to keep old, unproductive people alive long past their expiration date. We need to spend that money to keep younger healthier people from getting sick in the first place.

See my statement above^^^^^^^^^^^

But please, feel free to use your own money any way you wish.

Do you think your God? You have that God complex don't you......

Death panels are necessary regardless just to manage costs. But they are esp necessary to set limits beyond which Big Pharma can not extort us gratuitously.

Now your going to tell grandma she can't get treatment because big bad pharma is committing extortion, you're a real loser. Let's see the FDA has big bad pharma spending $500MILL+ to develop one new treatment, do you believe they should do this for no return?? I think the delusional miss this very point all of the time, it is just easier to point the blame at big pharma, oh don't get me wrong, I can't stand the cost, but I appreciate the fact we have a better standard of living, the quality of our HC is key to this and it comes with a price.....

Unless you have unlimited resources to pay for end of life care your life is not worth the unlimited price Big Pharma can place upon treatments.

You do realize that children are dying everyday with these same illnesses.....

And to the point about Avastan and I quote: "The FDA has until Dec. 17 to make that recommendation official. If it does, the effects on breast cancer patients will be devastating. Some 17,500 American women are prescribed Avastin every year. Many will face shorter, more painful lives because of the FDA's decisions." you have a easy decision on your keyboard, I doubt you're that strong in person.....

Sorry, but that is reality.

Reality is what we make it, not what we accept. Reality said we would never fly, go to the moon, drive cars, cure cancer, etc..... yet those and many, many more are now simple realities, don't limit God or the power he places in man.....

And anybody who thinks otherwise is fully subscribing to the nanny state, socialist agenda of Obama

Your opinion, bad opinion, but still your opinion, nothing more......

 

[L.K.Eder]

I'd like to know what the drug costs in the EU.

roughly between 4 and 5 euro/per mg.

dosage regimen is 10 mg/kg body weight every other week

or 15 mg/kg body weight every third week.

probably as long as the patient is still alive.

take a 60 kg patient taking this for 6 months

would result in 32.500 euro.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'd like to know what the drug costs in the EU.

roughly between 4 and 5 euro/per mg.

dosage regimen is 10 mg/kg body weight every other week

or 15 mg/kg body weight every third week.

probably as long as the patient is still alive.

take a 60 kg patient taking this for 6 months

would result in 32.500 euro.

32.5 euros = 43.2542 US dollars

 

[L.K.Eder]

I'd like to know what the drug costs in the EU.

roughly between 4 and 5 euro/per mg.

dosage regimen is 10 mg/kg body weight every other week

or 15 mg/kg body weight every third week.

probably as long as the patient is still alive.

take a 60 kg patient taking this for 6 months

would result in 32.500 euro.

32.5 euros = 43.2542 US dollars

yes. and 32.500,00 euro are 43.280,25 usd.

roughly 80.000,00 USD per year for treatment with avastin for a 60 kg (132 lbs) person.

 

[xotoxi]

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

You have shown no proof whatsoever that Avastin for breast cancer lost it's approval due to cost.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

You have shown no proof whatsoever that Avastin for breast cancer lost it's approval due to cost.

but if you look around, you can see that genentech did not apply for an approval for another indication for avastin.

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure | Society | The Guardian

 

[xotoxi]

If I created a special fizzy beverage, light pink in color, that had a sweet initial flavor with a mildly bitter aftertaste...

and if I conducted a study showing that it improved longevity in breast cancer patients...

but then 4 subsequent studies showed that it did NOT improve longevity...

would you be in favor of it remaining on the market?

How about if it cost $1,000 per bottle?

What if it cost $0.50 per bottle?

 

[xotoxi]

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

You have shown no proof whatsoever that Avastin for breast cancer lost it's approval due to cost.

but if you look around, you can see that genentech did not apply for an approval for another indication for avastin.

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure | Society | The Guardian

Drug companies and insurance companies suck.

I nearly exclusively prescribe generic meds, and send everyone to Walmart for the $4 meds.

Yet I inevitably become pissed at a small handfull of sucky patients who cannot even afford these meds (while they continue their 2 ppd smoking habit).

 

[xotoxi]

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?

I agree, T.

I think that people should work really hard to earn enough money to pay for their Avastin treatment for breast cancer.

I'm glad to see that we are on the same page.

 

[xotoxi]

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

You have shown no proof whatsoever that Avastin for breast cancer lost it's approval due to cost.

but if you look around, you can see that genentech did not apply for an approval for another indication for avastin.

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure | Society | The Guardian

Another thing about this blindness treatment...likely the makers of Avastin will "proove" to the FDA that the expensive ophthamic preparation of the med is superior to the normal med, and that the FDA will approve this (disregarding the cost, Revere). And then the manufacturer will change their packaging to prevent subdividing.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You have shown no proof whatsoever that Avastin for breast cancer lost it's approval due to cost.

but if you look around, you can see that genentech did not apply for an approval for another indication for avastin.

Drugs firm blocks cheap blindness cure | Society | The Guardian

Another thing about this blindness treatment...likely the makers of Avastin will "proove" to the FDA that the expensive ophthamic preparation of the med is superior to the normal med, and that the FDA will approve this (disregarding the cost, Revere). And then the manufacturer will change their packaging to prevent subdividing.

Eye - Abstract of article: Bevacizumab vs ranibizumab for age-related macular degeneration: 1-year outcomes of a prospective, double-masked randomised clinical trial

Conclusion

The 1-year outcomes of a prospective, double-masked, randomised clinical trial comparing bevacizumab with ranibizumab failed to show a difference in visual and anatomic outcomes between the two treatments for choroidal neovascularisation in AMD. Total injections given over the treatment period were significantly different between the two groups. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

bevacizumab is avastin.
ranibizumab is the "better", and of course, more expensive drug.

 

[Affrayer]

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

Don't you find it interesting that the more power republicans have the closer this country comes to having death panels?

 

[boedicca]

It was only de-listed over cost.

The FDA did not look at cost. It looked at effectiveness.

The Federal Health Officials who are pushing for revocation of the approval are very likely looking at costs.

That's what HHS will largely be doing for ObamaCare. Deciding which procedures and drugs cost are not cost effective (based on how the government values one's life) is their raison d'etre.

 

[L.K.Eder]

It was only de-listed over cost.

The FDA did not look at cost. It looked at effectiveness.

The Federal Health Officials who are pushing for revocation of the approval are very likely looking at costs.

That's what HHS will largely be doing for ObamaCare. Deciding which procedures and drugs cost are not cost effective (based on how the government values one's life) is their raison d'etre.

you learned nothing in this thread.

well done.

 

[RDD_1210]

So let's hear your viewpoint. Let's say that Avastin DOES help cancer patients but is VERY expensive. Do you think the drug should still be permitted to be used regardless of what it costs?

So you want to put a price on life? What happen to the Constitutioin? If the government can get this approved it will in fact be going against the Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The government will not be promoting the general welfare the portion liberals love to use in their argument for obamacare.

Thank you for proving my point and supporting Universal Health Care for all.

 

[RDD_1210]

I love the irony of the people in this thread who are actually making arguments FOR socialized medicine but are the loudest opponents everywhere else of Universal Health Care. The hypocrisy is truly breath taking.