Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79
  1.    #1  
    LONDON, Feb. 15 When her local health service refused to treat her breast cancer with the drug Herceptin, 54-year-old Ann Marie Rogers sued. But on Wednesday, a High Court judge ruled against her.

    In his decision the judge, David Bean, said that although he sympathized with Ms. Rogers's predicament, the health service in Swindon, where she lives, had been justified in withholding the drug.

    "The question for me is whether Swindon's policy is irrational and thus unlawful," Justice Bean wrote. "I cannot say it is."

    The ruling has potentially serious implications for patients across the taxpayer-financed National Health Service.

    Despite health officials' contention that decisions about treatment are based solely on clinical effectiveness, critics contend that with drugs growing ever more expensive, cost has become an increasingly important factor. They also say patients are at the mercy of the so-called postcode lottery, in which treatments are available in some postal zones but not others.

    "This drug could save the lives of 1,000 women a year," Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the lobbying group Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said of Herceptin. "It is unfair and cruel for women like Ann Marie Rogers to know that it is money and their postcode that stands between them and this potentially life-saving treatment."

    Log in required

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...JKyOQ20tQ5BQ24

    This is JUST what the Democrat "plan" that DA touts has in store for us.
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    LONDON, Feb. 15 When her local health service refused to treat her breast cancer with the drug Herceptin, 54-year-old Ann Marie Rogers sued. But on Wednesday, a High Court judge ruled against her.

    In his decision the judge, David Bean, said that although he sympathized with Ms. Rogers's predicament, the health service in Swindon, where she lives, had been justified in withholding the drug.

    "The question for me is whether Swindon's policy is irrational and thus unlawful," Justice Bean wrote. "I cannot say it is."

    The ruling has potentially serious implications for patients across the taxpayer-financed National Health Service.

    Despite health officials' contention that decisions about treatment are based solely on clinical effectiveness, critics contend that with drugs growing ever more expensive, cost has become an increasingly important factor. They also say patients are at the mercy of the so-called postcode lottery, in which treatments are available in some postal zones but not others.

    "This drug could save the lives of 1,000 women a year," Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the lobbying group Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said of Herceptin. "It is unfair and cruel for women like Ann Marie Rogers to know that it is money and their postcode that stands between them and this potentially life-saving treatment."

    Log in required

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...JKyOQ20tQ5BQ24

    This is JUST what the Democrat "plan" that DA touts has in store for us.
    You are right, that is what socialized medicine is all about. It may be free, but you get what you pay for.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    LONDON, Feb. 15 When her local health service refused to treat her breast cancer with the drug Herceptin, 54-year-old Ann Marie Rogers sued. But on Wednesday, a High Court judge ruled against her.

    In his decision the judge, David Bean, said that although he sympathized with Ms. Rogers's predicament, the health service in Swindon, where she lives, had been justified in withholding the drug.

    "The question for me is whether Swindon's policy is irrational and thus unlawful," Justice Bean wrote. "I cannot say it is."

    The ruling has potentially serious implications for patients across the taxpayer-financed National Health Service.

    Despite health officials' contention that decisions about treatment are based solely on clinical effectiveness, critics contend that with drugs growing ever more expensive, cost has become an increasingly important factor. They also say patients are at the mercy of the so-called postcode lottery, in which treatments are available in some postal zones but not others.

    "This drug could save the lives of 1,000 women a year," Jeremy Hughes, chief executive of the lobbying group Breakthrough Breast Cancer, said of Herceptin. "It is unfair and cruel for women like Ann Marie Rogers to know that it is money and their postcode that stands between them and this potentially life-saving treatment."

    Log in required

    http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...JKyOQ20tQ5BQ24

    This is JUST what the Democrat "plan" that DA touts has in store for us.
    Here we go with the what 'ifs' again.
  4. #4  
    Figures compiled by CancerBacup, a charity, showed that the number of breast cancer patients with access to Herceptin varied considerably across England, from 14 percent in the Midlands to 61 percent in the southwest.
    Guess which area of England is wealthier. Ah, but socialized medicine helps the working man, right? Umm, no.
  5. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Here we go with the what 'ifs' again.
    Not sure I follow. What is the what "ifs" you speak of? This is an example of what "has" happened.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  6. #6  
    Blame the Democrats right? I'd rather beat up a republican...oh yeah thats my weekend fun. Really...its my weekend fun.
    I'm so Great I'm jealous of myself!
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigBadWolf
    Blame the Democrats right? I'd rather beat up a republican...oh yeah thats my weekend fun. Really...its my weekend fun.
    Yes. I blame the Democrats for hooking such a large segment of the US population to the sweet, sweet milk that flows from the governmental teat.

    If they ever pull off a national healthcare scheme it will be the final nail.
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Here we go with the what 'ifs' again.
    LOL! That's right. Communism hasn't worked because the real smart people haven't tried it yet...
  9. #9  
    I will not defend the decision in this case, but bear in mind that health care is rationed in all countries. In Britain and Canada, the national system determines what care it will pay for. In the United States we ration health care through the marketplace. Those who have money/insurance get care. Those without depend on charity and government programs.
    The only people who have unlimited access to all available care are the rich who pay out of pocket.
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    I will not defend the decision in this case, but bear in mind that health care is rationed in all countries. In Britain and Canada, the national system determines what care it will pay for. In the United States we ration health care through the marketplace. Those who have money/insurance get care. Those without depend on charity and government programs.
    The only people who have unlimited access to all available care are the rich who pay out of pocket.
    I would rather have a system where I control the care I receive not one where a gov't agency decides my care regardless of my income level. If a person wants to pay for the care in Britain or Canada and the gov't says no, can they pay and receive the care? I do not know so I ask? If they can, does that not go against the policy of social medicine?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    In the United States we ration health care through the marketplace. Those who have money/insurance get care. Those without depend on charity and government programs.
    Don't confuse money and insurance. A person who is not working and on complete government assistance can often times get better healthcare than a person who is working at the bottom of the job chain.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I would rather have a system where I control the care I receive not one where a gov't agency decides my care regardless of my income level. If a person wants to pay for the care in Britain or Canada and the gov't says no, can they pay and receive the care? I do not know so I ask? If they can, does that not go against the policy of social medicine?
    I don't think they would force you use the governments system. You will always be able to choose who you go to as long as you pay yourself. Not to mention if you are on an HMO or some other sort of managed care, they are going to decide what is reasonable care for you anyhow. Just my thoughts.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I don't think they would force you use the governments system. You will always be able to choose who you go to as long as you pay yourself. Not to mention if you are on an HMO or some other sort of managed care, they are going to decide what is reasonable care for you anyhow. Just my thoughts.
    Read up on Hillarycare. If I recall what you suggest would have been a crime under her plan.

    As far as "force", they're forcing me to pay into the government's retirement system now, so that barrier has been long breached.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Don't confuse money and insurance. A person who is not working and on complete government assistance can often times get better healthcare than a person who is working at the bottom of the job chain.
    Which illustrates one of the problems of our employer-based medical insurance system. If your employer offers insurance you can afford, you are covered. If your employer does not offer insurance, or you cannot afford it, you go without. Private medical insurance is very expensive.
    We are now starting to see large corporations coming forward saying that the current system in the US is untenable. Toyota located a new plant in Canada rather than in the US, and cited health care costs as one of the reasons.
    The US currently has a government-run health care system that delivers quality care to a very large number of people with administrative costs that are one third to one fifth that of private insurance. It is called Medicare. (Do not mention the Medicare drug plan. That is a total disaster that was implimented by and for the drug companies.)
    A true free market does not exist in health care. You cannot shop for a doctor or medical treatment the same way you shop for a car or groceries.
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    Which illustrates one of the problems of our employer-based medical insurance system. If your employer offers insurance you can afford, you are covered. If your employer does not offer insurance, or you cannot afford it, you go without. Private medical insurance is very expensive.
    We are now starting to see large corporations coming forward saying that the current system in the US is untenable. Toyota located a new plant in Canada rather than in the US, and cited health care costs as one of the reasons.
    The US currently has a government-run health care system that delivers quality care to a very large number of people with administrative costs that are one third to one fifth that of private insurance. It is called Medicare. (Do not mention the Medicare drug plan. That is a total disaster that was implimented by and for the drug companies.)
    A true free market does not exist in health care. You cannot shop for a doctor or medical treatment the same way you shop for a car or groceries.
    Yes, you can shop for the doctor of your choice if you pay cash, just like you choose which car to buy. If I purchase an automobile from Ford, I do not expect a GM service center to repair it under warrenty, nor would I expect Kaiser to send me to a catholic healthcare system hospital.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    Which illustrates one of the problems of our employer-based medical insurance system. If your employer offers insurance you can afford, you are covered. If your employer does not offer insurance, or you cannot afford it, you go without. Private medical insurance is very expensive.
    We are now starting to see large corporations coming forward saying that the current system in the US is untenable. Toyota located a new plant in Canada rather than in the US, and cited health care costs as one of the reasons.
    Toyota's reasoning seems to condradict your point. The cost for insurance in the US is incurred partly by employers. If Toyota moves to Canada its simply to curb its own share of insurance costs. That doesn't equate to better health care for the individual.

    NOw, imagime Toyota's surprise when they realize the costs of one year maternity leave and one month of paternity leave for all Canadian employees.

    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    The US currently has a government-run health care system that delivers quality care to a very large number of people with administrative costs that are one third to one fifth that of private insurance. It is called Medicare.
    One-third to one-fifth? I don't know about that. But even so, the only way it is able to provide this "quality care" is through the billions of dollars paid into the system by taxpayers who will never benefit from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by zvandiver
    A true free market does not exist in health care. You cannot shop for a doctor or medical treatment the same way you shop for a car or groceries.
    You're right. It isn't a true free-market. The question is would it be better to move it closer to a free-market or to a state-controlled system?
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I would rather have a system where I control the care I receive not one where a gov't agency decides my care regardless of my income level. If a person wants to pay for the care in Britain or Canada and the gov't says no, can they pay and receive the care? I do not know so I ask? If they can, does that not go against the policy of social medicine?
    If you were making 20K a year, and were one of the 30 or 40 million Americans with no health insurance at all, you might feel differently.

    I'm not really suggesting the British system works best, or even that it's better than ours. But if you look at the OUTCOMES of medical treatment, America spends more money per capita than any country in the world, but ranks way down the list in terms of quality of health care and desireable outcomes. If you have good insurance, you may get good care, but the pressure from insurance companies to cut costs make even that questionable.

    We spend so much of our health care dollar (as a nation) on incredibly expensive treatments that really only benefit a small number of people, that the much larger number of people who could be helped by less expensive treatments often go without. And the system frequently pays for care where it is least necessary. As an example, insurance companies spend millions on prostate tests for elderly people who, even if they get prostate cancer, are likely to die of natural causes before the cancer progresses far enough to be an issue. In the meantime, there are millions of younger people, who could be helped if prostate cancer is caught early, who can't afford the test, And millions more who can't afford even a flu shot, when the flu kills 10s of thousands of people every year.

    If you're one of those people who can be helped by the new, expensive treatment, and can afford it, the system works great (for you.) But if you're one of those people pushed outside the system, it doesn't work well at all.

    It's not a simple situation, and the answers, in spite of jingoistic slogans promoted by the left and right, are not simple either. The truth is that the amount of money a society can affford to spend on health care is limited, whether by the government or by the budgets of insurance companies and consumers. Take the case that started this thread: Given limited amounts of money available to both governments and insurance companies, does it make sense to spend, say a 1/2 million dollars (number pulled out of thin air) to save the life of a single cancer patient, or to treat 10,000 diabetics? Does it make more sense to pay for one heart transplant, giving 1 person another 10 years of life, or to pay for 5,000 stents, providing longer lives to 5,000 people?

    If the ONE person is your mother, or grandmother, you'll feel one way. But if you're one of the people who can't get a stent inserted because the money for it went to pay for someone else's heart transplant, you'll likely feel differently.
    Last edited by meyerweb; 02/16/2006 at 03:20 PM.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    I'm not really suggesting the British system works best, or even that it's better than ours. But if you look at the OUTCOMES of medical treatment, the America spends more money per capita than any country in the world, but ranks way down the list in terms of quality of health care and desireable outcomes. If you have good insurance, you may get good care, but the pressure from insurance companies to cut costs make even that questionable.
    Is there somewhere I can see the statistics upon which you're basing your claims?
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    If you were making 20K a year, and were one of the 30 or 40 million Americans with no health insurance at all, you might feel differently.

    I'm not really suggesting the British system works best, or even that it's better than ours. But if you look at the OUTCOMES of medical treatment, the America spends more money per capita than any country in the world, but ranks way down the list in terms of quality of health care and desireable outcomes. If you have good insurance, you may get good care, but the pressure from insurance companies to cut costs make even that questionable.

    We spend so much of our health care dollar (as a nation) on incredibly expensive treatments that really only benefit a small number of people, that the much larger number of people who could be helped by less expensive treatments often go without. And the system frequently pays for care where it is least necessary. As an example, insurance companies spend millions on prostate tests for elderly people who, even if they get prostate cancer, are likely to die of natural causes before the cancer progresses enough to be an issue. In the meantime, there are millions of yonger people, who could be helped if prostate cancer is caught early, who can't afford the test, And millions more who can't afford even a flu shot, when the flu kills 10s of thousands of people every year.

    If you're one of those people who can be helped by the new, expensive treatment, and can afford it, the system works great (for you.) But if you're one of those people pushed outside the system, it doesn't work well at all.
    I understand what you are saying, but with your example of flu shots, I know there was a large quantity of vaccine that did not get used this year even though the vaccine was available at no cost to indiviudals.

    A large amount of healthcare cost is consumed by welfare receipiants who refuse to work and utilize Emergency rooms for common colds/sore throats, a large percentage is used by those who use recreational drugs and require rehabilitation at gov't expense. And, a big chunk of healthcare cost go to pay for malpractice insurance and frivilous lawsuits.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  20. #20  
    That's what happens in socialized healthcare. Me, I prefer to pay for top of the line health insurance. It's nice to have it and not need it rather than need it and not have it and depend some government bureaucrat to make health decisions for you and your doctor.

    Chuck

    Chuck
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions