British Government to Ban Use of Life-Prolonging Cancer Drugs Because They Are Too Ex

[Revmitchell]

The British government has decided to deny cancer patients two drugs that would extend their lives because the drugs cost too much, The UK’s Daily Mail reports.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence considers the drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer too expensive.


More Here


________________________________________________


A clear example of why we do not need UH. Government deciding what treatments we get. It is a lie this would never happen in the states.

 

[donnA]

This is what you get when you have socialized health care, the governement killing people by with holding needed medications.
And this is coming to us soon with obama, but we already knew he was pro murder.

 

[billwald]

Is the government or private hmos obligated to keep people alive as long as it is technically possible no matter the cost?

A long time ago the Governor of Idaho (Montana?) said it was the duty of old people to die. Don't know if he died.

Should the govt or an HMO spend as much prolonging the life of an 80 year old as a 40 year old? Or wino vs. rocket scientist?

 

[windcatcher]

Is the government or private hmos obligated to keep people alive as long as it is technically possible no matter the cost?

A long time ago the Governor of Idaho (Montana?) said it was the duty of old people to die. Don't know if he died.

Should the govt or an HMO spend as much prolonging the life of an 80 year old as a 40 year old? Or wino vs. rocket scientist?

Worldly thinking but not Christian nor God honoring. Bilwald, you're on slippery ground.

Giving people medicine or treatment is not a 'technical' question.
It is slowing the progression of disease with the hope of giving a person another 'tomorrow' and possibly the hope of a miracle or cure. Would you withhold insulin from a diabetic? Diabetes is considered an incurable disease and frequently is the cause of death or complications from it bring death ......eventually: But though its incurable, proper treatment may help to sustain remaining health and life. How about a person with incurable rheumatoid arthritis? Medicine can be exceedingly expensive.... and cause complications.... but so does the untreated condition of the disease.... and can lead to early death without treatment.

Bilwald, your very statement makes me wonder....... have you ever loved someone? A wife? Children? Parents? Siblings? A friend? I saw George H W Bush cry and comment on Ms Barbara's open heart surgery, stating this was the hardest day he's ever had in his life.... he was so concerned about the gravity of his wife's condition. People who only have relationship revolving around the sole importance of money....... seldom have any kind of feelings for anyone...... and are the ones who see the world as you seem too...... with People's worth in terms of dollar signs.

Let me ask you, How good are you and what have you ever done that was so valuable that the Son of God gave his life for you? If we were all worthless to God..... yet he loved us that much...... what give us the right to reduce the value of man to issues of money when God gave his only son? Just where does this selfishness come from? It certainly is not godly nor is it something to brag or boast about..... or make careless and foolish comments.

You don't owe me nothing, but, frankly, I think you owe the membership on this board and the administrators an apology for a very careless comment.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

This is what you get when you have socialized health care, the governement killing people by with holding needed medications.

Instead we have it much better. We have HMO accountants killing people by witholding needed medications and medical treatments. Much better situation! Yessirree!

 

[LeBuick]

This is what you get when you have socialized health care, the governement killing people by with holding needed medications.
And this is coming to us soon with obama, but we already knew he was pro murder.

I guess the trade off is raising everyones taxes to pay for the expensive drugs or they can increase the deficit...

FYI... Stuff like this isn't limited to socialized medicine, there are procedures and medications most plans won't cover. Especially when they have a maximum.

 

[windcatcher]

Under socialised medicine, the most a person can hope for is whatever 'the state' allows in medical care. Those who use the system may be prevented by law from going out of the system, even if able and willing to pay for their own medical care. Only the truely privilege who are wealthy and independant enough will have the ways and means to find loopholes to buy the care they want independant of the system and without penalty to themselves or the doctors and clinics which provide their care.

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...a number of inaccuracies in the thread thus far.

First off, I wouldn't trust much that comes from the pages of the Daily Heil; it's notorious for extremely biased reporting (not that other papers don't do that of course, but the Mail is infamous for this). Secondly, with a taxpayer-funded system like the NHS, unless you're prepared to make the taxpayer write you a completely blank cheque, which is politically unacceptable (unless you're the banks of course!), then you are going to have to work with a budget and make decisions, sometimes tough ones, as to rationing of health care, so this cancer drug decision is very much business as usual on that front. Lastly, it's not the case that patients are being 'denied' these drugs, it's simply that the UK taxpayer is not going to fund their treatment; they are still perfectly able just like in the US to finance their treatment privately through insurance etc, as long of course as they can afford it (just like the US).

The irony is that the people who read the Daily Wail will gripe about stuff like this yet will be the first to squeal the moment their tax bill looks like going up to pay for stuff like this...Anyone else spot the hypocrisy?

 

[LadyEagle]

Matt, no, I spot no hypocrisy. As a taxpayer, I do very much RESENT the fact that my taxes are used to murder innocent babies. My tax money is used to give medical treatment to the elderly (Medicare) and disabled (Medicaid) and I have no problem with that. So your point is invalid.

Let me ask you, How good are you and what have you ever done that was so valuable that the Son of God gave his life for you? If we were all worthless to God..... yet he loved us that much...... what give us the right to reduce the value of man to issues of money when God gave his only son? Just where does this selfishness come from? It certainly is not godly nor is it something to brag or boast about..... or make careless and foolish comments.

Agreed, a very good point! :thumbs:

 

[Matt Black]

I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy (and I also resent that I have to help to pay for the slaughter of the innocents - whether in the womb or in Iraq), just Mail readers.

 

[windcatcher]

Hmmm...a number of inaccuracies in the thread thus far.

First off, I wouldn't trust much that comes from the pages of the Daily Heil; it's notorious for extremely biased reporting (not that other papers don't do that of course, but the Mail is infamous for this). Secondly, with a taxpayer-funded system like the NHS, unless you're prepared to make the taxpayer write you a completely blank cheque, which is politically unacceptable (unless you're the banks of course!), then you are going to have to work with a budget and make decisions, sometimes tough ones, as to rationing of health care, so this cancer drug decision is very much business as usual on that front. Lastly, it's not the case that patients are being 'denied' these drugs, it's simply that the UK taxpayer is not going to fund their treatment; they are still perfectly able just like in the US to finance their treatment privately through insurance etc, as long of course as they can afford it (just like the US).

The irony is that the people who read the Daily Wail will gripe about stuff like this yet will be the first to squeal the moment their tax bill looks like going up to pay for stuff like this...Anyone else spot the hypocrisy?

I see you're from England. I suppose you consider it the only country with socialized medicine therefore posts within this thread are wrong? Maybe you don't agree that each country sets up its own laws and practices regarding services..... and how it will controll access and compliance by all concerned? If you agree that the latter question is a positive...... then that also means once in control, a government can change its laws and regulations, for better or for worse, as it chooses..... but those who are dependant on the system will also be at its mercy.

 

[Matt Black]

Why the unwarranted hostility? I was merely addressing some inaccuracies.

Yes, I agree that if the government has a stake in healthcare provision (as I said above, it doesn't have a monopoly - you can still go private here) then it can move the goalposts and change the regulations, if nothing else because it has a responsibility to the taxpayer to spend his or her taxes wisely.

 

[windcatcher]

Why the unwarranted hostility? I was merely addressing some inaccuracies.

Yes, I agree that if the government has a stake in healthcare provision (as I said above, it doesn't have a monopoly - you can still go private here) then it can move the goalposts and change the regulations, if nothing else because it has a responsibility to the taxpayer to spend his or her taxes wisely.

No hostility intended. The OP mentions the UK, cancer, and cancer drugs in a discussion about socialized medicine. It is easy to surmise it was talking strictly about the experience in the UK but I considered it more from the vantage point of socialized medicine and that what it seems to promise and what it delivers can be two different things.... or change and yield to pressures.

Like a politician casting his net of promises or feel good speaches which tickle ears but say nothing of substance to get a vote....... socialized medicine serves the government best when it maximizes its distribution aimed at the satisfaction of the majority and those who are active and able: This is where government gets its most vigorous dissenters. But the young, the old, and the infirm at any age may be a real drain in their need of services, but they are the least able to vigorously take action or win enough compassion from those who may be more distant from their pain.

It is already that way without 'socialized medicine'. While one may have some breast cancer survivors rally for more screening, early diagnosis, and prevention.... it is the larger group of women who feel the threat and demand early detection that get the state insurance regulations to consider that those selling policies within the state include screening exams as a standard of coverage. If HIV was solely dependant on those who already have it being active for help in treatment..... then the programs set up to help them might not have progressed as far as they have. However, community involvement and funds and investigations into treatment options.... were started largely by the hom@s@xual community, which first recognized it as a health threat, then the heterosexual community when its transmission by blood and across genders became recognized.... and the ever increasing association of folks acquainted or kin to someone fighting the disease.

We are already so much socialized in medicine, that we don't even recognize it! Already some of the biggest problems we have exist because of it..... yet we think by getting more people into the system .......we can make it better. Well, already we have special health programs to cover the poor children without health insurance in most if not all states, and we have compulsary participation in Medicare by the elderly. These programs may be working well in areas where there are plenty of doctor-providers, but in some parts of the country, the trick is finding a doctor who will accept new patients and take Medicare if, in fact, a person's doctor 'dumps' the patient when they cease their conventional insurance program. If one is military and in need of specialist consult for diagnosis or treatments unavailable at their local assigned base..... then they may be sent across the country.... and heaven help them should records get lost or mis laid. Also such programs have an assigned apothecary list from which free or discounted meds are prescribed... but an allergy to a particular component, such as a dye present in one formulation to give pill color, but not in another may be all that it takes to send a person out of the system for scripts and pay from pocket.

As it already is..... I think it should remain or be improved upon before taking on any new obligations....... since its unfair to have charged taxes with this promise of provision and then take it away altogether. Which brings up another very good point, it is better for government not to start a program than to start a program with promises which it cannot..... and more especially knew it could not fill.

The Bible gives serveral examples and admonitions regarding ..... placing one's hand to the plow and then leaving the tasks incomplete.... or going to war before counting the cost. Does any of this sound familiar?

 

[LeBuick]

I see you're from England. I suppose you consider it the only country with socialized medicine therefore posts within this thread are wrong? Maybe you don't agree that each country sets up its own laws and practices regarding services..... and how it will controll access and compliance by all concerned? If you agree that the latter question is a positive...... then that also means once in control, a government can change its laws and regulations, for better or for worse, as it chooses..... but those who are dependant on the system will also be at its mercy.

I think his post was a fair assessment of the decisions involved so would apply to every country using this form of health care. The bottom line I received from his post is the health system is alloted $XXX which to operate. This makes it a business. In every business tough decisions must be made. Giving this one person their cancer treatment might mean 10 children can't be inoculated.

The same choices are made in our current health programs. If they are to cover a complete HIV treatment, either everyones rates will have to be raised or cuts will have to be made regarding other covered services. We really can't have it both ways, we are either all in (every dollar asked) or we have to draw lines of what will and won't be covered.

 

[LeBuick]

socialized medicine serves the government best when it maximizes its distribution aimed at the satisfaction of the majority and those who are active and able:

Wouldn't you agree this description equally applies to our current health care system?

We are already so much socialized in medicine, that we don't even recognize it! Already some of the biggest problems we have exist because of it..... yet we think by getting more people into the system .......we can make it better.

I think you're missing the mark, by getting more people into the system we'll have more people covered by health care. This will take a great strain off of Medicaid/Medicare who pay for all who is not covered. The problem with Medicaid/Medicare is they don't cover preventive medicine, just procedures absolutely necessary to keep you alive.

There is another old adage that says one ounce of prevention can save a pound of cure.

 

[Matt Black]

I think his post was a fair assessment of the decisions involved so would apply to every country using this form of health care. The bottom line I received from his post is the health system is alloted $XXX which to operate. This makes it a business. In every business tough decisions must be made. Giving this one person their cancer treatment might mean 10 children can't be inoculated.

The same choices are made in our current health programs. If they are to cover a complete HIV treatment, either everyones rates will have to be raised or cuts will have to be made regarding other covered services. We really can't have it both ways, we are either all in (every dollar asked) or we have to draw lines of what will and won't be covered.

Thanks! The NHS, as I also said, does not have a monopoly on healthcare, so the thread title is simply inaccurate: it is not the case that the government here has 'banned' the drugs, made them illegal or whatever; it is simply that it has said that, because they are so expensive, they the government will not fund free access to them. There's nothing to stop you the patient, if you have private health insurance which covers this sort of treatment, being treated with these drugs if you need them or paying for them direct out of your own wallet if it happens to be stuffed with £££s like most of our ex-banking execs (and don't get me started on that one!).

 

[LeBuick]

Thanks! The NHS, as I also said, does not have a monopoly on healthcare, so the thread title is simply inaccurate: it is not the case that the government here has 'banned' the drugs, made them illegal or whatever; it is simply that it has said that, because they are so expensive, they the government will not fund free access to them. There's nothing to stop you the patient, if you have private health insurance which covers this sort of treatment, being treated with these drugs if you need them or paying for them direct out of your own wallet if it happens to be stuffed with £££s like most of our ex-banking execs (and don't get me started on that one!).

Excellent point Matt, because government won't pay doesn't mean you can't buy them out of your own pocket... :thumbsup:

 

[Don]

Wow. Y'all missed the point big time.

Where does the government get its money for the healthcare system? It doesn't grow on trees, ya know.

Hmm...let me think...why, here's an idea: From people's taxes.

So, if I were to think about it from the point of, "I'm paying taxes for healthcare," then why don't I have a reasonable expectation that, after years of paying for healthcare, I would get the best possible healthcare? Including newer drugs that might extend my life further?

Instead, I'm told all my payments (taxes) are for nothing, because the people I've been paying (government) have decided that the medicine that might help me is too expensive. Although their parents have been paying for their healthcare through taxes, too, their children are more important, and my payments are going to be used to care for someone else.

So tell me why I wouldn't be angry or bitter? Or should I put on my "what's good for the country" face, and die so that others can benefit from all the taxes I've paid over the years?

 

[windcatcher]

Why are we expecting government to pay for all health care? Why aren't we responsible for most of the routine visits and care? If we really want government to be involved, then why not afford and pay for what we can..... and let government cover for the catastrophic illnesses which burden even the insured? In the news last night there was a report that over half of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses, and 3/4 of them had health insurance at the time they were sick!

If I already can't afford routine medical care for myself..... I can't see how government taking our money is going to make health care more available for myself and others. I just can't see how this can happen at all.

 

[LeBuick]

So, if I were to think about it from the point of, "I'm paying taxes for healthcare," then why don't I have a reasonable expectation that, after years of paying for healthcare, I would get the best possible healthcare? Including newer drugs that might extend my life further?

Didn't miss your point at all. You can't expect first class service with a ticket in coach. You know your taxes aren't getting you a first class ticket to health care because the right don't want you to have any health care at all so we must compromise.

If your taxes had to be raised because we paid for others expensive drugs, you being conservative would be the first to declare the entire program a failure. And shake your fist at government for wanting more in taxes. Wanting tax cuts or wanting to pay less in taxes means some services can't be covered.

So tell me why I wouldn't be angry or bitter? Or should I put on my "what's good for the country" face, and die so that others can benefit from all the taxes I've paid over the years?

This is a fair feeling for the person involved and their loved ones. There is no absolute way to make everyone happy. You would still have the option of paying for the drugs out your own pocket or seeking additional private insurance who I am sure would have similar limitations.

What angers me is why doesn't the drug cost so much? Generally we can get that same drug outside this country for a fraction of the cost. My anger is pointed more toward the drug manufacturers but I am sure some here will defend their right to charge what they will since you have the choice of not buying their product.