You really want nationalized healthcare?

[RedEj8]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html

Life prolonging cancer drugs to be banned because they cost too much

Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.

The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.

The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over 'death sentence' decisions.

Leading campaigners last night said Nice had failed the 'acid test' of whether it really intended to give new priority to people with just a few months to live.

One drug, Lapatinib, can halve the speed of growth of breast cancer in one in five women with an aggressive form of the disease.

Dr Gillian Leng, Nice deputy chief executive, said 'The committee concluded that Lapatinib is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources when compared with current treatment.'

Up to 1,500 stomach cancer patients also face a ban on Sutent – the only drug that can extend their lives.

Draft guidance by Nice said the drug should not be used even though it approved its use for kidney cancer last month.

__________________________________________________ __________

Yes, you read that right. The "Government's rationing body" is making the medical decisions for people, not their doctors..

This is what you'll get with nationalized healthcare. Accountants, bureaucrats and politicians acting as your medical decision maker..

Wake up people.

[Paul]

there are always alternative treatments so don't think they are dooming people to death, drug cost are a game between drug manufactures and gov that approve them. the doctors that administer such drugs can also receive kick backs. universal healthcare doesn't do away with your healthcare plan by your current organization. furthermore if you don't have healthcare and opt for a universal plan then what do you have to complain about b/c some healthcare is better than none.

[RedEj8]

You're right... The Obama admin wants wartime vets to pay for their own injuries via private insurance.
.
.
.
.
__________________________________________________ ____________

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

Don't Miss
Vets object to billing private insurance for service injuries
12,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq by fall, military says
A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."

Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."

The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.

.
.
.
.
.
Administration Considering Plan to Charge Vets for Care
By Mark Impomeni
Mar 13th 2009 11:30AM
Filed Under:eBarack Obama, Obama Administration


The Obama Administration confirmed that it is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for health care they receive at government-run hospitals with private insurance. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed that that plan is under consideration at a hearing on Capitol Hill yesteray. Although not a formal proposal, the idea was met with bipartisan derision from members of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, who declared it "dead on arrival."

The Administration included in its 2010 budget proposal an increase in "third-party collections" at VA health care centers. Veterans groups say that the only way the govenment can realize that projected revenue is to begin charging veterans for service-related injuries. Currently, veterans only pay for treatment of conditions not related to their military service. Republican Senator Richard Burr (NC) told Shinseki the idea had no chance of passage. "I think you will give that up," he said, referring to the Obama Administration's projection of increased revenue from third parties. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), dismissed the idea in her opening remarks.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line. I don't think we need to nickel and dime them for their care."

The controversial plan may be more instructive of the Obama Administration's budget proposal than of its plans for veterans, however. The $3.6 trillion spending plan by the Administration last month envisions a beget deficit of more than $1.5 billion, a record-large number. But the deficit number is only that low, say many analysts, because the Obama Administration relies on overly optimistic projections of economic growth and makes questionable assumptions of savings in future years. Now the Administration's revenue forecasts are coming under scrutiny. When President Obama introduced his budget plan, he said it was free of the gimmicks used by prior administrations to hide the true costs of government. The veterans health proposal is just another example of President Obama's budget showing that the president too has some budgetary tricks up his sleeve.

[Total_Blender]

How is BHS turning down a drug or procedure any different for an insurance company turning down the same? Thats why Brits have private supplemental plans. There is no perfect system but I still think BHS is better than what we have.


I'm not sure how I feel about asking vets to pay for their service related injuries with private insurance. On one hand the VA should definitely cover everything service related, on the other if the vets have private insurance that will pay for stuff then the VA and the gov't will save money that could be used to give better care. I don't see too much of a problem as long as the VA continues to cover what insurance will not (as well as covering those without insurance). Theres also the issue of insurance comapnies raising premiums and dropping people for their service related injuries. I guess the question at hand is whether the VA is need-based or an entitlement.

[RedEj8]

They aren't turning it down for payment.. They're completely banning it from being used simply because they want a NHS and it's too expensive for that system.

If it was on the market, I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to pay for the drugs out of pocket and I'm even sure private insurance companies would be willing to pay for it..

That's a national socialist health care plan for ya..

[ash7]

Dont let the kool-aid drinkers get you down Red EJ8...

-jonathan

[RedEj8]

Don't worry, I won't be drinking the Kool-Aid.

To add the icing on the cake....

Obama is considering taxing employer provided health benefits.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29703278/

Yea.. tax the employer provided benefit, get the people to drop it, and join the nationalized plan..

[Miranda]

I don't think this is going to end well...

[Miranda]

I don't think this is going to end well...

[Vteckidd]

I don't think this is going to end well...
x2 and omghi2u where you been?

When are you people going to learn the govt isnt the answer to everything

[Paul]

They aren't turning it down for payment.. They're completely banning it from being used simply because they want a NHS and it's too expensive for that system.

If it was on the market, I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to pay for the drugs out of pocket and I'm even sure private insurance companies would be willing to pay for it..

That's a national socialist health care plan for ya..

NHS is publicly funded healthcare what do you expect them to cover everything doctors suggest? they are using NICE to determine the most cost effective methods of treatment; there is a reason for this... publicly funded systems much like private healthcare systems have exclusions and there are tons of treatments not covered. sorry but we we live in a unfair world and if you get terminal desease you will most certainly die whether you like it or not. if you think your private healthcare doesn't have such exclusions you are wrong.

furthermore patients who use NHS can still use other treatments not covered if they can get the resources to pay for such. the drug that was listed they are still doing trials on so no wonder they aren't covering it.

ps. the monthly cost for a patient on the 400mg will run approx 5000 u$ for this one drug.

[Total_Blender]

ps. the monthly cost for a patient on the 400mg will run approx 5000 u$ for this one drug.

No private insurer I know of would cover that. The insurance I could get through my job would probably just recommend an alternative treatment of drinking Drano. :ninja: