Universal Health Care...

[SweetDee 0]

Yeah a business would never try anything underhanded to make more money.

True story. In other news, the Government also would never do or say anything to gain more leverage and control.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I can't wait for the lefties here to complain when cuts are maid to medicare, when their parents start having problems getting covered under obamacare.

How ObamaCare Guts MedicareThe president's pledge that 'If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it' clearly does not apply to America's seniors.The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has attacked Senate Republican candidates for wanting "to end Medicare as we know it." And in Nevada's hotly contested Senate race, Majority Leader Harry Reid is attacking Republican Sharron Angle, saying she wants to "gut" Medicare. But Mr. Reid has already gutted it. He and his colleagues did so by passing ObamaCare. ...These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America's seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office's official "score"—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved....The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.Mr. Foster reports that two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients. Under ObamaCare it will get much worse. Hospitals also will shut down or stop serving Medicare patients.

complete story at link.

[Jeepster80125 0]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/09/14/rogue-states/1

[hblask 1]

Let the rationing beginThe ink is not yet dry on the Obama Health Care takeover and rationing advocate Donald Berkwick has yet to have his desk moved into the Medicare offices, and the Administration is already attempting to limit life-extending drugs for cancer patients.This is the first shot in the health care revolution.In September, the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin “off-label.” Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer. Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration. We told America rationing would happen if the health care takeover bill passed and in September, women with breast cancer will be its first victims.Avastin is the first medicine to fight cancer by blocking the growth of blood vessels that feed tumors. While Avastin is expensive and may not be the miracle drug some anticipated for breast cancer (it is for other types of cancer) from the success of the early trials, the overwhelming majority of breast cancer specialists believe the drug can be effective and useful in certain patientsIf the FDA takes Avastin off label it will effectively deny all but the richest Americans access to the drug. Once a drug is off label, most insurance and Medicare will no longer cover the cost of the treatment. So even if a patient meets the criteria of one who might respond positively to Avastin once it is taken off label it is highly unlikely that patient will have access to the drug unless they have the money to pay for it outright.Traditionally the FDA and ODAC make decisions based on a process called “endpoints.” Does a drug achieve certain targets? In this case, the FDA changed the criteria to judge the effectiveness of the drug.Dr. Richard Pazdur is the FDA’s Cancer Czar. Pazdur decides which anti-cancer drugs patients can have access to. In the case of Avastin, Pazdur changed the criteria to a new very subjective and slippery standard of “clinically meaningful.” And apparently the FDA and Pazdur don’t believe that extending the life of a Breast Cancer victim by 3 to 5 months or more is “Clinically Meaningful.”How do you put a price tag on those precious months for the families who are living through the hell of losing a Mother, Sister, Daughter, Aunt or Wife? Taking Avastin off label is nothing more then government rationing of healthcare. Period.Americans with cancer live much longer than similar victims in other nations. Traditionally the FDA has not based its decisions on the cost of drug or biologic treatment, but solely on the effectiveness of the treatment. This approach seems to be changing as Obamacare is being implemented and the rationing of healthcare soon begins.If you knew you could take a drug and perhaps live another year, would you take it? The government will now be making that decision for you.Members of Congress should demand a briefing from the FDA/Dr. Pazdur before any action is taken to deny breast cancer patients access to treatment that may extend their lives. No one is suggesting Avastin is a perfect drug, however it has proven to be an effect treatment for some patients. We should not deny those patients access to a treatment that may extend their lives. The removal of Avastin is the Obama’s Administrations second attack on breast cancer patients, earlier this year they changed the mammography standard from 40 to 50, which could result in millions of women going undiagnosed.

[CaneBrain 95]

How do you put a price tag on those precious months for the families who are living through the hell of losing a Mother, Sister, Daughter, Aunt or Wife?

By adding up how much it costs. Just because it is very sad does not mean the drug is not ridiculously expensive for a limited benefit. We can't afford how we currently do end of life care. That's where the biggest explosion in costs comes from.

[SweetDee 0]

By adding up how much it costs. Just because it is very sad does not mean the drug is not ridiculously expensive for a limited benefit. We can't afford how we currently do end of life care. That's where the biggest explosion in costs comes from.

"By adding up how much it costs. We can't afford to do it all. It sucks but welcome to reality. Health care is out of control and end of life drugs and treatments are the biggest factor."Welcome to reality as sanctioned by the book of Obama? Sorry, but **** you. Only a psychopath would look at 5 extra months with a loved one and go "Meh, it's not covered? No sweat, these treatments are soooo expensive, you know? Bye mom ."Disgusting, really putrid of you.

[hblask 1]

By adding up how much it costs. Just because it is very sad does not mean the drug is not ridiculously expensive for a limited benefit. We can't afford how we currently do end of life care. That's where the biggest explosion in costs comes from.

See, the problem is that you put a "we" in front of a very personal, intimate problem. I agree that the federal government can't afford to pay end of life care for everyone. But on their own, people have been doing a very good job of it. Do you see why?

[hblask 1]

"By adding up how much it costs. We can't afford to do it all. It sucks but welcome to reality. Health care is out of control and end of life drugs and treatments are the biggest factor."Welcome to reality as sanctioned by the book of Obama? Sorry, but **** you. Only a psychopath would look at 5 extra months with a loved one and go "Meh, it's not covered? No sweat, these treatments are soooo expensive, you know? Bye mom ."Disgusting, really putrid of you.

How can you say that? Everyone knows that Democrats are the compassionate ones. They'll feel really, really sorry for you as the doctor pulls the plus on your now-too-expensive mom.

[CaneBrain 95]

"By adding up how much it costs. We can't afford to do it all. It sucks but welcome to reality. Health care is out of control and end of life drugs and treatments are the biggest factor."Welcome to reality as sanctioned by the book of Obama? Sorry, but **** you. Only a psychopath would look at 5 extra months with a loved one and go "Meh, it's not covered? No sweat, these treatments are soooo expensive, you know? Bye mom ."Disgusting, really putrid of you.

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING? Both of you are insane. You, of course, pay for the extra 5 months. And like people with pre-existing conditions now, you would go bankrupt. But that's ok because bankruptcy is better than dead 5 months earlier right? Because the problem with the current system is that so many people go into bankruptcy when their coverage is gone or insufficient. That's been what I have been saying all along. You want the 5 months, you have to pay for it and if you go into bankruptcy because of it that's the price you pay.....just like it how it is now if you have bad insurance or no insurance.It's not disgusting, it's reality. Henry, you have been telling me all along that the current insurance system causing bankruptcies is not a big deal because bankrupt is better than untreated and people need to be more responsible and avail themselves of local charitable programs, free clinics, etc. Now you are going to tell me that it is INTOLERABLE that someone would have to go bankrupt for an expensive drug that only prolongs the inevitable? REALLY?Perhaps if people are that desperate to delay the inevitable (unlike people now who go bankrupt from life-saving treatment) they should suck it up, sell some shit, reach out to a charity, save more money in the first place. Unreal. It's like you are all of a sudden not a libertarian.I am much more concerned that Obamacare makes sure people who are going to go onto live from their treatment don't go bankrupt than people who only have 5 more months at best. If anyone is going to get pinched by rationing, it makes sense that it come from end of life on any rational level. That doesn't mean you let your mom die. It means you do what you have to do to afford it and deal with the consequences.There was an 8 month stretch where if I got really sick I would have been screwed and it would have been a choice between going into massive debt or bankruptcy or not getting treatment. That stuff happens all the time. That did not concern you but this does?

[CaneBrain 95]

See, the problem is that you put a "we" in front of a very personal, intimate problem. I agree that the federal government can't afford to pay end of life care for everyone. But on their own, people have been doing a very good job of it. Do you see why?

Just to add on I think the bolded is false. People have been doing a terrible job of it on their own which is why health care costs have exploded the last 25 years. The way we currently do it is not "very good".I am still in shock, though, that when I tell you over 50% of all personal bankruptcies are related to medical bills you shrug it off....but if a woman who already has a death sentence has to pay on her own for a drug it's the end of the world. It just does not compute.

[CaneBrain 95]

OK.... bankrupt is better than dead, right? See, the beauty is, in a free market, anyone who thinks that "dead" is better than bankrupt is free to choose that, whereas under socialized medicine where technology is stifled, dead is your only choice (unless you have a free market country to emulate, then you have the choice of "stay alive for six months and hope socialized medicine treats you before you die").

bankrupt is better than losing 5 months, right?

[hblask 1]

And like people with pre-existing conditions now, you would go bankrupt. But that's ok because bankruptcy is better than dead 5 months earlier right?

I don't know if it's better for any individual case. The point is that it is not up to you, or some mid-level federal bureaucrat. It is up to the family. Period. Anyone else who thinks they know what is best for that family is, basically, an *******.

I am still in shock, though, that when I tell you over 50% of all personal bankruptcies are related to medical bills you shrug it off....but if a woman who already has a death sentence has to pay on her own for a drug it's the end of the world. It just does not compute.

That's because the "50% of all bankruptices" statistic is silly. It's like saying "95%% of frostbite is caused by weather". WTF else would it be caused by? Bankruptcies are caused by big things: houses, major medical bills. So? If that's only a tiny percentage of the population, who cares.It's not a matter of her having to pay for her own drugs, it's a matter of the government denying a treatment that works because of cost -- and making that cost/benefit decision for somebody else.

bankrupt is better than losing 5 months, right?

For some people, yes. Only a cretin would dare to make that choice for somebody else.

[CaneBrain 95]

I don't know if it's better for any individual case. The point is that it is not up to you, or some mid-level federal bureaucrat. It is up to the family. Period. Anyone else who thinks they know what is best for that family is, basically, an *******.That's because the "50% of all bankruptices" statistic is silly. It's like saying "95%% of frostbite is caused by weather". WTF else would it be caused by? Bankruptcies are caused by big things: houses, major medical bills. So? If that's only a tiny percentage of the population, who cares.It's not a matter of her having to pay for her own drugs, it's a matter of the government denying a treatment that works because of cost -- and making that cost/benefit decision for somebody else.

So it is better to have an insurance company make that decision for someone? What's the difference between an insurance company that will only pay 25% of your bill and the government saying you have to pay for a certain drug? Also, the government is not denying coverage....they are shifting the cost benefit decision onto the patient. Just like currently the government does not deny abortion but they also will not give you a dime for it.It's not the government making a decision for you. It's the government telling you how much it will cost. You still can get the drug, you just have to pay. Just like now an uninsured person can get treatment but they have to pay. People can always buy supplemental insurance to cover off-label drugs.I think you underestimate how many people go into bankruptcy, how many ways people go into bankruptcy, and what the total net loss is for society from those bankruptcies.

[SweetDee 0]

bankrupt is better than losing 5 months, right?

H is handling this fine, but I just can't see how anyone can logically think that it makes good sense to give someone else the power to make that decision. Really- it should not be a up to a government to mandate which drugs can be covered by whom, its between you an whoever you buy insurance through. This isn't even something that, here in the good old US of A, should be arguable. Your thought process should be- and has been- met with a collective **** you.

[SweetDee 0]

So it is better to have an insurance company make that decision for someone? What's the difference between an insurance company that will only pay 25% of your bill and the government saying you have to pay for a certain drug? Also, the government is not denying coverage....they are shifting the cost benefit decision onto the patient. Just like currently the government does not deny abortion but they also will not give you a dime for it.It's not the government making a decision for you. It's the government telling you how much it will cost. You still can get the drug, you just have to pay. Just like now an uninsured person can get treatment but they have to pay. People can always buy supplemental insurance to cover off-label drugs.I think you underestimate how many people go into bankruptcy, how many ways people go into bankruptcy, and what the total net loss is for society from those bankruptcies.

No, they are not- they are changing how the drug is categorized so it's not even available to be part of coverage. Meaning, I would like to get coverage for this drug- but, I can't. It's against the law. Not to mention that if you don't spread out the cost over numerous plans, what happens? The price of the drug goes up. That's just basic math. The idea is to run as much interference as possible to make it to where everybody just has shitty overpriced care, shared misery, which of course is always the goal.

[CaneBrain 95]

H is handling this fine, but I just can't see how anyone can logically think that it makes good sense to give someone else the power to make that decision. Really- it should not be a up to a government to mandate which drugs can be covered by whom, its between you an whoever you buy insurance through. This isn't even something that, here in the good old US of A, should be arguable. Your thought process should be- and has been- met with a collective **** you.

The government is deciding what it will do. The insurance companies are under no directive to follow suit....Henry's article was clear that insurance companies decide for themselves not to cover drugs that are considered off-label. Find an insurance company that covers off-label drugs. The government is mandating which drugs it will cover. Right now under the current system there is a large group of people who have no power and the decision is made for them.....Obamacare addresses that. Your thought process is limited and your pretend compassion for poor granny is undermined by your lack of concern for those who cannot buy insurance under the current system. I like the dramatic endings now to every post though. It somehow makes you seem like even more of a whackjob.

[CaneBrain 95]

No, they are not- they are changing how the drug is categorized so it's not even available to be part of coverage. Meaning, I would like to get coverage for this drug- but, I can't. It's against the law. Not to mention that if you don't spread out the cost over numerous plans, what happens? The price of the drug goes up. That's just basic math. The idea is to run as much interference as possible to make it to where everybody just has shitty overpriced care, shared misery, which of course is always the goal.

"Once a drug is off label, most insurance and Medicare will no longer cover the cost of the treatment."That says will, not can't. It won't be part of Medicare but insurance companies are allowed to cover it. Yes, the price of that insurance will go up but that makes sense since you are getting access to an expensive drug that has only the power to prolong not cure. And if your insurance won't cover it you can pay for it.....which is what happens to millions of Americans now with no insurance or crappy insurance because insurance companies have all the power. Obama care is a conscious decision to get everyone covered at the cost of making people pay more for end of life things. Now, I oppose Obamacare for different reasons....mainly because there were much better ways to combine the goals of Dems and Repubs when it comes to health care and because Obama just out and out lied about the plan (you can't cover additional people, extend children on their parents plans to 26, end the ban on pre-existing conditions and NOT cut end of life care and save money, thats ridiculous).But the trade-off of covering people who are screwed by the current rules at the cost of taking drugs that prolong off government coverage is not as unseemly as you and H think.

[hblask 1]

So it is better to have an insurance company make that decision for someone? What's the difference between an insurance company that will only pay 25% of your bill and the government saying you have to pay for a certain drug? Also, the government is not denying coverage....they are shifting the cost benefit decision onto the patient. Just like currently the government does not deny abortion but they also will not give you a dime for it.It's not the government making a decision for you. It's the government telling you how much it will cost. You still can get the drug, you just have to pay. Just like now an uninsured person can get treatment but they have to pay. People can always buy supplemental insurance to cover off-label drugs.I think you underestimate how many people go into bankruptcy, how many ways people go into bankruptcy, and what the total net loss is for society from those bankruptcies.

With govt involvement in medicine, insurance companies take their cue from the govt. When the govt says it's not worth it, the insurance companies stop paying for it. Basically, it's the govt taking something from you that you've already paid for.But the bigger problem is that Obamacare is basically forcing the insurance industry out of business so that everyone will be on a government plan -- and then it will be bureaucrats making a life-or-death decision for you. The choice to buy insurance for that is being removed, because the Obama administration decided it's too expensive for you.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So, the FDA saying an experimental drug is "off-label" means that Obama is forcing you to let old people die and forcing insurance companies out of business?No one is preventing anything from doing anything. If you want to pay the money for the drug, you can. If an insurance company wants to pay the money, they can.And can we please stop using the term "rationing." It's an awful term. Everything on Earth is rationed, there are no infinite resources. This is why things have prices, and why different things have different prices. The fact that drugs cost money means they're rationed. This drug is rationed; you have to make certain sacrifices to use it.

[El Guapo 8]

So, the FDA saying an experimental drug is "off-label" means that Obama is forcing you to let old people die and forcing insurance companies out of business?No one is preventing anything from doing anything. If you want to pay the money for the drug, you can. If an insurance company wants to pay the money, they can.And can we please stop using the term "rationing." It's an awful term. Everything on Earth is rationed, there are no infinite resources. This is why things have prices, and why different things have different prices. The fact that drugs cost money means they're rationed. This drug is rationed; you have to make certain sacrifices to use it.

Love Yorkey. There is an infinite amount of love. You just have to know where to look for it.

[akoff 0]

By adding up how much it costs. Just because it is very sad does not mean the drug is not ridiculously expensive for a limited benefit. We can't afford how we currently do end of life care. That's where the biggest explosion in costs comes from.

wow

[CaneBrain 95]

With govt involvement in medicine, insurance companies take their cue from the govt. When the govt says it's not worth it, the insurance companies stop paying for it. Basically, it's the govt taking something from you that you've already paid for.

Gov does something. Insurance companies follow suit even though they are under no obligation to.....that's the government forcing someone? If the gov is so bad at health care, why would the insurance companies do whatever they do? Also, insurance companies make changes to what they do and don't cover all the time.

[CaneBrain 95]

wow

yeah, I know, right? You don't care about all the uncovered people now but you reserve the right to get your panties in a bunch over one expensive, designer drug being taken off government coverage (though of course it is still available at market cost). Consistency!

[Jeepster80125 0]

By adding up how much it costs. Just because it is very sad does not mean the drug is not ridiculously expensive for a limited benefit. We can't afford how we currently do end of life care. That's where the biggest explosion in costs comes from.

No. The increase in costs come from across the board. Hospital reimbursements/charges, malpractice insurance/lawsuits, THE COST OF THE UNINSURED, when you understand that healthcare is 1/6th of our economy, you wouldn't make ridiculous claims like blaming the small part of the problem as the main source. It's silly. I don't know, maybe you're including things like tort costs and stuff in 'end of life care'.

So, the FDA saying an experimental drug is "off-label" means that Obama is forcing you to let old people die and forcing insurance companies out of business?No one is preventing anything from doing anything. If you want to pay the money for the drug, you can. If an insurance company wants to pay the money, they can.And can we please stop using the term "rationing." It's an awful term. Everything on Earth is rationed, there are no infinite resources. This is why things have prices, and why different things have different prices. The fact that drugs cost money means they're rationed. This drug is rationed; you have to make certain sacrifices to use it.

You have done a good job of seeming totally ignorant with regards to healthcare, reform, and obamacare. I think you're smarter than you're coming off in this thread specifically, it's confusing.Don't you understand that for some poor people, neither of these are options? Don't you understand that 'poor people' would be affected if they're on government subsidies? Don't you understand the relationship between the government making these decisions and how it has consequences elsewhere?And no, I won't stop using the term 'rationing', because it's the most accurate way to describe what's going on and what's going to happen. What would you prefer to call it?

Gov does something. Insurance companies follow suit even though they are under no obligation to.....that's the government forcing someone? If the gov is so bad at health care, why would the insurance companies do whatever they do? Also, insurance companies make changes to what they do and don't cover all the time.

Insurance companies can't make changes to the contract that policyholders sign. Surely you understand that health insurance is a contract, and everything that's covered and not covered is spelled out in the policy. Everything. In Colorado, there are specific parts of the policy for exlusions and limitations.Hate to nitpick, but your insurance can't do this for existing policyholders. The 'changes' you speak of only affect new business. For example, obama says if you want to keep your current plan, you can. It may qualify as 'grandfathered', and won't be subject to obamacare guidelines. This is a good thing, because it will keep costs down for grandfathered plans moving forward, at least until 2014. This is only a band-aid, and we're saving our clients 15-40% on their premiums, which will spike in 2014 forcing employers to decide whether to pay for premiums or pay the fine. Employers won't do 'what's right' and choose healthcare regardless, they'll pay the fine because it will be cheaper than contributing to their employees healthcare. Employers that drop coverage will force employees to the individual market, where health conditions and pre-existing conditions like minor back problems aren't covered.As far as the government being 'bad' at healthcare, would you like to have a quick discussion on medicare and it's various problems? I guess you've never had experience with dealing with a medicare nightmare, your hate seems to come from private carriers or something.edit: there was no public option, so government programs for people will be limited. For example, if you lose your job, you don't qualify for private insurance, so what the fuck are you going to do if you're unemployed after 2014? There isn't enough money in the newly created high risk pools to cover the people who will be affected by this, so that's not an option for everyone.

[CaneBrain 95]

Hate to nitpick, but your insurance can't do this for existing policyholders. The 'changes' you speak of only affect new business.

that's what I meant. coverages in general change over time depending on a variety of factors. also, some plans cover things that other plans don't.