Page 141 of 143 FirstFirst ... 4191131136137138139140141142143 LastLast
Results 2,801 to 2,820 of 2855
  1. #2801  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Wow, amazing hypocrisy, given that you instantly turned to petty attacks--meaningless ones at that. Yes, your record here is certainly one of "actual debate."

    KAM
    Hmmm....

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138

    amazing hypocrisy
    .
    .
    As if you had the reading comprehension skills to determine this one way or the other.
    .
    .
    .
    Of course, if you really had something to say, you probably would have said it, so...
    .
    .
    You merely spouted some tripe about the Republican party. If I spent all my time responding to idiotic distractions I'd never get to sleep.
    .
    .
    Oh that's right--the grade school tactic of pretending to have weight behind what you say as a means of propping up weak claims. Here's a hint--if you're smart, you don't have to talk about how smart you are.
    .
    .
    Please feel free to put your money where your mouth is and address ANY of the points I've made on a factual basis. Your nah-nah, reasoning isn't terribly convincing. I really want to know if you believe this school-yard silliness that you keep spewing?
    .
    .
    Wow, such brilliant analysis. How could one stand up to that. Of course you do seem to have some fans here. Great minds think alike. How do you get along in the real world with this sort of open nonsense. Do you really live your life spewing cheap-slogan level jibes? Really?
    I think the constant refrain that others are taking part in "petty attacks" is pretty ironic. Maybe you could control your own tendency to attack and belittle others.

    Seriously, you need to take a deep breath or a walk, then come back with a clear head. Then folks will actually take part in constructive dialogue with you. Just free advice...feel free to ignore it.
    Last edited by Bujin; 03/06/2010 at 11:20 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2802  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Hmmm....



    I think the constant refrain that others are taking part in "petty attacks" is pretty ironic. Maybe you could control your own tendency to attack and belittle others.

    Seriously, you need to take a deep breath or a walk, then come back with a clear head. Then folks will actually take part in constructive dialogue with you. Just free advice...feel free to ignore it.
    Yes, all in RESPONSE to an initiated attack of some sort. Feel free to point out any case, where my response was inaccurate in what it was responding to. If you want to point to the things I responded to and claim they AREN'T petty--please feel free. Also, you seem to conveniently forget the many other posts I've had throughout this thread (and others) where I respond to opposing views without ever attacking the opposing view holder, and address their actual position.

    If you are pointing out that I get sick and tired of this stuff, and my responses reflect that. Well, I'm guilty there. Never have you seen me initiate an attack on someone because I disagree with their honest opinion. I never claimed I just smiled and nodded at someone initiating an attack.

    Again--spare me your backhanded "advice"--I can see it is just another effort to paint me as not having a "clear head." I know you like the backhanded jabs, I don't need another demonstration.

    The fact is, I'd be elated to have a constructive dialog, but you can't go back through this thread and tell me that people like Colonel Kernel or Piaband have made any such attempt at "constructive dialog." So, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and ignore the advice of someone who is really conveniently trying to make the issue about me, in the midst of many others who INITIATE this sort of thing.

    It's convenient to isolate the "enemy" and make them the problem, but it isn't close to being an accurate assessment of what's been going on here. So, thanks Dad, but I've got a pretty good handle on what's gone on here, and you really aren't defending good behavior, you're selectively wagging you finger in order to support the people initiating the hostility, while attempting to put the blame on me.

    You're wrong. SOME people will engage in constructive conversation, and some people are completely incapable of it (or at least haven't demonstrated an ability or willingness to do so), and others who are, simply won't deal with things they dislike, and just cheer their aggressive friends--always someone to carry the water to help drown out the opposing view, and constantly pulling the conversation away from the actual issue at hand, again by INITIATING these various offenses.

    Here's a rundown of those things that you listed--in context.
    amazing hypocrisy Yes, that was pointing out hypocrisy.

    As if you had the reading comprehension skills to determine this one way or the other.: Response to someone who had repeatedly mis-stated actual posts (demonstrated) in order to launch some sort of straw man attack, prompting me to question their reading comprehension.

    Of course, if you really had something to say, you probably would have said it, so...:
    In response to someone who failed to address the actual post in favor of a left-field attack.

    You merely spouted some tripe about the Republican party. If I spent all my time responding to idiotic distractions I'd never get to sleep.: Accurate description of posters action (related to above)
    .
    Oh that's right--the grade school tactic of pretending to have weight behind what you say as a means of propping up weak claims. Here's a hint--if you're smart, you don't have to talk about how smart you are. Identifying tactic of claiming to represent large group in order to appear more relevant.

    Please feel free to put your money where your mouth is and address ANY of the points I've made on a factual basis. Your nah-nah, reasoning isn't terribly convincing. I really want to know if you believe this school-yard silliness that you keep spewing? Request that someone actually back up what they say, instead of engaging in petty attacks. Sincere request for poster to come clean.

    Wow, such brilliant analysis. How could one stand up to that. Of course you do seem to have some fans here. Great minds think alike. How do you get along in the real world with this sort of open nonsense. Do you really live your life spewing cheap-slogan level jibes? Really? A bit of Mockery of some issue-free prattle. Sincere questioning of how someone lives their life by engaging in this sort of practice.

    Again--if you think that the things I've responded to are something you want to defend, please do. Because otherwise, you are just trying to make this about me--as if I initiated any of it.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/07/2010 at 12:16 AM.
  3. #2803  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Again--spare me your backhanded "advice"--I can see it is just another effort to paint me as not having a "clear head." I know you like the backhanded jabs, I don't need another demonstration.
    There's nothing back-hand about it. I truly don't think you have a clear head, and respond to any perceived insult with name-calling and clear violations of the forum rules. But it's not my job to call you on your inappropriate behavior, so all I can do is offer the advice I did.

    You can continue to rant, insult, and name-call for as long as the forum mods tolerate it...but I always believe that you need to point out these things in case the person is blind to their behavior. You can respond by attacking me in response yet again if you'd like, but you'll have to continue without me.

    I truly hope you get a handle on your anger, as it's clearly out of proportion to the situation.
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2804  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    There's nothing back-hand about it. I truly don't think you have a clear head, and respond to any perceived insult with name-calling and clear violations of the forum rules. But it's not my job to call you on your inappropriate behavior, so all I can do is offer the advice I did.

    You can continue to rant, insult, and name-call for as long as the forum mods tolerate it...but I always believe that you need to point out these things in case the person is blind to their behavior. You can respond by attacking me in response yet again if you'd like, but you'll have to continue without me.

    I truly hope you get a handle on your anger, as it's clearly out of proportion to the situation.
    Perhaps you forget that I've seen you play this game before in the Global Warming thread, by repeating lies to the point where I did get sick of it, but I've got your number now. I know you like to play the role of the wise, rational guy just trying to get along with the hot-head.

    It is quite telling that you are so dedicated to this sort of deception however. I hope to goodness that this is just you engaging in internet nonsense and you don't do this sort of thing in the real world. As an educator, that would be highly unethical.

    I'll try not to waste any more time, assuming that you have ANY sincere desire to engage in discussion. You keep on talking around things in order to keep painting me with your "anger brush" and turn a total blind eye to those initiating attacks.

    I hope you get a handle on your dishonesty, it is clearly out of proportion with the situation.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2805  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    There's nothing back-hand about it. I truly don't think you have a clear head, and respond to any perceived insult with name-calling and clear violations of the forum rules. But it's not my job to call you on your inappropriate behavior, so all I can do is offer the advice I did.

    You can continue to rant, insult, and name-call for as long as the forum mods tolerate it...but I always believe that you need to point out these things in case the person is blind to their behavior. You can respond by attacking me in response yet again if you'd like, but you'll have to continue without me.

    I truly hope you get a handle on your anger, as it's clearly out of proportion to the situation.
    Perhaps you forget that I've seen you play this game before in the Global Warming thread, by repeating lies to the point where I did get sick of it, but I've got your number now. I know you like to play the role of the wise, rational guy just trying to get along with the hot-head (all defined by you of course).

    It is quite telling that you are so dedicated to this sort of deception however. I hope to goodness that this is just you engaging in internet nonsense to get some sort of thrill and you don't do this sort of thing in the real world. As an educator, that would be highly unethical.

    I'll try not to waste any more time, assuming that you have ANY sincere desire to engage in discussion. You keep on talking around things in order to keep painting me with your "anger brush" and turn a total blind eye to those initiating attacks.

    I hope you get a handle on your dishonesty, it is clearly out of proportion with the situation.

    Of course it is also interesting to point out that you've initiated a conversation that has ZERO to do with the topic of healthcare. Something you might want to consider since you seem so concerned with the rules. You've succeeded in initiating an exchange that is completely unrelated to the topic. Whereas you can see--my posts above actually ARE related to the topic (not counting my being dragged into your irrelevant, non-topical tangent of course). I really should learn just to ignore you. My failing I admit.

    Even the rabid attacks of those other guys had some relation to the topic. So, some friendly advice for you--your tactic is a bit more transparent than you think.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 03/07/2010 at 12:46 AM.
  6. #2806  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Are you suggesting that the existence of non-existence of a Republican plan is somehow supporting...well anything? Given that there is ZERO chance of any Republican plan passing the Democrat controlled House and Senate, this seems like a bit of a straw man. That being said--they DO have a plan, you just don't like it, which is fine, but it serves no purpose to claim it doesn't exist.
    I will give you that the rep do have a plan. Unfortunately, it does not explain how they are going to pay for things... and the last plan I read from the rep was lacking in details.. I think it was 250 pages or so.

    Even at the Republican Retreat in Baltimore, the Rep "somewhat" admitted they did not have a finalized plan, and lacked details on paying for their plan.

    Dem: What is your plan?
    Rep: We will lower costs.
    Dem: How will you pay for it?
    Rep: Your plan is Socialism.
    Dem: Your plan lacks details.
    Rep: You seek Death Panels.


    I agree that doing nothing isn't a good option, but I'm not sure that what is being proposed is better either.
    No, doing nothing is NOT an option. I've not heard one elected official state that doing nothing is an option.

    And of course you are not sure if what is proposed is better... Read it, instead of going on Republican Talking Points.

    That's why it is entirely reasonable for the American people to want ACTUAL reform, not this mangled mess. This long ago stopped being about helping anyone, and became a pure political issue--on both sides.
    The illusion of a mangled mess... okay.

    Simply accepting the "promise" is naive at best.
    I agree... which is why Republicans have no footing in this conversation.



    When you read about this (both sides) you can see that it isnt' the slam dunk that people here are repeating (many times) or what the Administration claims.
    Not read that... matter of fact, my understanding is that the bill is still a work in progress (tweaks, if you will).

    The financial situation is already VERY seriously bad, and this isn't going to swing it one way or the other, in the end, but given that we need to FIX all these problems, it doesn't make sense to add another to the pile.
    Okay... so now this bill is not bad, but it is not good... it just is. Hmm.. okay.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2807  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I will give you that the rep do have a plan. Unfortunately, it does not explain how they are going to pay for things... and the last plan I read from the rep was lacking in details.. I think it was 250 pages or so.
    I'd say that is a legitimate statement, however, let's also acknowledge the fact that this wouldn't have a chance of moving forward regardless of the level of detail.


    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    No, doing nothing is NOT an option. I've not heard one elected official state that doing nothing is an option.
    Well, it might not be pursued, but it is actually an option, and in fact, if this "final" push fails, it might be exactly what we get. Perhaps then a less political and more serious path can be pursued in order to actually address the problems in a way that the American people can accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    And of course you are not sure if what is proposed is better... Read it, instead of going on Republican Talking Points.
    Well, the fact is that they are STILL talking about changing things in an effort to get House Democrats to agree to it, so you should understand that NO ONE actually knows what this is going to end up as. Perhaps you should listen to more than Democrat Talking points, because what I say is true--we really don't know what this will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    The illusion of a mangled mess... okay.
    Are you really willing to say that the current Senate bill is a well crafted piece of legislation? I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that, nor that further maneuvering will make it less of a mess. So, no...not at all an illusion.



    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I agree... which is why Republicans have no footing in this conversation.
    I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance of your response here.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Not read that... matter of fact, my understanding is that the bill is still a work in progress (tweaks, if you will).
    Well, there are a few points here. First--the actual Senate bill MUST be passed as is by the House (despite being a "giveaway to insurance companies"--stated by DEMOCRATS) to go to the Reconciliation process. AFTER this passes the House, they will then try to use this process (in a way that it isn't intended (in short--if it deals with non-budgetary issues), to make changes (which can greatly alter it), and by doing so bypass the actual standing rules for how legislation is passed in the United States.

    I think most people can understand that the elements of this bill go far beyond budgetary issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Okay... so now this bill is not bad, but it is not good... it just is. Hmm.. okay.
    No, you seem to be misunderstanding my statement. What I was referring to is that the costs (or promised savings) isn't the largest factor in our economic problems. There was a lot of talk that this would "solve" the problems associated with Healthcare costs, but even the rosiest estimates won't come close to doing that. If the costs are harmful (which I happen to think is likely, given typical government action), it will make the situation somewhat worse. The overall point is that even if this passes, the economic insolvency will remain a problem. Whether it makes it somewhat worse or somewhat better remains to be seen.

    Another way of saying this is that this "plan" isn't doing what the American people want, and can be considered a failure, unless some REALLY radical change came along that put it on a totally different path.

    I hope that helps you understand my position better.

    KAM
  8. #2808  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    And if they had "estimated" in Obama's favor, you would have said the Dems were behind it... or asked when the last time a gov't agency ever estimated anything right.
    I still say CBO is likely wrong, the actual numbers will be worse based on their (CBO) past analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    It other words, I'm not even sure the CBO knows for sure... which is a bit scary and has given me pause for health care.
    At least you're finally making sense here. This claim that a new healthcare expansion is going to save money is so much BS, that, I just laugh everytime a liberal says it on TV. Since when has a government program saved money? Break please.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    The Republicans never had and never will have a plan for health care...
    If anything, the lame "bipartisan healthcare meeting" that Obama put on showed that not only did the Republicans have plans for healtcare reform (reform, not expansion), but it was obvious that Obama and the dems had no intentions of trying to work anything out. They (the dems)simply got burnt because it was finally shown that the Republican ideas were being shut out from the get go. It is a shame that this might pass and be a one party catastrophy...oh sure...it's nice that the results will be a good many democrats losing their seats, but in the long run, very bad for our country and I don't take any joy in that. We go further in debt for generations to come.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9. #2809  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    As if you had the reading comprehension skills to determine this one way or the other.

    By the way--Did you learn how HSAs work yet?

    KAM
    I will say....that until you actually have an HSA, it is hard to see how well it works. As I've said before, the HSA is NOT for people living paycheck to paycheck and it works best if either the insured has the ability to fund their HSA Savings Acct or the employer is able to fund it. It can be a disaster if used without a properly funded HSA Savings Acct (by disaster, I mean it is not well received by the insureds). But what I don't understand, is why democracts refuse to see how it can be beneficial for certain folks. To reduce the amount someone can put into an HSA Savings Acct just makes no sense and accomplishes absolutely nothing, other than demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the program.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2810  
    Let's take a breather.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2811  
    US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

    America's health watchdog is considering revoking its approval of the drug Avastin for use on women with advanced breast cancer, leading to accusations that it will mark the start of 'death panel' drug rationing.

    By Nick Allen, in Los Angeles and Andrew Hough
    Published: 10:07PM BST 16 Aug 2010

    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 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.

    If the approval of the drug is revoked then US insurers would be likely to stop paying for Avastin.

    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.

    During the debate, those opposed to the reforms cited Britain’s National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which decides whether new treatments should be made available on the NHS on the basis of cost effectiveness, as an example of the sort of drug rationing that amounted to a "death panel".

    David Vitter, the Republican Senator for Louisiana, said the FDA decision amounted to rationing health care.

    "I shudder at the thought of a government panel assigning a value to a day of a person’s life," he said. "It is sickening to think that care would be withheld from a patient simply because their life is not deemed valuable enough.

    "I fear this is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to more and more rationing under the government takeover of health care that is being forced on the American people."

    Avastin has been described as "the poster child for expensive anti-cancer drugs".

    When reviewing drugs for approval the FDA is only charged with looking at their health risks and benefits, not cost effectiveness. It usually follows advisory panel recommendations. A final decision will be announced on Sept 17.

    Avastin made $5.9 billion (£3.8 billion) in sales last year and is made by Genentech, a San Francisco-based unit of the Swiss drug maker Roche.

    It is also approved for colon, lung, kidney and brain cancer, however, the FDA review and recommendation applies only to breast cancer.

    An FDA spokeswoman said: "Avastin should be an option for patients with this incurable disease."

    Breast cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death among US women, with 40,000 last year.

    In the UK the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is reviewing whether Avastin should be available on the NHS for woman with breast cancer that has spread.

    A spokeswoman said: "We will continue to investigate the treatment regardless of the FDA decision."
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #2812  
    From the manufacturer's own website:

    Indication
    Avastin is indicated for the treatment of patients who have not received chemotherapy for metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer in combination with pa****axel.

    The effectiveness of Avastin in metastatic breast cancer is based on an improvement in progression free survival. There are no data demonstrating an improvement in disease-related symptoms or increased survival with Avastin.

    Avastin is not indicated for patients with breast cancer that has progressed following anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy administered for metastatic disease.
    The drug has not been shown to improve survival. It has not been shown to decrease symptoms. It has been shown in a few studies to delay the onset of symptoms by five months after treatment in breast cancer at a cost of around $100,000. Again, there is no increase in life expectancy after taking the drug. You tell me: would you pay for it?
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2813  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    From the manufacturer's own website:

    The drug has not been shown to improve survival. It has not been shown to decrease symptoms. It has been shown in a few studies to delay the onset of symptoms by five months after treatment in breast cancer at a cost of around $100,000. Again, there is no increase in life expectancy after taking the drug. You tell me: would you pay for it?
    Different argument. The government is taking the decision out of everyone else's hands and making the call. It's not *this* particular drug, David. It's the process and protocol for making these decisions. You still don't get it? Never heard of "slippery slope"?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #2814  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Different argument. The government is taking the decision out of everyone else's hands and making the call. It's not *this* particular drug, David. It's the process and protocol for making these decisions. You still don't get it? Never heard of "slippery slope"?
    No. I don't get it.
    1. Do you agree that some kind of cost controls are necessary to save the health care system, in whatever form it exists? Remember, under the current situation, health care was costing about 17% of the GDP and continuing to rise. Something needs to be done. So...should costs be controlled? And if so, do you not see denying ineffective treatments as being a way to do that?
    2. While cost-effectiveness is probably something that should be taken into account, the panel described "effectiveness" as the reason they did not recommend it. You can rant about "slippery slope" all you want, but until I see some evidence that effective drugs were denied because they cost too much, I have no reason whatsoever to assume that is the primary reason.

    In this case, I showed you what the benefits and costs are. So I'll ask again: would you pay for this drug? Sure it makes you uncomfortable to answer, because you know that regardless of your choice, there will be complaints about your decision. But guess what? That's the only way we will be able to save health care in this country. Someone has to make the tough decisions, and it should be smart people, not politicians.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2815  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No. I don't get it.
    1. Do you agree that some kind of cost controls are necessary to save the health care system, in whatever form it exists? Remember, under the current situation, health care was costing about 17% of the GDP and continuing to rise. Something needs to be done. So...should costs be controlled? And if so, do you not see denying ineffective treatments as being a way to do that?
    You know that I've always agreed with you on this. Something needs to be done to reign in costs. The FDA disapproving a drug fails to accomplish this.
    2. While cost-effectiveness is probably something that should be taken into account, the panel described "effectiveness" as the reason they did not recommend it. You can rant about "slippery slope" all you want, but until I see some evidence that effective drugs were denied because they cost too much, I have no reason whatsoever to assume that is the primary reason.
    Wow. I provide you with direct evidence... and you turn around and talk about seeing some evidence. David, if this drug was cheap, do you think we'd be having this discussion about this particular drug?

    It's being dropped EXACTLY because of the cost. The 'effectiveness' is a parameter, but not the reason.

    And I'm not ranting. Let's discuss.
    In this case, I showed you what the benefits and costs are. So I'll ask again: would you pay for this drug? Sure it makes you uncomfortable to answer, because you know that regardless of your choice, there will be complaints about your decision. But guess what? That's the only way we will be able to save health care in this country. Someone has to make the tough decisions, and it should be smart people, not politicians.
    I want the option, David. I don't trust your 'smart people'. I believe in individual choice, not collective choice by 'smart people', even if it does cost more.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #2816  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You know that I've always agreed with you on this. Something needs to be done to reign in costs. The FDA disapproving a drug fails to accomplish this.
    Wow. I provide you with direct evidence... and you turn around and talk about seeing some evidence. David, if this drug was cheap, do you think we'd be having this discussion about this particular drug?

    It's being dropped EXACTLY because of the cost. The 'effectiveness' is a parameter, but not the reason.

    And I'm not ranting. Let's discuss.
    I want the option, David. I don't trust your 'smart people'. I believe in individual choice, not collective choice by 'smart people', even if it does cost more.
    Actually, not approving any ineffective treatment is a great way to control costs. It's like you can't seem to grasp that the drug is ineffective.

    Yes, I hope we would be having this conversation, regardless of the cost of the drug. Using ineffective treatments are bad medicine, regardless of costs.

    And your last comment is actually the most disturbing. You believe in individual choice. Let's pursue that. If you sprain your knee and want to have an MRI that costs $1000, should your insurance company pay for it if there's no evidence that it will improve your care? And if they don't pay for it, would you? Wouldn't you want to know the opinions of experts, based on what is actually known about whether or not it helps, or do you just want it because you want it and you think it will help?

    Really....this is a crucial issue. When patients come in with ads from magazines, or wanting to use a prescription drug that they saw advertised on tv, who should determine who pays for it? Let's take Nexium. It's the same drug as Prilosec, made by the same company. When Prilosec went off patent, the company made a few changes which do not affect the outcomes at all in any way, and began marketing the exact same drug as Nexium at 3 times the cost. How would you like to deal with that, health care administrator? Should the patient determine which of those two drugs they take, or should someone else? These things sound easy as long as you're not personally involved in what the results are....like bankrupting your insurance company....or Medicare.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2817  
    I agree that options that are ineffective and expensive should be avoided and discouraged.... and discussed with and decided by you and your doctor.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. #2818  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I agree that options that are ineffective and expensive should be avoided and discouraged.... and discussed with and decided by you and your doctor.
    So you are in favor of every drug that is made, or every treatment being implemented, should be made available to any patient, even if it has been shown to be ineffective? Then there's no particular reason to evaluate them for safety, either, right? We won't need an FDA, then. You can save some money there. Of course, we may end up with lots of thalidomide instances. And your expectations of your doctor are high, to say the least. You expect them to keep up with every new drug, and you are going to as well? You better hope you don't end up like many older people on 14 or 15 prescription meds. By the way....your doctor isn't paying for what you decide you want to use.

    And going in another direction, if I tell you that a generic drug is just as good as a brand-name equivalent, but you don't have to pay for either one, which one will you pick? And this decision will be made by you? And exactly how will this control costs?
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #2819  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So you are in favor of every drug that is made, or every treatment being implemented, should be made available to any patient, even if it has been shown to be ineffective? Then there's no particular reason to evaluate them for safety, either, right? We won't need an FDA, then. You can save some money there. Of course, we may end up with lots of thalidomide instances. And your expectations of your doctor are high, to say the least. You expect them to keep up with every new drug, and you are going to as well? You better hope you don't end up like many older people on 14 or 15 prescription meds. By the way....your doctor isn't paying for what you decide you want to use.
    lol! wow... I said all of that? Talk about slippery slope arguments!

    Yes, David. My health is *my* concern, not some politician's or appointed board. I feel that it's up to me to become educated on my treatment options - as much as a layman can, and then to select a doctor that I believe I can trust to help me with the heavy lifting parts of the decision making process. If I decide along the way that he's led me down the wrong path, I can choose to engage a different doctor.
    And going in another direction, if I tell you that a generic drug is just as good as a brand-name equivalent, but you don't have to pay for either one, which one will you pick? And this decision will be made by you? And exactly how will this control costs?
    Why not go back and ask why that drug costs 100,000 bucks for one patient's treatment over 5 months?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #2820  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    lol! wow... I said all of that? Talk about slippery slope arguments!

    Yes, David. My health is *my* concern, not some politician's or appointed board. I feel that it's up to me to become educated on my treatment options - as much as a layman can, and then to select a doctor that I believe I can trust to help me with the heavy lifting parts of the decision making process. If I decide along the way that he's led me down the wrong path, I can choose to engage a different doctor.
    Why not go back and ask why that drug costs 100,000 bucks for one patient's treatment over 5 months?
    All I can say is that I think you underestimate what it requires to keep up with the current literature. There are something like 20,000 articles published each year, just in internal medicine alone. Putting all your trust in a doctor to keep up with all of that, without any external controls on practice or medications, is challenging. And of course, most people aren't as motivated or intelligent as you, and can't bother, and they cost money too.
    And if you are suggesting that there be cost controls on pharmaceutical companies in terms of what they charge (and the vast inconsistencies of cost from country to country for the same drug), I totally agree with you. Of course, that requires government control of private industry. Somehow I don't think you really favor that (although I do).

Posting Permissions