Now, I'm all for extending life and new drugs that make a difference, but when I saw this article I couldn't believe it. This has got to be a huge example of medical inefficiency. Paying almost $100,000 for a drug that only extends life for 4 months. That's outrageous, I'm sorry. Call me a killer or whatever other horrible name you can think of, it's this kind of spending that makes Medicare so expensive.

This is an incurable stage of the disease, so this is only prolonging the life and suffering for 4 months, at a cost of double what the average American makes in a year. When do you draw the line between reality and costs? If this were a cure, I'm all for it but only prolonging the agony for 4 months is crazy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_prostate_cancer_drug_medicare

Medicare officials said Wednesday that the program will pay the $93,000 cost of prostate cancer drug Provenge, an innovative therapy that typically gives men suffering from an incurable stage of the disease an extra four months to live.

But bioethicists who study health care decisions say Medicare's ruling on Provenge mirrors the bias of the overall U.S. health system, which emphasizes expensive treatments over basic medical care. Health care costs account for nearly one fifth of the U.S. economy, more than any other country.


"We tend to put our health care dollars into very high-tech interventions that produce very marginal improvements," said Dr. Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics. "The problem is that we have created a health care system that is uniquely inadequate in terms of access to primary health care, which is where you get the most bang for your buck."

bump because I am a shitty mod

Well, there won't be a Medicare if Paul Ryan has his way -- certainly not that kind of Medicare. Before I make a decision on whether that's a good or bad thing, I need to hear more details about this insurance program that would replace it. I say that, even though under the cut off, I would still be covered under the Medicare plan.

We simply can't keep doing business as usual with Medicare and Medicaid, and expect our country to survive economically. Something has to change, and providing "reasonable" care if likely going to be part of that. Nobody wants to admit a decision whether to help someone is based on money, but it happens all the time.

Yeah, this is just a waste. I have no problem with a family paying $93,000 out of their own pocket if they feel an extra 4 months is worth it for their loved one, but no way should this be covered.

I can see how you'd feel that way.

The problem I see is where do we set the cutoff for likely months added/cost ratio?

sleeper;733993 wrote:Yeah, this is just a waste. I have no problem with a family paying $93,000 out of their own pocket if they feel an extra 4 months is worth it for their loved one, but no way should this be covered.

This is the crux of the ObamaKare debate and you nailed an important point. Personally, if I knew I would saddle my family with $93,000 worth of debt just to breathe air for a few months, I would pass and spare them the cost. I am not everyone, however. I am certain there are people that would have the exact opposite position. And isn't that what we are...a nation of individuals??? One size does NOT fit all.

Here's the important distinction, it is the INDIVIDUAL's decision, not some bureaucrat in DC that doesn't know me from the man on the moon. Under ObamaKare, the cost/benefit analysis would not allow the gubmint to pay any of the costs and the decision would be made by them, not the individual. Sarah Palin likens this decision to Death Panels. While there is no Panel that would judge each case, the decision is made by the gubmint, not the individual. This is her point.

BGFalcons82;734295 wrote:This is the crux of the ObamaKare debate and you nailed an important point. Personally, if I knew I would saddle my family with $93,000 worth of debt just to breathe air for a few months, I would pass and spare them the cost. I am not everyone, however. I am certain there are people that would have the exact opposite position. And isn't that what we are...a nation of individuals??? One size does NOT fit all.

Here's the important distinction, it is the INDIVIDUAL's decision, not some bureaucrat in DC that doesn't know me from the man on the moon. Under ObamaKare, the cost/benefit analysis would not allow the gubmint to pay any of the costs and the decision would be made by them, not the individual. Sarah Palin likens this decision to Death Panels. While there is no Panel that would judge each case, the decision is made by the gubmint, not the individual. This is her point.

And that scenario is exactly why government run health care is a joke.

SMH.....

BGFalcons82;734295 wrote:This is the crux of the ObamaKare debate and you nailed an important point. Personally, if I knew I would saddle my family with $93,000 worth of debt just to breathe air for a few months, I would pass and spare them the cost. I am not everyone, however. I am certain there are people that would have the exact opposite position. And isn't that what we are...a nation of individuals??? One size does NOT fit all.

Here's the important distinction, it is the INDIVIDUAL's decision, not some bureaucrat in DC that doesn't know me from the man on the moon. Under ObamaKare, the cost/benefit analysis would not allow the gubmint to pay any of the costs and the decision would be made by them, not the individual. Sarah Palin likens this decision to Death Panels. While there is no Panel that would judge each case, the decision is made by the gubmint, not the individual. This is her point.

As opposed to that insurance company bureaucrat in Connecticut that doesn't know me from the man in the moon.

That "DC bureaucrat" excuse is getting lame. I guess it's just a matter of picking your poison, because you have no choice with EITHER plan.

I Wear Pants;734281 wrote:I can see how you'd feel that way.

The problem I see is where do we set the cutoff for likely months added/cost ratio?

Exhibit A of why we shouldn't have government run health insurance.

sleeper;734606 wrote:Exhibit A of why we shouldn't have government run health insurance.

Yes, Let the health care for profit guys decide this. They got your back.

Thread Bomber;734676 wrote:Yes, Let the health care for profit guys decide this. They got your back.

At least the health care for profit guys let ME, the PATIENT, decide on what health care works for me. Not some bureaucrat in Washington trying to hoodwink the masses with endless entitlements that we can't pay for. I prefer to live in a country where I can make my own choices on how I want to live my life, instead of being taxed up the ass to take care of people I don't give a shit about.

sleeper;734690 wrote:At least the health care for profit guys let ME, the PATIENT, decide on what health care works for me. Not some bureaucrat in Washington trying to hoodwink the masses with endless entitlements that we can't pay for. I prefer to live in a country where I can make my own choices on how I want to live my life, instead of being taxed up the ass to take care of people I don't give a shit about.

Only barely related, but I wonder when people will realize that "high taxes" aren't the reason for companies not hiring. I mean, if high taxes were burdening our companies so much how is it that the last few quarters have seen the highest profits ever?

sleeper;734690 wrote:At least the health care for profit guys let ME, the PATIENT, decide on what health care works for me. Not some bureaucrat in Washington trying to hoodwink the masses with endless entitlements that we can't pay for. I prefer to live in a country where I can make my own choices on how I want to live my life, instead of being taxed up the ass to take care of people I don't give a shit about.

Standing O

I Wear Pants;734730 wrote:Only barely related, but I wonder when people will realize that "high taxes" aren't the reason for companies not hiring. I mean, if high taxes were burdening our companies so much how is it that the last few quarters have seen the highest profits ever?

Honestly, why should Companies hire if they don't need to? So because the economy is back Companies should just start hiring positions that have already been filled? A Company's role is to make money for their stakeholders, NOT for giving people jobs and whatever else you think they should do. They are going to try and make as much money as possible while having as little expense, liabilities, and tax burden, while still being efficient.

sleeper;734690 wrote:At least the health care for profit guys let ME, the PATIENT, decide on what health care works for me. Not some bureaucrat in Washington trying to hoodwink the masses with endless entitlements that we can't pay for. I prefer to live in a country where I can make my own choices on how I want to live my life, instead of being taxed up the ass to take care of people I don't give a shit about.

See this is false. Right now, an a private bureaucrat at an insurance company decides what will and won't be covered, not you. And, for the record, you already pay for the healthcare of people you don't care about at higher and less efficient costs. In addition, many people who'd like to pay for healthcare and do work cannot afford it.

The talking points must feel good coming out of your mouth or something.

iclfan2;735010 wrote:Honestly, why should Companies hire if they don't need to? So because the economy is back Companies should just start hiring positions that have already been filled? A Company's role is to make money for their stakeholders, NOT for giving people jobs and whatever else you think they should do. They are going to try and make as much money as possible while having as little expense, liabilities, and tax burden, while still being efficient.

Then you should be supporting policies that will increase DEMAND but you do not!!!

BoatShoes;736026 wrote:See this is false. Right now, an a private bureaucrat at an insurance company decides what will and won't be covered, not you. And, for the record, you already pay for the healthcare of people you don't care about at higher and less efficient costs. In addition, many people who'd like to pay for healthcare and do work cannot afford it.

The talking points must feel good coming out of your mouth or something.

A private bureaucrat that I can choose to do business with or not. I cannot CHOOSE not to pay taxes.

iclfan2;735010 wrote:Honestly, why should Companies hire if they don't need to? So because the economy is back Companies should just start hiring positions that have already been filled? A Company's role is to make money for their stakeholders, NOT for giving people jobs and whatever else you think they should do. They are going to try and make as much money as possible while having as little expense, liabilities, and tax burden, while still being efficient.

I'm not suggesting that companies should hire or that what they're doing is wrong. But what I am saying is that the idea that cutting taxes will somehow ease up funds for companies to hire is insane. It doesn't make sense. The only way we can currently encourage companies to hire is to implement policies that raise demand. And you cannot trickle down demand.

BoatShoes;736027 wrote:Then you should be supporting policies that will increase DEMAND but you do not!!!

Such as?

I Wear Pants;736384 wrote:But what I am saying is that the idea that cutting taxes will somehow ease up funds for companies to hire is insane. It doesn't make sense. The only way we can currently encourage companies to hire is to implement policies that raise demand. And you cannot trickle down demand.

Cutting taxes keep Companies doing work in America. There was a great piece on 60 minutes about companies doing business in other countries to get a 12% tax rate or so. They even are willing to bring that money back for a smaller tax fee, but Obama won't allow this, so they will just keep their money overseas. It is totally retarded. Supposedly, Obama's reasoning for not letting the money back in at 5% is that it won't create jobs...WHO CARES. The money wouldn't be here anyway so at least get the 5% out of it.

Companies do work in America because of the legal protections and our economy more than the tax rate factors into it. Hell, Denmark has the highest or some of the highest tax rates in the world and they're constantly at the top of the best countries for businesses lists.

BoatShoes;736026 wrote:See this is false. Right now, an a private bureaucrat at an insurance company decides what will and won't be covered, not you. And, for the record, you already pay for the healthcare of people you don't care about at higher and less efficient costs. In addition, many people who'd like to pay for healthcare and do work cannot afford it.

I'll take a "private bureaucrat" of my choosing over a "public bureaucrat" of no choice of my own any day, any time.

Those who work and cannot afford it need to improve their job skills and find better employment where health care is offered. Their lack of health care is not my responsibility. And before you wag your finger in my face about being an uncaring conservative....NO ONE in this country is denied appropriate health care regardless of ability to pay...even before the ObamaKare Debacle.

sleeper;734690 wrote:At least the health care for profit guys let ME, the PATIENT, decide on what health care works for me. Not some bureaucrat in Washington trying to hoodwink the masses with endless entitlements that we can't pay for. I prefer to live in a country where I can make my own choices on how I want to live my life, instead of being taxed up the ass to take care of people I don't give a shit about.

That's horseshit and you know it. No matter what plan you "choose", some bureaucrat will be telling you what is covered and what isn't. If you think they are your buddy, you're more full of shit than I thought.

And another thing: How much have your taxes gone up in the last two years?

iclfan2;736428 wrote:Such as?



Cutting taxes keep Companies doing work in America. There was a great piece on 60 minutes about companies doing business in other countries to get a 12% tax rate or so. They even are willing to bring that money back for a smaller tax fee, but Obama won't allow this, so they will just keep their money overseas. It is totally retarded. Supposedly, Obama's reasoning for not letting the money back in at 5% is that it won't create jobs...WHO CARES. The money wouldn't be here anyway so at least get the 5% out of it.

Have you got a link on that 60 Minutes article? Or is it one of those "I know a friend who knows somebody and they said..."?

stlouiedipalma;737203 wrote:That's horseshit and you know it. No matter what plan you "choose", some bureaucrat will be telling you what is covered and what isn't. If you think they are your buddy, you're more full of shit than I thought.

And another thing: How much have your taxes gone up in the last two years?

Then I know what is covered and what isn't from the certain premium that I pay. If I don't like it, I can find another insurance company or pay higher premiums for something that I'd like covered. If none of those options are available, then I can save my money and deal with the issue if it arrives.