# A Step Closer to Death Panels



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## BlindBoo (Dec 16, 2010)

I don't know enough about Avastan, but I will find out......

On the mammograms however.....

Federal panel recommends reducing number of mammograms - washingtonpost.com

Petitti stressed that the task force is not recommending against mammography, but that it hopes the new guidelines will lead more women to make their decisions based on their personal circumstances. 

Those at high risk because of a family history of breast cancer, for example, or those who are simply more worried about the disease might still opt to have annual screenings, she said.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 16, 2010)

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?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 16, 2010)

BlindBoo said:


> I don't know enough about Avastan, but I will find out......
> 
> On the mammograms however.....
> 
> ...



"US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'
A decision to rescind endorsement of the drug would reignite the highly charged debate over US health care reform and how much the state should spend on new and expensive treatments. 

Avastin, the worlds best selling cancer drug, is primarily used to treat colon cancer and was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2008 for use on women with breast cancer that has spread. 

The drug was initially approved after a study found that, by preventing blood flow to tumours, it extended the amount of time until the disease worsened by more than five months. However, two new studies have shown that the drug may not even extend life by an extra month. 

The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest. 

The Avastin recommendation led to revived allegations that President Barack Obamas overhaul of the US health care system would mean many would be denied treatments currently available."
US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels' - Telegraph


----------



## Intense (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> 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?





Yes.  If the drug is effective, then it is up to the patient and his or her doctor to decide if it is to be part of the treatment protocol.  

It certainly is not the business of a few bureaucrats in DC to decide.

Other things in life are expensive:  homes, cars, vacations.    Why should it be anybody else's business what we decide to purchase?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

Intense said:


> 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.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

The FDA did not factor the cost of the medication into their decision.



> The data presented to  the committee apparently showed that for these patients, in this more  current analysis, the drug delayed progression of their breast cancer by  5.5 months.  The women who took Avastin in  addition to the chemotherapy went 11.3 months before their disease  progressed compared to 5.8 months for women who took only the  chemotherapy.
> 
> But the Avastin group  also had more side effects, including 6 deaths attributed to Avastin  treatment, or 1.7% of the women who participated in the study.
> 
> ...



If the same results were found with aspirin therapy, the FDA would not have approved aspirin for treatment of breast cancer...even though the treatment cost would have been pocket change.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


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



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*.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/death_panel_dudgeon/
(emphasis mine)


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> The FDA did not factor the cost of the medication into their decision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The FDA had already approved Avastin - this is a reversal of prior approval - and highly suspect.

If someone wishes to take the risk in order to gain a few extra months of life - that is none of the government's business.

We're going to see more of this.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The Politically Connected Elite will still have access to these medicines.



Anyone that wants to pay cash for these medications will have access to these medications...as long as they accept the risk of deadly side-effect and understand that they are not going to live any long than if they didn't take the medicine.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...




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.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

Big Pharma are very good at initial claims. No doubt this drug is effective but HOW effective? 
Time line claims are always weighted to the long term side versus the median.
Namenda was first heralded as helping with memory loss for dementia and early stages of Alzheimers. Now the claims, after FDA pressure, are that NAMENDA does nothing to help memory loss other than slow the progression of the disease. However, most of the people that take it and their families still believe that it will help their family member regain some memory.
In an era of 89 year olds receiving hip replacements at 75K per while 40% of the entire budget is borrowed, with Medicare and Gramps and Grannies Dope Plan the fastest growing part of the federal budget, it is quite foolish NOT to question costs of all medical procedures and drugs.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > The FDA did not factor the cost of the medication into their decision.
> ...



Cancer drugs are given approval very early with very little data.  If they went through the normal approval process, they would take years and very few would be approved due to serious side-effects.

As for gaining a few extra months of life, they didn't live any longer.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




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.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



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.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



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


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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....
> 
> ...



The government isn't banning Avastin all-together. If you want it, you can go buy it for whatever purpose you want. Where is the problem?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> *A Step Closer to Death Panels*


A step, *CLOSER????* 

You (quite) obviously haven't heard-about *the Wicked Bitch Of The West*, who's already *got* a *Death Panel*; *up-and-running**!!*

You & *Sister Sarah* *really* stay current on U.S. news, don't you?


----------



## Intense (Dec 16, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Intense (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





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 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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....
> 
> ...




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 (Dec 16, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > 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'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 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


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 (Dec 16, 2010)

Intense said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





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


----------



## Vanquish (Dec 16, 2010)

The OP boggles the mind


----------



## boedicca (Dec 16, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...





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 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



(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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

What happened to our discussion?

Did I say something wrong?

Does my breath smell?


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


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



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

Just like cutting off mammograms did last time around.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



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


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



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


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> 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.



If you can afford an insurance policy that covers it you should be able to afford the treatment itself. 

If the government actually prohibits you from buying this treatment with your own money you have a right to complain. 

But unless that happens you don't.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



And every risk pool has the right to limit the boundaries of the it's liabilities to a single patient. 

This is socialism you know, you are describing socialized medicine and actively advocating it.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

Your insurance premium is your own money.  This is government interference in a health care modality that worked.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



No, it's socialism only when government imposes it.  This is not the risk pool imposing the boundaries, it's government.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



It's the government notifying the public that this medication does not do what it intended, and thus, it cannot be marketed as such.

And what is your problem with this.  Do you think that a company should be able to market and sell a product which has been proven to be ineffective for what it is being sold?


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

It was only de-listed over cost.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> It was only de-listed over cost.



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


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 16, 2010)

Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases  and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
~
With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
~
Avastin is currently used mainly in cases of late-stage colon cancer, a disease that affects about 50,000 Americans annually. On average, those patients take the drug for 11 months and it extends their lives an average of 5 months, compared with other treatments. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15drug.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Sounds like Genetech plans to rip off people dying from breast cancer to me


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases  and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
> ~
> With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
> ~
> ...



And in my reading of the FDA summary of findings, it appears that the approval was pulled because the above result could not be reproduced.

In fact, a glass of cat piss twice daily was just as effective.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



bullshit, when government regulated monopolies impose it, it is every bit as much socialized medicine as if the feds themselves mandated it.

It's funny how you love socialism when it supports banks that killed the economy, the military industrial welfare complex and when it melds into fascism in the health insurance industry. 

HEY! you love welfare along all the same lines!


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases  and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
> ~
> With colon cancer, a year of Avastin treatment costs about $50,000. But the drug will be used at higher doses for lung and breast cancer, and Genentech does not plan to reduce the unit price, even though the additional cost of producing a higher dose is minimal. Roche executives described the pricing plans were described in a recent interview.
> ~
> ...



It sounds like the firm is testing the market to see how much money they can sell a drug for that only costs $40 to produce for a year's dose. 

ROI!


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



Regulated monopolies are government.

There are about 3000 insurance carrriers.  Heavily government regulated, but hardly a monopoly, yet.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases  and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
> ...



Why do you get to decide which private or intellectual property belongs in the public domain?


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Studies show that Avastin can prolong the lives of patients with late-stage breast and lung cancer by several months when the drug is combined with existing therapies. Genentech expects to seek federal approval later this year to sell it specifically for those diseases. But even now, doctors, who are free to prescribe the drug as they see fit, are using Avastin for some breast and lung cancer cases  and finding its cost beyond the means of some patients.
> ...



Efficacy was established long ago.  This is not Mexican laetrile.

It's rationing.  Even a fanatic like lose stools is arguing its about money.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



You are shitting us, right?
Insurance companies run most states. I am a Goldwater conservative and know that.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> Efficacy was established long ago.  This is not Mexican laetrile.
> 
> It's rationing.  Even a fanatic like lose stools is arguing its about money.



Efficacy was established by the company to get it fast tracked by the FDA.

Further studies were unable to prove efficacy.

The FDA ruling was made on lack of efficacy, not on cost/benefit.

If you can show proof otherwise (excluding your own opinions, the opinions of other posters, or the opinions expressed in various articles or blogs) that the FDA took into consideration the cost of the medication, then I would be interested in seeing it.


----------



## Samson (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Interesting revelation on the conflict of interest angle of Federally Funded Healthcare.

However, I wonder: Given the strength of the Pharma-Lobby (no wet noodle), how do you explain this "Fatal Move From the FDA."


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Efficacy was established long ago.  This is not Mexican laetrile.
> ...



The FDA made a purely political decision, which was delayed after the election.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

Samson said:


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




That's how corporate cronyism works.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.


And that is a good thing?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



Again...PROOF.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> Regulated monopolies are government.
> 
> There are about 3000 insurance carrriers.  Heavily government regulated, but hardly a monopoly, yet.



There are a handful of insurance companies that dominate every state regulated market. Get a clue.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> No, state insurance commissioners set rates in most states.



are you daft?


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

You can't raise premiums without the state insurance commissioner signing off on it.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Regulated monopolies are government.
> ...



Because the other 2,997 can't remain solvent given the rates and coverage mandates.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> You can't raise premiums without the state insurance commissioner signing off on it.



Very good point  but let me tell you how it works in Georgia.
And everywhere else in the good old US of A.
BC/BS is the largest, by far, health insurer in the state.
They have contracts with ALL of the hospitals, doctors,everyone they deal with that they and they alone get the lowest prices on everything.
Sounds like a good deal for an insured doesn't it?
The fact is very few other insurance carriers do business in Georgia because of that and that gives BC/BS a tremendous advantage in market share in Georgia. That drives the price up with no competition.
And the lame duck insurance commissioner hates it but can do NOTHING about it.
The Legislature my good man, NOT the insurance commisioner, writes the LAWS in the state and in your state.
Not the insurance commisioner. Good man, all they do is ENFORCE the law.
And every other state in America. 
Please join us long time conservatives friend. The insurance companies ARE FUCKING US.
We hate Obama care but good buddy, the current system is fucked, rigged and horrible.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

That's a government problem.


----------



## The T (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> You can't raise premiums without the state insurance commissioner signing off on it.


 
Do you think the FED cares? How many unfunded federal mandates are out there that belie the 9th and 10th Amendments?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 16, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> 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.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

It's a government problem.  

Same thing will happen when big food producers lobby government in the name of "food safety."


----------



## Samson (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...





Let me see if I can follow WTF that means:

Pharma Corporation makes Avastan

FDA unapproves Avastan.

Pharma Corporation Avastan Profits = 0

Insurance Corp pays for MORE EXPENSIVE Avastan alternatives?

Insurance Corp profits decline.

Why exactly would "corporate cronyism" support this scenario?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 16, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

Yes, phRMA throws them a public relations bone for government negotiated profits to be named later.

They paid for Obamacare advertising in exchange for being let out of price controls.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 16, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You folks are so naive.
> ...



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?


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 16, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.....


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > You folks are so naive.
> ...



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


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

GWV5903 said:


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



This has nothing to do with Obama care.

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. 

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. 

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

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.

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. 

Sorry, but that is reality.

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


----------



## JFK_USA (Dec 16, 2010)

PoliticalChic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 16, 2010)

AquaAthena said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 16, 2010)

JFK_USA said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> JFK_USA said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



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


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

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.
> 
> ...


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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 (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## shintao (Dec 16, 2010)

Revere said:


> 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.


----------



## Revere (Dec 16, 2010)

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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2010)

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


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 17, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 17, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to know what the drug costs in the EU.
> ...



32.5 euros = 43.2542 US dollars


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


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




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 (Dec 17, 2010)

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 (Dec 17, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2010)

The T said:


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



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 (Dec 17, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> 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 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > It was only de-listed over cost.
> ...




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 (Dec 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



you learned nothing in this thread.

well done.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 17, 2010)

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.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 17, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...




As if I give a fig what a moron like you thinks.

You've learned nothing over the past two years, and likely during a much more extensive period prior to that.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




once again you bested me with your superior wit.

how do you do it?

i throw something at you, and it like totally bounces off you, back to me, and sticks like sticky bomb!

how am i supposed to defend that.

i give up.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



If that is the case, then you need to show proof.

Otherwise, you are just guessing.


----------



## beowolfe (Dec 17, 2010)

Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.  This article, doesn't even have enough information to determine if unapproving this drug is a good idea or not.  You guys take positions w/o even knowing the score.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.  This article, doesn't even have enough information to determine if unapproving this drug is a good idea or not.  You guys take positions w/o even knowing the score.



They take the position of completely unfounded fear that the government wants to kill everyone.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 17, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.  This article, doesn't even have enough information to determine if unapproving this drug is a good idea or not.  You guys take positions w/o even knowing the score.



Yep it depends on who is telling them what to think.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 17, 2010)

So it&#8217;s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their socialist health insurance or tax cuts or antipathy to people who aren&#8217;t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-statist sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You should know better than that asshole I will not allow you to side step a question, and make a comment for me that I did not make.



> Do you think the drug should still be permitted to be used regardless of what it costs?



I want to know what price or value do you place another human beings life? Rationing will be a violation of the Constitution. But to demorcrats it really doesn't matter because obamacare is unconstitutional.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



LOL, Right over your head.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.  This article, doesn't even have enough information to determine if unapproving this drug is a good idea or not.  You guys take positions w/o even knowing the score.



How old are you? Are you in your 20's? early 30's? When you hit 60 you will be looking for anythiung that will help keep you alive. Young people think they will live forever and the old should die until it get close to their time.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 17, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Rationing?  Sounds like a socialist line to me 
big red should not be such a tool of big pharma.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I want to know asshole what value do you place on human life?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It's priceless. You in favor for healthcare for everyone regardless of the cost?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 17, 2010)

I place such a high value on human life that I feel that war should be the last resort not done in a preemptive manner.
I even value Muslims lives.  None of this colateral damage bs for me.
I also support full socialized medicine.  for I support lives over profits.

I was against the Iraq invasion and all other non war wars since WW2.
At best Afgansitan should have been a brief police type action, less than 6 months.
go in kick AQ's ass and get out.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 17, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Funny, I (the asshole) responded but no peep from you....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.  This article, doesn't even have enough information to determine if unapproving this drug is a good idea or not.  You guys take positions w/o even knowing the score.
> ...



Real men,like my Dad the former Marine Captain, do not "look for anything that will keep them alive".
He pulled allof the tubes out of his mouth last May at age 88. He had a living will that stated NO resusitation and the medical thief con artists hooked him up anyway.
Real men do not want life support or greedy hospitals and doctors getting rich off of the taxpayers when they are very old.
That is the damn problem. People want to keep Gramps and Granny alive at the government tit until 109 if they could.
And the medical industry growing at 18% again this year when GNP is at 2% growth are willing to oblige.
WAKE THE FUCK UP DUMBASS AMERICANS.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 17, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmCT0vxERIM]Modern Medicine[/ame]


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



Your decision.  Not yours to make for anyone else.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...



That I doubt, your post was to wordy. like it was a partial cut and paste.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > beowolfe said:
> ...




This sounds a lot like saying old people have a Duty To Die so as not to be a drain on society.

A DNR order is a very good idea, but it should be up to the individual to decide.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.  This article, doesn't even have enough information to determine if unapproving this drug is a good idea or not.  You guys take positions w/o even knowing the score.
> ...



I wouldn't write that optiuon off
 Unethical human experimentation in the United States
Unethical human experimentation in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It's priceless the way to take the side of hitler. So how many SS do you have?


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Real men,like my Dad the former Marine Captain, do not "look for anything that will keep them alive".
> He pulled allof the tubes out of his mouth last May at age 88. He had a living will that stated NO resusitation and the medical thief con artists hooked him up anyway.
> Real men do not want life support or greedy hospitals and doctors getting rich off of the taxpayers when they are very old.
> That is the damn problem. People want to keep Gramps and Granny alive at the government tit until 109 if they could.
> ...



I can't rep you but your post bears repeating.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Death panels are our friend. It serves none of us to try to keep patients alive as long as is artificially possible no matter what the costs.

Oh, well it does serve Big pharma and Big medicine who get to cash in on tens of thousands of dollars of end of life care from captive patients....

Sickest, most disgusting thing I have ever heard of.

And the fact that socialist health insurance is paying for it with money from the young and healthy disgusts me 3 times more again.

You really are scum, Revere. Utter, scum. You would fuck corpses if you were paid well for it. 

And you sure as hell have not one fiscal responsibility bone in your grotesque body.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 17, 2010)

A DR told me that on average medicare spends as much in the last 6 months of life on patients as they did up till that last 6 months.
btw the DR is a tea partier.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 17, 2010)

boedicca said:


> This sounds a lot like saying old people have a Duty To Die so as not to be a drain on society.
> 
> A DNR order is a very good idea, but it should be up to the individual to decide.



How many elderly men ask their kids not to extend their life in a humiliating manner just to extract a few more days of torture that offer next to zero quality of life?

I am guessing it is a pretty strong majority of men. Hell most men avoid doctors like the plague.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 17, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> A DR told me that on average medicare spends as much in the last 6 months of life on patients as they did up till that last 6 months.
> btw the DR is a tea partier.



That's the primary reason why health care costs are growing by more than 10%/year. End of life care can cost more than an entire life's care for a healthy person. 

The shitstain GOPers posting in this thread would rather throw that money away to keep dying folks alive another week than spend it to provide health and wellness to a poor person for their entire life. 

I just want affordable healthcare for everybody. No frills, no $80K pills no bleeding patients financially dry on their deathbeds.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

loosecannon said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Real men,like my Dad the former Marine Captain, do not "look for anything that will keep them alive".
> ...



My grandmother was born in 1898 she died at the age of 88 she would work out in the yard doing yard work, she had no problem cuting trees down with a handsaw.


----------



## loosecannon (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



She was born the same year as my grand dad.

But here's a little story for you: I watched an elderly friend climb a windmill in a 70 mph windstorm at 85 years of age to chain up the rotor so it wouldn't destroy the pump below. A week later his wife called me at night so I could carry him to the car to get him to the hospital. 

He never walked again. And within 3 months in a wheelchair he started talking about suicide. He couldn't live with his 75 yo wife having to lift him into and out of bed and onto and off of the toilet, and he wouldn't let a stranger live in his house to perform the same humiliating tasks. 

He was a WWII pilot, a war hero. But after a year and no recovery he was ready to die.

He asked his doctors to let him die and they couldn't so he asked hospice and they agreed. He died with dignity, in his home surrounded by his family. 

Who in their right mind would want to die in a hospital with their life extended as long as was artificially possible just to serve up a fast spate of profits for the medical industry?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> loosecannon said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Well congrats to your grandma.
However what has that to do with the topic of this thread?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Real men,like my Dad the former Marine Captain, do not "look for anything that will keep them alive".
> He pulled allof the tubes out of his mouth last May at age 88. He had a living will that stated NO resusitation and the medical thief con artists hooked him up anyway.
> Real men do not want life support or greedy hospitals and doctors getting rich off of the taxpayers when they are very old.
> That is the damn problem. People want to keep Gramps and Granny alive at the government tit until 109 if they could.
> ...



Too many people in America are afraid of dying.  There is a "keep him alive at all costs" attitude, even when there is no hope and no quality of life.

And with the overriding philosophy of never giving up and allowing death to occur ends up frigthening people into not being brave enough to make that decision...or families not brave enough to have that discussion.

There is not enough use of hospice...many people remain in pain and agony, going through useless and worthless treatment, much longer than is necessary.  Why not live your final days or weeks in comfort, at home, with your family?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I want to know what price or value do you place another human beings life? Rationing will be a violation of the Constitution. But to demorcrats it really doesn't matter because obamacare is unconstitutional.



bigrednck...do you think that every medical procedure should be available to any American if they want it?  Are you against ANY limits being drawn?

Do you think that a 99 year old woman with kidney failure on dialysis should receive a kidney transplant?

If not, why not?  If so, why?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Real men,like my Dad the former Marine Captain, do not "look for anything that will keep them alive".
> ...



Because it's not for you or anyone else to decide thats why.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I want to know what price or value do you place another human beings life? Rationing will be a violation of the Constitution. But to demorcrats it really doesn't matter because obamacare is unconstitutional.
> ...



hutoxi what is the value of life? What price is the cut off?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> My grandmother was born in 1898 she died at the age of 88 she would work out in the yard doing yard work, she had no problem cuting trees down with a handsaw.



I'm hoping that your grandmother's ability to cut down trees with a handsaw did not directly lead to her demise at the age of 88.

That fact would transform your statement from poignant to ironic.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > loosecannon said:
> ...



many of you asswipes if you had your choice you would tell her to die because of her age.. I was pointing out that people up in years still have an active life.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > My grandmother was born in 1898 she died at the age of 88 she would work out in the yard doing yard work, she had no problem cuting trees down with a handsaw.
> ...



Nope it did not.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm not saying that it is my place or anyone elses place to decide.

But it is my place to discuss all options, which ranges from full treatment and full resuscitation to comfort measures.  I have encountered many people that never realized that they could choose the latter for any number of reasons.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I asked the question.  I will not accept an answer in a form of a redirected question.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...





> I'm not saying that it is my place or anyone elses place to decide.



You may not be aware of it but you are in facting making that statement.



> But it is my place to discuss all options, which ranges from full treatment and full resuscitation to comfort measures.



Once you start talking death with old people it will start to show the affects. It's like a chain reaction.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



NO you responded to my question without answering it


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No it wasn't. IT WAS HIS DECISION. 
Something about a living will written and notarized by Dad in 1992 and a DNR put in place at the hospital in Fort Myers that the Marine Captain had put in place in 1996.
Every Lee county hospital  and the rehab center had that.
You are naive as hell if you do not know what is going on. The hospitals have to fill beds. They do this shit all the time.
And taxpayers, YOUR KIDS AND MINE, will have to pay.
News flash to the uninformed: We can not afford it and the current system is UNSUSTAINABLE. 
Revere, why does a MD order rehab for Dad on May 15, 2010 when he was discharged to the nursing home? The good honest doctor ordered 4 hours  a day OF FUCKING OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY at taxpayer expense for an 88 year old man. And another 4 hours a day of speech therapy.
Total bill to the taxpayers for that alone over 10 days was almost $14,000.00.
$150 an hour and Medicare paid it. 
And you claim that the system is not cooked.
Real men and citizens do not rob the damn taxpayers. They go in peace, NOT hooked up to damn machines tokeep them alive.
We have become a nation of MILK WEAK PUSSIES. 
I am glad Dad set the example for the leaders in my family. We stand up to the doctors and fight for the safety net of OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS. 
It is immoral to borrow the $$ from the Chinks that oir grandkids have to pay for to further the life on a damn machine for a 88 year old man. 
Thanks Dad, you taught us right.
You folks need to govern yourself accordingly, stand up and be counted.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Death is an inevitability.  

Is it your opinion that when a 87 year old man with a history of heart disease and lung disease who is admitted to the hospital with a severe pneumonia, that the admitting doctor (who may never have met him) NOT ask him what he would like done in the event that he has cardiac arrest?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

Most disturbing is the very folks that call for no government health care for any American under the age of 65 want BLANK CHECK government paid for health care for the elderly at taxpayers' expense.

THEY DEMAND IT but THEY do not want to pay for it.
Fucking hypocrites.


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

Medicare was a promise made to people who planned their lives around it.

What was that promise worth?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Most disturbing is the very folks that call for no government health care for any American under the age of 65 want BLANK CHECK government paid for health care for the elderly at taxpayers' expense.
> 
> THEY DEMAND IT but THEY do not want to pay for it.
> Fucking hypocrites.



No it's you who is saying they want the government to pay for everything.


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



No, but that doctor should not be rated by government thus.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I apologize.  I misread your post and did not notice that it was a question.  Granted, it had not been directed at me in the first place.

I retract my question.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



They believe they have the choice to blank check health care at unlimited infinity cost to the taxpayers.
Arrogance, naivety and greed beyond belief. Immoral to the core.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I don't understand what your statement means.


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

People who now depend on Medicare, or are close to it, were promised that, yes.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrednck...do you think that every medical procedure should be  available to any American if they want it?  Are you against ANY limits  being drawn?

Do you think that a 99 year old woman with kidney failure on dialysis should receive a kidney transplant?

If not, why not?  If so, why?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Greed do you really want to talk about greed? Greed is a Trilklion and a half spending bill full of democratic pork.


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrednck...do you think that every medical procedure should be  available to any American if they want it?  Are you against ANY limits  being drawn?
> 
> Do you think that a 99 year old woman with kidney failure on dialysis should receive a kidney transplant?
> 
> If not, why not?  If so, why?



Did Medicare tell her she could not get one, after paying into it for 70+ years?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Are you referring to the physicians?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrednck...do you think that every medical procedure should be  available to any American if they want it?  Are you against ANY limits  being drawn?
> 
> Do you think that a 99 year old woman with kidney failure on dialysis should receive a kidney transplant?
> 
> If not, why not?  If so, why?



I asked first 
What value do you place on life? What is the cut off?


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

Do physicians get rich on Medicare?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrednck...do you think that every medical procedure should be  available to any American if they want it?  Are you against ANY limits  being drawn?
> ...



I don't know who told her she couldn't get one.  But do you think that she SHOULD get one?

(We are no longer talking medications...we are talking about human kidneys which are in limited supply)


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

What was this woman's understanding for the 70 years she was paying into this plan?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Real men,like my Dad the former Marine Captain, do not "look for anything that will keep them alive".
> ...



Let me tell you about the Hope Hospice in Fort Myers, Florida. This is exactly what they told me before Dad died. "We would like to be able to inform the families of terminally ill patients what they can do to make plans and the legal options available such as living wills and DNR orders but we have been accused of creating death panels"
Verbatim.
After 5 days and over 100K of the taxpayers $ WASTED, WITH A DNR ORDER IN PLACE, they finally unhooked Dad, the WWII Marine Captain on May 30, 2010 MEMORIAL DAY.
He died 5 minutes later LIKE HE WANTED TO AND HAD MADE PLANS TO DO SO.
The hospital and the doctors there were CROOKS.
I offered to pay the hospice the $200 they want to receive under the Obama bill,which was taken out with the preposterous "death panel" bull shit, and they refused any payment.
I am a Republican. 
WAKE UP DUMBASS AMERICANS.


----------



## Revere (Dec 17, 2010)

You don't need government to cut a deal for your end of life care.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



That sounded like a very bad experience and your dad's care was handled improperly, and I'm sorry to hear it happened.

However, in my experience in the places where I have worked and in my own interaction with patients in these situations, it is much more caring.  I have only had excellent interactions with and feedback about hospice.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> You don't need government to cut a deal for your end of life care.



What is with you and your little pointless one liners?

What do you mean by "cut a deal"?

If you are of Medicare age, then chance are the government is going to be _paying for_ your end of life care?  So I don't know what "cut a deal" means.


----------



## shintao (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> Do physicians get rich on Medicare?



From what I see, M-patients are what keep them alive, because there isn't enough private patients to pay all the bills. I had a Dr. caught in a M-patient sting, and it financially hurt him badly. And too, a lot of Dr.s give extra hours to hospitals so all bases are covered, and if they are financially hurting they need to be working in their regular practice instead.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Revere said:


> Do physicians get rich on Medicare?



Do physicians get rich?

Or are they reimbursed for their work?

Those who commit fraud get rich.  

Those who care for patients make a living.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



The nurses were first class at Lee Memorial and Gulf Coast which is also a part of Lee Memorial. One of the treating doctors was first class but we played HELL to get them to honor the in place DNR order. They played the logistics game. I live in north Georgia and would fly into Fort Myers. The last time he went in on a Thursday night and it was late Friday night when I got there. Fought with them Saturday and Sunday and heard the "Well, it is the weekend and we have to speak with legal" BS. Saturday he pulled it allout and the doctor stated he was "agitated" I almost pile drived the turd. Dad carried a Right to Die card in his wallet with his name on it also!
Finally, after I threatened to take them before a sitting judge for an order on Monday with their idiot legal staff, they unhooked Dad and tried to play the guilt card on me like I heard Revere do here. "Well, it is your call" Bull Shit.
It was my father's call and real men answer the call and do what is ethical and moral.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrednck...do you think that every medical procedure should be  available to any American if they want it?  Are you against ANY limits  being drawn?
> ...



The value that I place on life is whatever the patient places on their life.  I cannot value someone any more than they value themselves.  And I will do for them whatever they need within my abilities.

The cut off is when they die.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

The hospice folks were fantastic. Dad died within 5 minutes after unhooked so he didn't need them but I had it set up for him to go.
The hospice folks are direct competition to the doctors and hospitals. They hate the hospice folks. 
Concerning the kidney transplants. 
Elderly are the worst candidates for kidney transplants as their failure rate is off the map.
But guess what sports fans. Elderly kidney transplants HAVE DOUBLED over the last decade.
And there is a shortage for kids and younger adults.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
WAKE UP DUMBASS AMERICANS.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



As far as I am concerned, what they did is malpractice.

The initial intubation is an acceptable mistake IMHO, if they did not have DNR documentation at the time of admission.  But once it was produced and after the family and the patient (because he was alert?) decided that they wanted the tubes removed, they should have been removed as soon as safely possible.

If the DNR documentation was available and known, and they still intubated, then they are setting themselves up for a world of hurt.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Might be why they are not asking for ANY payment of what Medicare would not cover AFTER the May 15 entry. 
See, the reason my family was so pissed is because Dad was in the same hospital May 6 and April. The DNR order was there then. And then he would get transfered to the nursing home for his occupational therapy and it would disapear.
And get this. The last time guess where they sent him from the nursing home which is 400 yards from Lee Memorial on Cleveland Ave. in Ft. Myers?
They sent him 8 miles across town to Gulf Hospital. That is a division of Lee but the DNR order was not sent there by the nursing home as they stated "Well, we do not know what happened".
Imagine that. 
We are not going to sue for malpractice. The old Marine would not want that and we do not want any $$$. 
I have declined to pay the other therapy bills and crap that has come in from folks we have never even heard of. Home health folks at another $125.00 a hour.
Unbelievable is an understatement. 
But my son had ACL surgery today and we were very pleased and happy. The surgeon did a great job. First class all the way.


----------



## shintao (Dec 17, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> The hospice folks were fantastic. Dad died within 5 minutes after unhooked so he didn't need them but I had it set up for him to go.
> The hospice folks are direct competition to the doctors and hospitals. They hate the hospice folks.
> Concerning the kidney transplants.
> Elderly are the worst candidates for kidney transplants as their failure rate is off the map.
> ...



Sounds like cloning is in order. I wonder why a pig kidney or artificial kidney would not work?


----------



## shintao (Dec 17, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



I was wondering how often do you see cases of tube scars breaking and causing a hernia rupture? Who would be responsible for for such a thing?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Thank you for your answer. But isn't rationing placing limited value on human life? Certain drugs work on people differantly., Some women who were told they have two weeks to live before they started taking Avastan are still alive three to five years later. And those women who have little children were allowed to spend an additional few years with them.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



So why are you against socialized medicine?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



So you agree socialized medicine rations healthcare?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



There is a problem when you link the "value" of human life to monetary value.  As I see it, they are separate and non-compatable units of measure.

Most (or many) insurance policies have lifetime maximum benefits.  I am not sure if Medicare has that or not.  Is that immoral?  Or is that just business?

And when it comes to the practice of medicine and pharmaceuticals, we use studies and science to determine what medications can and should be used for.  Of course with any medication, some people will respond very well, far better than most in the study.  On the other end, some people may die from the medication.  For a med to be improved, the former should be maximized and the latter should be minimized.  

In the case of avastin for BC, there were some people who responded really well, but the population of the study did not.  If there was some way of determining beforehand (a blood test or something) who would likely respond well to the med, you can be assured that the med would be approved for those the would be responders.

However, regardless of the approval, it is not illegal for the med to be used for breast cancer.  It is just that insurance would likely no pay for it.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 18, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Most (or many) insurance policies have lifetime maximum benefits.  I am not sure if Medicare has that or not.  Is that immoral?  Or is that just business?


Part of the health care reform package was to disallow insurance companies from having lifetime benefits caps. I received a notice from mine a couple of months ago letting me know this fact.

But they are still free to deny spending money on keeping a ninety-five year old alive for three months at great cost.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...





> There is a problem when you link the "value" of human life to monetary value.  As I see it, they are separate and non-compatable units of measure.



When you start rationing saying someone can or cannot have certain care on medicine because of cost that is placing monetary value on human life. It is my opinion that all medicine should be accesable to the general public. Let the people decide. I recall around 33% of people who used avastin have lived longer than expected.  without it.


----------



## Affrayer (Dec 18, 2010)

beowolfe said:


> Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.



So you're saying that when Palin accused Obama's health care reform of creating death panels, she was lying through her teeth?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 18, 2010)

Affrayer said:


> beowolfe said:
> 
> 
> > Death panels?  People, if you're viewing as a death panel, a group of people who decide what gets what in terms of medicine and/or health care, we've always had them.
> ...



I didn't have to say it. Both of my Republican Senators, Isackson and Chambliss said it.
When a doctor informs a patient that they can set up a living will that puts in place a DNR order to not have life saving measures taken when they are terminally ill,which is what the bill stated, that is not a death panel. The bill authorized $200 payment to the doctor and a board to oversee that.
Everyone knows there were no death panels in that bill. That was all made. There is no mention of any death panelin the bill.
Flawed as it is.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 18, 2010)

Soon enough we'll all be _shovel-ready_.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It is my opinion that all medicine should be accesable to the general public. Let the people decide.



What does this mean? You mean without a prescription? Or you mean insurers (public or private) should pay for absolutely any drug you want to take to treat any condition?

Or are you one of the people who thinks revoking approval means the FDA has somehow banned Avastin and taken it off the market?


----------



## Revere (Dec 18, 2010)

The FDA de-listing Avastin for breast cancer is de facto banning it for that purpose, yes.


----------



## Affrayer (Dec 18, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Everyone knows there were no death panels in that bill. That was all made. There is no mention of any death panelin the bill. Flawed as it is.



1) You and I have different definitions of what a "Death Panel" is. Mine involves a lack of choice by the patient. Which is what the republican governor of Arizona is offering. 

2) Yes, by the time the republicans got done raping Obama's health care reform, it was indeed terribly flawed.


----------



## Revere (Dec 18, 2010)

Government will not give you all the health care you want, no matter the party affiliation of the government.  Deal with it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 18, 2010)

Revere said:


> The FDA de-listing Avastin for breast cancer is de facto banning it for that purpose, yes.



...because it's based on multiple studies showing that not only is it useless for that purpose, it comes with very dangerous side effects. _That's_ why the health sector would stop using it for this purpose, not some imaginary government ban.

Doctors can still prescribe it, insurers can still cover it for breast cancer. Will they? Well, if I were the chief medical officer for a large insurance company and you handed me a stack of research findings showing that a given drug is virtually useless for curing a given disease, I probably would remove it from the formulary and not approve reimbursement of it as a breast cancer drug. That doesn't mean the patient can't pay for it out of pocket.

While I appreciate the irony of some of you now coming to believe that health insurance is indeed a charity, that doesn't change the fact that health spending isn't going come down until we stop paying for procedures and drugs that don't do anything. Science is your friend, it can help distinguish between useless and useful. Payment policy based on hope and faith isn't going to lower your costs but payment policy based on science may yet.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 18, 2010)

shintao said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Do physicians get rich on Medicare?
> ...





There aren't enough private patients because the ratio of government subsdized health care has grown to the point where it is nearly half of all health care expenditures.


----------



## Affrayer (Dec 18, 2010)

Revere said:


> Government will not give you all the health care you want, no matter the party affiliation of the government.



True, but on the other hand, our current system can lead to horrible inequalities which is juxtaposed to our fundamental philosophy.

To put that another way: *LIFE,* liberty and the pursuit of happiness...would become a shame.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 18, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...





Personally, if I were 99 years old I would just let go and not have a transplant.

But I don't think that decision should be forced on anyone by the government.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 18, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Personally, if I were 99 years old I would just let go and not have a transplant.
> 
> But I don't think that decision should be forced on anyone by the government.



Who's going to pay for it? Aren't you one of those people who rails on and on about Medicare being bankrupt? If so, how do you reconcile that with your conviction that it should pay for everything imaginable?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 18, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Do physicians get rich on Medicare?
> ...




Indeed.

I am heartily sick and tired of seeing honest and decent people, doctors and business people, smeared as evil.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 18, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, if I were 99 years old I would just let go and not have a transplant.
> ...




Perhaps if the government didn't confiscate so much of people's income and wealth during their lifetimes, they could pay for their own care.

I'd rather have the government out of the health care insurance and retirement insurance business altogether.   The only thing the government's involvement really accomplishes is to distort the price structure.  It happened to housing.  It happened to higher education.  It's happening in health care and getting worse.

Free markets are not perfect; any system has flaws.  But the flaws of the market are far less in sum than the Epic Fail of Centralized Planning & Control.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wait...what??


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Did I mis-spell anything?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > It is my opinion that all medicine should be accesable to the general public. Let the people decide.
> ...





> What does this mean? You mean without a prescription?


Think junior we are discussing healthcare doctors and medicine. What do you think we are talking about?



> Or you mean insurers (public or private) should pay for absolutely any drug you want to take to treat any condition?



Is the value of life differant if you have private coverage compared to public?



> Or are you one of the people who thinks revoking approval means the FDA has somehow banned Avastin and taken it off the market



You aren't allowed to have it in England which after all isn't that the goal of obama to have healthcare coverage like the countries in Eroupe?
Why can't we have this drug? Anger as cancer medication that saves thousands remains banned in UK


Read more: Avastin cancer drug banned by NHS | Mail Online

But if obamacare is allowed to stay yes it will be taken off the market for good unless you go to the black market.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, if I were 99 years old I would just let go and not have a transplant.
> ...



Who's paying for it now?


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



You missed the part where my 73 year old assistant has been on it for 9+ months, tumors are gone and the ones that remain are 5% of their original size....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 18, 2010)

Revere said:


> Government will not give you all the health care you want, no matter the party affiliation of the government.  Deal with it.



Funny, you advocate "all the health care they want" for seniors paid for by government all the time.
You claim they paid for it. We all pay taxes.


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


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



Efficient at what? Getting ripped off? To be labled as effcient means you would have to do something productive.......

Here is one of the many cases of Medicare Fraud from the NY Times 10/13/10: 

_An Armenian-American crime syndicate stole the identities of doctors and thousands of patients and used them and more than a hundred spurious clinics in 25 states to bill Medicare for more than $100 million for treatments no doctor ever performed and no patient ever received, the federal authorities announced on Wednesday. 

Prosecutors said the case represented the largest Medicare fraud operation ever carried out by a single group that resulted in criminal charges. The group succeeded in stealing $35 million in Medicare reimbursements, officials said, before the charges were leveled and arrests were made on Wednesday._

Yeah that administrative group down at Medicare there right on top of it......


----------



## Revere (Dec 18, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> Revere said:
> 
> 
> > Government will not give you all the health care you want, no matter the party affiliation of the government.  Deal with it.
> ...



Government has already made many promises it cannot keep, for fractions of the population like seniors and the poor.

What is government's promise of universal health care worth?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 18, 2010)

GWV5903 said:


> Efficient at what? Getting ripped off? To be labled as effcient means you would have to do something productive.......
> 
> Here is one of the many cases of Medicare Fraud from the NY Times 10/13/10:
> 
> ...



Thank goodness private insurance was immune from fraud from these guys...



> *The Multi-Million-Dollar Private Insurance Fraud Scheme*
> 
> Members of the Mirzoyan-Terdjanian Organization also operated a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud insurance companies in the New York area by submitting millions of dollars in claims for medically unnecessary treatments. According to a second indictment, the Chervin Indictment, at least two members of the organization carried out a wide-spread and sophisticated fraud for at least a decade. Specifically, the schemers bribed a hospital employee to steal the names of patients for the schemers. The organizers then recruited these patients, sometimes by posing as a hospital referral service charged with helping accident victims.
> 
> In some cases, the defendants allegedly staged auto accidents to generate fake patients who would then undergo unnecessary and expensive treatments that would be billed and reimbursed. Patients were provided medical treatment, including painful nerve-conduction examinations, without reference to their actual medical need. After insurance companies paid for these unnecessary medical costs, the fraud proceeds were laundered through multiple accounts, including the escrow account belonging to an attorney. An attorney, as well as several doctors, were among the 18 individuals charged and arrested in connection with this scheme.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 18, 2010)

Revere said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Revere said:
> ...



We have universal health care now in most cases. Government pays 75% of all prescription costs now.
I oppose the Obama plan as it is more of the same. I favor the current system with more options and more regulation on insurance companies to open up competition. 
As long as someone else is paying the bill and you andI are not the customer it gets worse.
The current system where insurance companies and the government are the customer IS VERY BAD.
Large group health insurance care has ruined health care and run the price up.
Do you make a claim for an oil change on your car insurance.
Do you make aclaim when you paint your house?
Co-pays and deductibles of 5K on average have priced most all middle class self employedout of the health care insurance receiving benefits at all in the insurance model where the average premium per family is 12K a year and rising 15% a year for the last 24years.
Tell me good man, what middle class family can afford health care insurance at 48K a year in 14 years?
That is what it will be under the current system.Do the math. It doubles every 6-7 years for the last 24 years. 
Facts are a real bitch aren't they?


----------



## Revere (Dec 18, 2010)

14 year projections for the cost of anything are worth nothing.

And government certainly has no track record of slowing down the cost of anything.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I'm just confused where the Hitler reference is coming from and why you didn't answer my simple question. I thought we were having a mature conversation. No?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 18, 2010)

Revere said:


> 14 year projections for the cost of anything are worth nothing.
> 
> And government certainly has no track record of slowing down the cost of anything.



Respectfully, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Think real hard Revere.
I own 3 businesses, 1 of them for 31years.
When your health insurance premiums are approaching 40K a year to run that business, and mine is a small operation, you better believe you are thinking 7-10years down the road.
If you do not know that health care insurance has risen an average of 15% a year for over 24 years straight then you are in complete denial.

What did you pay for health insurance in 1985?
In 1992?
What were the premiums per month for you this year that YOU PAID?

I am very healthy and I paid the average in 1985, about 3K
Paid 6K in 1992
Paid 12 K in this year.
Expect to pay 24K in 7 years. 
I have to expect that. ALL BUSINESSES HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT.
Doesn't your business plan for that?
Or do you even own your own business and pay allof your health care costs?
My health care costs for this year for my healthy family:
12K premiums
6K HSA
18K for one year with 90% of the HSA used. 
And that is the average for an American family self employed healthy family.
Ad you claim that is a good thing? Worst value in the world for health care. Best value in the world for disease care which is what we are set up forinsurance wise.


----------



## Revere (Dec 18, 2010)

You can't project any costs 14 years out.  Nothing you paid for 14 years ago has any bearing on what it costs today.

You're an idiot if you think government is going to fix this.  Certainly not a Goldwater Republican.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Which is what private insurance does every day.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 18, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



No more than private insurance does.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 18, 2010)

There's a difference.  A health insurance company is not the government.   Competition keeps health insurance companies more honest than being the sole source of power over health care would a government bureaucrat.


----------



## Revere (Dec 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Insurance is not health care.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

Revere said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Exactly, and no one in Amerca can be denied healthcare at least they could not before obamacare.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



as it has already been stated healthcare is not healthcare coverage.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 18, 2010)

sheesh, did you read what you posted?
I am done here this has deteroriated to an "I cannot be wrong" situation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Healthcare is not healthcare coverage. two diffeant things try again.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Why are you defemmders stuck on the coverage? Healthcare is not healthcare coverage. You cannot be denied healthcare, at least not before obam,acare now you can be denied the care you need.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 18, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> sheesh, did you read what you posted?
> I am done here this has deteroriated to an "I cannot be wrong" situation.



So when did healthcare become the same as healthcare coverage?


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 19, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Efficient at what? Getting ripped off? To be labled as effcient means you would have to do something productive.......
> ...



_More than 61 percent of medical providers (4,319 total) banned from state Medicaid programs in 2004 and 2005 didnt show up in the federal database of state-banned providers. *This makes it easier for banned providers to set up shop in other states and continue doing business with federal health-insurance programs. (Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008)*

Increasingly, criminal groups are hacking into digital medical records so that they can steal money from the $450 billion, 44-million-beneficiary Medicare system -- *making the government, by far, the "single biggest victim" of health care fraud, according to Rob Montemorra, chief of the FBI's Health Care Fraud Unit.*_


Granted there are problems with private as well, HHS has a terrible track record managing Medicare & Medicaid......


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

The Government taking away money from people to give to other people ALWAYS creates a moral hazard.

Mo Money; Mo Hazard.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Exactly, and no one in Amerca can be denied healthcare at least they could not before obamacare.



Is healthcare a right?


----------



## Poli_Sigh (Dec 19, 2010)

_We Americans live in a nation where the medical-care system is second to none in the world, unless you count maybe 25 or 30 little scuzzball countries like Scotland that we could vaporize in seconds if we felt like it._  Quote from Dave Barry.  No offense to the Scots - those are his words. 

Obviously those of you who don't think the insurance companies are death panels now have never had a member of your family suffering from a terminal illness and had their insurance pulled out from under them.  Before discussing an issue, it is probably best that one has at least modicum of personal experience with it.  Instead of regurgitating the words of a woman who doesn't know Africa is a Continent or what she reads.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, and no one in Amerca can be denied healthcare at least they could not before obamacare.
> ...



You cannot be denied medical treatment if you go to the doctor they must render assistants or they can be sued. It's in thier oath they took before they became a doctor. But now we have obamacare that oath doesn't work that way anymore.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Technically, that is not correct.  Doctors can refuse to provide medical care...and besides the oath is not legally binding, but rather an ethical oath.  If they violate it, they may lose their state certification.

The place where you cannot be denied treatment is with hospital and ambulances based on the EMTALA law, which is a Federal Law.

So, if the Federal government can ensure you emergency medical care regardless of your ability to pay, and mandates that hospitals and ambulances perform services regardless of payment, then essentially the Federal government is forcing a business to give services for free.

Does that bother you at all?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wrongo, only emergency rooms are required to give emergency care.
A DR in a private office can refuse anyone he wants.
And emergency room care is only for immediate problems no maintenance, etc.

Of course anyone can sue anyone they want, I could sue you for being stupit if I so chose 

j/k on the suing you....  mostly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Thats correct they cannot release anyone until they are out of danger. So there is no denial of healthcare are there?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



`Nope.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version
  I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this artif they desire to learn itwithout fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version | PBS


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You don't mind that a business is Federally mandated to give free service?

Would you have an issue if Congress forced Meineke to replace mufflers on all cars regardless of the owner's ability to pay?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version
> I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:
> 
> To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this artif they desire to learn itwithout fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.
> ...



That's an oath, not a law.

And this is the one that is currently used:



> I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
> 
> I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in  whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with  those who are to follow.
> 
> ...



I don't see anything about "I will perform medical services for free"


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > The Hippocratic Oath: Classical Version
> ...



The oath is law to a physician, it's either all or nothing. or should they cherry pick the oath. lets say give out patient infoirmation?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



There are very strict federal laws preventing giving out patient information (HIPAA).

Let's just forget your massive FAIL attempt at using the oath to prove anything, and lets discuss the actual LAWS.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



do you have to work hard at being so dense and pig headed?


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...




I would expect a conservative to say that it is wrong for the Federal government to force a business to perform services for free.



> According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated
> 
> http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=25932


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Let's just forget that you over look the obvious. It may not say that a doctor will give care free of charge but whenit says
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.......
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings.........
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required


All is a requirment now how could they follow their oath and allow payment to get in the way?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If he doesn't take theoath then I would have a problem with anyone forcing him, but if he takes the oath I see no problem. And a oath should never be broken. Thats just my opinion.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



This only applies in emergency cases.  

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.



http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/202.html

There are some circumstances when a physician can "fire" the patient in non-emergency situations. One such circumstance is the patient&#8217;s unwillingness or inability to pay.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

An oath should never be broken?

LMAO  all politicians take oaths and virtually all of them break them.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> You don't mind that a business is Federally mandated to give free service?
> 
> Would you have an issue if Congress forced Meineke to replace mufflers on all cars regardless of the owner's ability to pay?




Bingo.

And ObamaCare basically does this via price controls.

The individual mandate is the flip side of the same principle.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> an oath should never be broken?
> 
> Lmao  all politicians take oaths and virtually all of them break them.



and your point? Do you take an oath lightly? I don't


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



So I ask one more time where is the denial?

Patients cannot face criminal prosecution for failure to pay, even if the patient came to the hospital aware of inability to pay. Hospitals and third-party agents may not threaten patients with prosecution as a means of scaring the patient into making payment. Patient can be prosecuted under existing federal, state, or local laws for providing false name, address, or other information to avoid payment, receiving bills, or to hide fugitive status.
A hospital may not perform a credit check on a patient either before, during, or after stay.

 The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.

Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.

Hospitals are required to sufficiently feed patients unable to pay at a level equal to those able to pay, while meeting all physician-ordered dietary restrictions.
Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.

Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge. In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. Hospitals must reasonably assist patients as necessary to obtain these services by providing information the patient requests.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > an oath should never be broken?
> ...



the only oath I ever took lightly was the one for the Army after I was drafted.  It was an oath you either gave or went to Leavenworth.
Oaths at "gunpoint" are worthless.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hospitals/doctors are allowed to deny care/treatment for patients who can't pay (provided there is no emergency).  I think that there should be government support for those who earn too much to qualify for government aid but not enough to afford health insurance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



What Icut and paste came from your link

Here it is again

Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

From providing substandard care, but not prohibited from not providing care.
Except for emergency situations.

Man you are dense today.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



So an oath is nothing to you? Then should I presume you are a liar?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> From providing substandard care, but not prohibited from not providing care.
> Except for emergency situations.
> 
> Man you are dense today.



I think you should reread that one more time and in whole not just part


This means they can't give them half ass care they are equal to anyone that walks come through the door. Which means they can't deny them care.


Hospitals are prohibited from discriminating against or providing substandard care to those who appear impoverished or homeless, are not well-dressed or groomed, or exhibit signs of mental illness or intoxication. If the hospital fears a patient may be a threat to others, the hospital may delay care only as necessary to protect others.


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You do not have to look impoverished to be too poor to buy medical service.  Facilities often ask for payment "up front".  If the patient can't pay, he does not get the care.  They are no more being discriminated against than does one who goes into an upscale shopping center only to discover that he can't afford to buy the merchandise.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Ahh I understand your problem now it is one of greatly diminshed reading comprehension.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

I am giving up on bigreb.  He is clearly understanding impaired in some way.
the idjit cannot get it thru his head that the no turning away people for medical care is only for life threatening situations.
And only applies to emergency rooms.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 19, 2010)

A point of information.  the inventor of the blood transfusion died in NC I believe it was from blood loss because he was denied access to a white hospital.  He was black.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Your losing the battle. If you can't understand the information from your own link I can't help you.

Side note What the above means is that the hospital cannot discriminate against anyone. Read your infoirmation in whole one more time.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> A point of information.  the inventor of the blood transfusion died in NC I believe it was from blood loss because he was denied access to a white hospital.  He was black.



Did he die before 1986?


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



If you can't afford treatment then doctors are not obligated to treat you.  It is as simple as that.  Here is an example:

More Cancer Patients Can't Afford Care - CBS Evening News - CBS News

Take Keith Blessington. Whether snowshoeing or hiking in the New Hampshire woods, Blessington always felt great. Then he was laid off. And just as his health care benefits were about to run out, he was diagnosed with stomach cancer. Blessington did find coverage - for double what he had been paying.

Insurance covered most of his medical bills, which totaled more than $200,000. But he still ended up more than $70,000 in debt, and no longer able to afford the home he shares with his ailing mother. 

"A growing number of cancer deaths directly attributable to lack of adequate insurance to get the care you need is growing with every passing day," said Dr. John Seffrin, CEO of the American Cancer Society. 
"I'm afraid I'll die," said Denise Prosser. *The 39-year-old can no longer afford to treat her thyroid cancer, since her husband lost his job and health insurance*. 

*She doesn't qualify for Medicare ("not disabled enough") or Medicaid (her husband makes too much in unemployment). She's not sick enough for the emergency room - yet. *

The Prossers are scrambling to find charitable care.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 19, 2010)

When the $ runs out to fund Medicare they would have wished we had a system that was not blank check care for 89 year old disease ridden seniors. 
Then NO ONE will get any care.
My Isreali friends are so correct:
"Americans are the very best at ideas and liberties. However, they are the very worse at times with the way they implement them".


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

mattskramer said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Your link that you used said otherwise. The only thing that a hospital is not required to do and this is from your link
1. Hospitals are not required to provide premium services to the patient not related to medical care (such as television) when failure to provide this service does not compromise patient care.

2. Hospitals and affiliated clinics are not required to provide continued outpatient care, drugs, or other supplies following discharge.

But
They are required and this is from your link
 In the event such services are recommended, but a patient is unable to pay, the hospital is required to refer the patient to a clinic or tax-funded or private program that enables the patient to pay for these services, and to which the patient has reasonable access. 

Your link which is a law.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 19, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...




That is not true...at least in the outpatient world.  Even if the outpatient services are owned by the hospital


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Thats from his source.


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 19, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, and no one in Amerca can be denied healthcare at least they could not before obamacare.
> ...



No, not at all....

Health Insurance was offered as a perk for recruiting employees....

Now it has become a tool for lawyers and politicians to abuse....

Very little difference between Lawyers and Politicians....

The advancement in medicine is incredible, but it comes with a price, in a perfect world money would not be an issue....


----------



## AmericanFirst (Dec 20, 2010)

boedicca said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


That is the whole point of obamacare, it is not your choice, the gov't will decide, nothing but a socialist bill.


----------



## Vanquish (Dec 20, 2010)

You really need to learn about socialism before you use the term. It's fucking annoying when brain dead people misuse terms that actually have set definitions that don't apply to what they're using it for.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 20, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> A point of information.  the inventor of the blood transfusion died in NC I believe it was from blood loss because he was denied access to a white hospital.  He was black.




[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The Death of Dr. Charles Drew[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]A Tragedy Compounded by Legend[/FONT]* 
_[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]It happened one April day while he and three other doctors were driving to attend a medical conference at a southern university. Near Burlington, N.C., their automobile swerved to avoid an object in the road. Drew was critically injured and began to lose blood rapidly.[/FONT]_ 
_[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]His colleagues flagged down a passing car and rushed him to the nearest hospital. At the door, he was turned away. It was a whites-only institution.[/FONT]_ 
_[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]By the time he was taken to a nearby colored hospital, Dr. Charles Drew, the man who developed the theory of blood plasma and pioneered the blood bank, had bled to death.[/FONT]_ 
_[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]His death highlighted the racial segregation which then existed in most southern hospitals, and still clings to many today.[/FONT]_ 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Whitney Young, executive director of the National Urban League, in the _Amsterdam News_, 1964[/FONT]​ 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This well-known legend of Charles Drews death never happened.[/FONT] 


 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]None of Drews companions in the car remember swerving to avoid something in the road.[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Drew arrived at the hospital in an ambulance.[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Alamance County General Hospital doctors administered plasma to Drew in addition to giving other emergency treatment.[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Drew did not die from loss of blood alone. The death certificate listed the conditions leading to his death as brain injury, internal hemorrhagelungs and multiple extremities injuries.[/FONT]
 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Alamance County General Hospital, though it segregated white and black patients, was not a whites-only institution and did not refuse Drew treatment.[/FONT]


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 22, 2010)

AmericanFirst said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I think that health care should be handled the way that education is handled.  There is public education available to all.  There are also private schools for those who prefer private education and can afford to pay for it.  Similarly, public health care should be available to all.  Yet, private health care / health insurance would still be available for those who prefer it to the public system and can afford to pay for allegedly better care. 

Comments?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 22, 2010)

GWV5903 said:


> Health Insurance was offered as a perk for recruiting employees....





Actually, employers started offering it to get around wage and price controls during WWII.  Prior to that, people purchased their own health insurance coverage, if they wanted it.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > A point of information.  the inventor of the blood transfusion died in NC I believe it was from blood loss because he was denied access to a white hospital.  He was black.
> ...



he was not the inventor of blood transfusions but discovered blood types....blood transfusions had been used before but not always with good results as the blood types were mixed


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 22, 2010)

strollingbones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...




he was charles drew. and he developed a method to STORE blood by separating plasma and cells and freezing both separately. to be later used in a transfusion.

the blood types were classified by landsteiner. an austrian.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 22, 2010)

American Red Cross Museum - Dr. Charles Drew

From Laboratory Experiments to Mass Production
Although the blood collection points for the Plasma for Britain Project were at eight different New York hospitals, the central location for the operation was set up in the Presbyterian Hospital. There tests and findings were carried out on blood composition and its preservation. There also, Dr. Drew worked primarily in a successful effort to turn laboratory experiments and the blood research done by others into mass production of plasma for shipment to the British Isles. For example, on learning that the British had successfully modified an ordinary cream separator to separate plasma from the red cells in blood, Dr. Drew ordered two of the modified machines rushed to New York from England and then had similar equipment constructed in the United States so that he could produce the clear plasma on a large scale. Before that time, some New York hospitals in the project had used small centrifuges to separate the plasma, while others were making the separation by the natural process of permitting the blood to sit for several days until the red blood cells settled to the bottom of the collection vessels.

Dr. Drew thus took the successful laboratory experiments of many blood researchers and transformed their test tube methods into mass production techniques.
When Hitler's much publicized invasion did not materialize, it was decided to terminate the Plasma for Britain Project. Dr. Drew had emerged, however, as a leading authority on mass transfusion and processing methods.
By this time it had become apparent that America probably would be drawn into the war. Military authorities in the United States were concerned with the need for a stockpile of blood reserves if hostilities should begin.
After discussions with medical leaders and the American Red Cross, the government asked the Red Cross to establish a pilot program similar to the Plasma for Britain Project but on a smaller scale. The pilot center was set up through the Red Cross chapter in New York City and began operation in February 1941.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 22, 2010)

yea yea....i corrected myself.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 22, 2010)

strollingbones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Did he die before 1986?


----------



## EriktheRed (Dec 22, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The patient cannot receive a negative credit mark for failure to pay the hospital or any related services, or any third-party agent collecting on their behalf. Such services may not threaten patient with credit reporting to scare them into paying.



Where the hell did you get _this_??

Edit: Well, looks like it was part of the Wikipedia entry. If true, then some hospitals have been breaking the law.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 22, 2010)

strollingbones said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Charles Drew, discovered plasma.  He was the first head of the Red Cross.  He quit when they came to him and asked him to separate the white blood from the black blood, saying "blood is blood".

The rumor about him dying because a white hospital refused to admit him is denied by his family.

See what you learn when you home-school your kids?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Dec 22, 2010)

Againsheila said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Where did you find his family to interview them?


----------

