ObamaCare: The Government’s Rationing Toolbox Exposed "no cancer drugs for you"
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: ObamaCare: The Government’s Rationing Toolbox Exposed "no cancer drugs for you"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    226

    ObamaCare: The Government’s Rationing Toolbox Exposed "no cancer drugs for you"

    ObamaCare: The Government’s Rationing Toolbox Exposed

    by Capitol Confidential
    The FDA attempt to de-label Avastin for breast cancer patients is the first skirmish of the rationing wars. The battle must be fought and won. This isn’t an issue of government paying the cost of these late stage drugs. This is an issue of the government manipulating data to deny care to late stage cancer patients—even those with private insurance.
    The issue at hand is whether or not the drug Avastin should be used to treat late stage terminal cancer patients. The FDA is seeking to de-label Avastin for breast cancer patients. Labeling is the FDA’s method of approval for using certain drugs for certain illnesses. Like Medicare, private insurance companies use these labels to determine whether or not they will cover the use of that drug to treat a certain illness.
    Fair enough, right? But what’s particularly scurrilous about the FDA’s attempted actions with Avastin is not that they are attempting to de-label it for use with late stage breast cancer patients, it’s how and why they are doing it.
    Standard practice for evaluating drugs is to use data-driven objective endpoints to evaluate effectiveness and safety. In the case of Avastin, the FDA has arbitrarily and unilaterally stopped using this objective criterion and are applying a highly subjective criterion of “clinically significant”—to cut costs.
    No one disputes that the drug helps extends life for terminal patients. The FDA is arguing that it just doesn’t do it for long enough to be worth the cost. So now the FDA is deciding how much life is “significant” and what it is worth? This should be a decision for patients, doctors and family members and the FDA should not be replacing their own value judgments about how much time is significant. While six months might not be significant to a statistician or a bureaucrat, for the families of a loved one or a dying patient, it’s a lifetime.
    As tragic as it is for breast cancer patients today, this arbitrary shift is a preview of one of the tools in the government health care rationing toolbox. The government is not just saying outright that they won’t cover the cost of this, they are hiding their financial decisions behind language like “clinically significant” to lead people to believe the drug doesn’t work. The Avantis case is setting the precedent for the government to arbitrarily deny coverage to millions of American’s based on cost alone.
    This battle will be repeated time and time again over the next few years. Life extending drugs for the sick and elderly will be made harder to obtain in order to limit the costs of health care. Treatments to extend life will be denied over and over — if we let them.
    LINK: http://biggovernment.com/capitolconf...d/#more-149942

    PRO-LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH
    TO HIM THEREFORE WHO KNOWETH TO DO GOOD AND DOETH IT NOT, TO HIM IT IS SIN. HOLY BIBLE]

  2.   
  3. #2
    Here we go...
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  4. #3
    Anyone surprised?
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Oh come on now, we are all going to be dazzled by how well the government handles the health care problem!

  6. #5
    Who wants to keep living a painful life while dying of terminal cancer? Take me off life support if I ever get to that situation. The pain, I hear, is insuffrable. I could see if the FDA was rationing drugs that treated cancer that was not terminal, but the bottom line is that you are going to pass anyway. Why keep someone alive in pain so that the family can feel better about keeping them around longer? They have to go anyway, why not let them go peacefully? Using a drug to increase life-span in an unnatural manner doesn't seem right in the first place.

    edit. I get it, because it is the work of the Obama administration that you are making a scene over it.

    IMO inhibiting one's natural death is unconscionable. If the person is supposed to die, then they should die. They should not be kept alive by unnatural means. That is wrong.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    A frightening amount of revenue flowing through the health care system comes from unnecessary, cosmetic, and "elective" procedures and/or related care.

    Just how "healthy" do you want to be? Or more to the point, can you "afford" to be?"

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    A frightening amount of revenue flowing through the health care system comes from unnecessary, cosmetic, and "elective" procedures and/or related care.

    Just how "healthy" do you want to be? Or more to the point, can you "afford" to be?"
    Cash is king, no doubt about it. Those who say money can't buy happiness never had any. IMO it is the individuals that have not secured proper means of securing their financial needs who tend to get upset over these articles. I encourage you to read a book called "too big to fail"
    which outlines the atrocities on Wall Street under the Bush administration. A migrant worker with an annual income of 14,000 was given every penny in loans to secure a 750,000 home. Those who bet that he would not pay his mortgage back reaped the rewards as well as those who gave the man the loan. It is a fact that financial corruption was at its peak during the Bush administration because of the administration's failure to regulate the crooks on Wall Street. Once again, I do not agree with everything the man in office has to say or has done, but he sure has inherited one hell of a mess from that idiot from Texas. Who by the way, had the lowest approval ratings in history.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    I guess maybe pewbs, er uh, pack'npreemie or whatever his next name ends up being needs to learn how to change his IP or maybe MAC spoof, dunno....

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    More FUD from the FUD factory.
    I spent the afternoon having tests at the hosptial. I am able to report the are doing just fine. If you need it, you will recieve it.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Gulf Breeze FL
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmedFetus View Post
    Cash is king, no doubt about it. Those who say money can't buy happiness never had any. IMO it is the individuals that have not secured proper means of securing their financial needs who tend to get upset over these articles. I encourage you to read a book called "too big to fail"
    which outlines the atrocities on Wall Street under the Bush administration. A migrant worker with an annual income of 14,000 was given every penny in loans to secure a 750,000 home. Those who bet that he would not pay his mortgage back reaped the rewards as well as those who gave the man the loan. It is a fact that financial corruption was at its peak during the Bush administration because of the administration's failure to regulate the crooks on Wall Street. Once again, I do not agree with everything the man in office has to say or has done, but he sure has inherited one hell of a mess from that idiot from Texas. Who by the way, had the lowest approval ratings in history.
    The current president voted against a law to stop the economic down turn that the Bush Admin saw coming. From what I've read of your post you are in favor of the crap he has passed as law since he's been in office. The issue he "inheriteded" had alittle to do with how he and his party were running the Congress during Bushs second term.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NoBamaCare
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 05:59 PM
  2. Brace yourselves for wealth redistribution and health care rationing
    By 6shootercarry in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 12:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast