Socilized Medicine, You Want It?

[knuckleheader]

This is how they're going to treat you too. Becareful of what you

wish for.

This is part of the article.

Click the link for the whole piece


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=exclusive

Cancer Patients Lose Shot at Longer Life in U.K. Cuts By David Altaner and Bruce Rule

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Rosser's doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.'s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.'s National Health Service says that's not worth the expense.

Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS -- the government agency that funds the nation's health care. The resident of the town of Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and next month may find out if his second plea is successful.

``It's immoral,'' Rosser's wife, Jenny, said. ``They are sentencing him to die.''

The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and providing more services for a wider number of people.

About 800 of 3,000 cancer patients lose their appeals for regulator-approved drugs each year because of cost, Canterbury- based charity Rarer Cancers Forum said. The U.K. is considering whether to make permanent a preliminary ruling that four medicines, including Sutent, are too expensive to be part of the government-funded treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

`It's Outrageous'

``It's outrageous,'' said Kate Spall, a full-time activist who has helped about 100 patients appeal NHS denials of cancer medicines. ``We are not asking for anything new or exciting or novel. We are asking for what the rest of the western world is getting.''

To help curb expenses, the government created the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, known as NICE, in 1999 to review medicines and recommend whether the NHS should fund them.

``There is a view that all treatments should be available. Unfortunately, that's not possible,'' said Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director. ``There is a limited pot of money.''

He said the four cancer drugs provide a ``marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost'' and that the agency had to keep in mind that funds spent on the medicines could be used elsewhere to help others at a greater value. ``Those are the hidden patients, the ones who benefit from the things the NHS does spend money on,'' Littlejohns said.

NICE Review

NICE is reviewing its Aug. 7 preliminary recommendation that Sutent, Roche Holding AG and Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Nexavar, and Wyeth's Torisel shouldn't be funded in light of their cost of 20,000 pounds to 39,000 pounds a year per patient. All four medicines have been approved by European and U.S. regulators and are sold in other countries as well. A final ruling is expected in March.

While a drug is under review, the decision whether to pay for a therapy falls to the NHS's 156 local organizations, called trusts.

Of the 3,000 applications for exceptional funding for cancer patients a year, the most-requested drug was Sutent, said the Rarer Cancers Forum, which focuses on cancer cases that fall outside the more common ones such as colon, breast, lung and prostate.

Sutent, which stops cancer cells from dividing and chokes off a tumor's blood supply, was first approved for European use in July 2006. Kidney cancer sufferers taking the drug had a median survival rate of 26.4 months, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology in May.

[04GLIDE]

I am not for Socialized Medicine. I am for deporting ALL the illegals that are sucking our health system dry. Now in our screwed up country the illegals have more free benefits then the citizens do. And we pay for it in ways that the system was never set up for. If our politicians would enforce the laws we already have the problem the country is having would go away.

[HarleyComforts]

Originally Posted by 04GLIDE

I am not for Socialized Medicine. I am for deporting ALL the illegals that are sucking our health system dry. Now in our screwed up country the illegals have more free benefits then the citizens do. And we pay for it in ways that the system was never set up for. If our politicians would enforce the laws we already have the problem the country is having would go away.

Nice idea anyway....

[DJW]

Do you think it will include dental?

...I mean...before I dismiss the idea out hand...y'know I got's kids y'know, and grankids...

So...y'know, I'm just wonderin'? Is there gonna' be dental?

[Waffen]

Originally Posted by DJW

Do you think it will include dental?

...I mean...before I dismiss the idea out hand...y'know I got's kids y'know, and grankids...

So...y'know, I'm just wonderin'? Is there gonna' be dental?

Don't forget about vision.. If they throw all that in for FREE damn I'm down for that.

W

[Fred1369]

I'll trade your kid's dental and vision for my future chemotherapy.

[wdgld]

Originally Posted by knuckleheader

This is how they're going to treat you too. Becareful of what you

wish for.

This is part of the article.

Click the link for the whole piece


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=exclusive

Cancer Patients Lose Shot at Longer Life in U.K. Cuts By David Altaner and Bruce Rule

Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Rosser's doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.'s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.'s National Health Service says that's not worth the expense.

Rosser, 57, was told the cost of Sutent, 3,140 pounds ($4,650) per treatment for his advanced kidney cancer, was too high for the NHS -- the government agency that funds the nation's health care. The resident of the town of Kingswood, in southwest England, has appealed the decision twice, and next month may find out if his second plea is successful.

``It's immoral,'' Rosser's wife, Jenny, said. ``They are sentencing him to die.''

The NHS, which provides health care to all Britons and is funded by tax revenue, is spending about 100 billion pounds this fiscal year, or more than double what it spent a decade ago, as the cost of treatments increase and the population ages. The higher costs are forcing the NHS to choose between buying expensive drugs for terminal patients and providing more services for a wider number of people.

About 800 of 3,000 cancer patients lose their appeals for regulator-approved drugs each year because of cost, Canterbury- based charity Rarer Cancers Forum said. The U.K. is considering whether to make permanent a preliminary ruling that four medicines, including Sutent, are too expensive to be part of the government-funded treatment of advanced kidney cancer.

`It's Outrageous'

``It's outrageous,'' said Kate Spall, a full-time activist who has helped about 100 patients appeal NHS denials of cancer medicines. ``We are not asking for anything new or exciting or novel. We are asking for what the rest of the western world is getting.''

To help curb expenses, the government created the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, known as NICE, in 1999 to review medicines and recommend whether the NHS should fund them.

``There is a view that all treatments should be available. Unfortunately, that's not possible,'' said Peter Littlejohns, NICE's clinical and public health director. ``There is a limited pot of money.''

He said the four cancer drugs provide a ``marginal benefit at quite often an extreme cost'' and that the agency had to keep in mind that funds spent on the medicines could be used elsewhere to help others at a greater value. ``Those are the hidden patients, the ones who benefit from the things the NHS does spend money on,'' Littlejohns said.

NICE Review

NICE is reviewing its Aug. 7 preliminary recommendation that Sutent, Roche Holding AG and Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Bayer AG and Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Nexavar, and Wyeth's Torisel shouldn't be funded in light of their cost of 20,000 pounds to 39,000 pounds a year per patient. All four medicines have been approved by European and U.S. regulators and are sold in other countries as well. A final ruling is expected in March.

While a drug is under review, the decision whether to pay for a therapy falls to the NHS's 156 local organizations, called trusts.

Of the 3,000 applications for exceptional funding for cancer patients a year, the most-requested drug was Sutent, said the Rarer Cancers Forum, which focuses on cancer cases that fall outside the more common ones such as colon, breast, lung and prostate.

Sutent, which stops cancer cells from dividing and chokes off a tumor's blood supply, was first approved for European use in July 2006. Kidney cancer sufferers taking the drug had a median survival rate of 26.4 months, according to a study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology in May.

Unfair to judge the whole of the UK NHS on one isolated case. I am very happy to have the NHS, they have saved my life on 3 different occasions. Of course there has to be fiscal decisions on certain treatments, If you can call this instance a treatment. this guy is dying, the drugs will Maybe prolong his life a little, but he'll die soon regardless. He has a choice of paying for the treatment if he wants it. The whole system is a matter of choices. I choose to have insurance for small things, as i dont have the luxury of being around to wait in a queue. But I know from experience that if I am in an accident or get a life threatening illness, I will be treated immediately, without charge.
When I was visiting friends in Michigans U.P. in summertime, I was told about a relative who was involved in a car wreck. He was treated in the hospital in Marquette. His insurance didn´t cover the treatment and the hospital is now in the process of taking his house.
Seems to me that both systems have their faults.

[JBolt]

Originally Posted by Waffen

Don't forget about vision.. If they throw all that in for FREE damn I'm down for that.

W

Free

[garchele]

Socialized Medicine - When I lived in Canada, I never heard it referred to as that. After living in the U.S., I hear a lot of horror stories about "socialized medicine" and how bad it is. The name itself seems to have a negative connotation. At least in Canada, it is more correctly referred to as "universal health care", where you basically have one (although each province runs its own) insurance company and all residents are covered. The doctors are not government employees - but are independent practioners as they are here in the U.S. Much easier to deal with one insurance provider for them where here in the U.S. they deal with a number of providers and have to have a larger administrative staff to deal with all the varied billing issues.

Not a perfect system but no where near as horrible as it is made out to be. It is nice to know you are covered and won't be bankrupt because of medical costs.

Here, I'm fortunate to have a good health care plan but many aren't. It would be great if the U.S. could come up with a Plan that works even better than some of the other countries. Right now the U.S. is lagging behind.

[BigHarleyDog]

The level of care in the USA is great, you can get the best care you can afford or the taxpayers can afford, if you don't have insurance. Socialized or Universal health care will reduce the healthcare quality for everyone. It's the equivalent of Criminal Defense Attorneys, you get the best defense you can afford, now imagine all defense attorneys got paid the same, do you think you would get a excellent, good, fair or poor defense if there was nothing to motivate them to excel. Same thing will happen with physicians, if it doesn't matter who they see, they get paid the same, do you think they are going to give a crap about anyone on that plan, especially given the low rates that the government would ram down their throats. I'll take the best I can afford, rather than water down all care.

[garchele]

Originally Posted by BigHarleyDog

Same thing will happen with physicians, if it doesn't matter who they see, they get paid the same, do you think they are going to give a crap about anyone on that plan, especially given the low rates that the government would ram down their throats. I'll take the best I can afford, rather than water down all care.

Why do you say that they would get paid the same? They would still get paid based on the type and level of care provided and the number of patients that they treated. Possibly the rates could be lower than what they charge but their overhead would be lower as well in not having to deal with the myriad of hoops that they have to jump through dealing with the private insurance carriers. By the way, under the current system, don't you think that depending on what plan you have dictates the level of care you receive? Do you believe that if you have more money you deserve better access to healthcare?

[BigHarleyDog]

Being a cancer survivor myself, I want the best care available at whatever the cost. The reason we have advances in medicine is because when they create a new wonder pill, they have to get paid for all the R&D completed to create it. This stuff doesn't come out of thin air for free. Do you think their will still be breakthroughs in treatment or cures if the doctors are paid what medicare pays? Obviously you have no idea of what the average medical bill gets cuts to by medicare, which the government sets the level of reimbursements for physicians, treatments. Insurance companies pay more than Medicare, so it is to the physicians best interest to deal with insurance companies red tape. Overhead is fixed, you know rent, lights, staff, etc., all universal medical will do is water down all care.

[motrhd]

Wow, amazing to read peoples impressions on propaganda, and then hear from those who have REAL life experience...........two totally different stories ! Kind of like the one about nobody in Canada owning any guns.

Just sayin............

[wdgld]

How would the same scenario work out in the US?

Would his insurance cover it?
Would it depend on the type of cover?
What if he had no insurance?

This is obviously a very expensive drug, before the NHS has said no. I'm curious if there is a situation in the US where the guy wouldn't get it there either.

[HiAngle]

Originally Posted by wdgld

How would the same scenario work out in the US?

Would his insurance cover it?
Would it depend on the type of cover?
What if he had no insurance?

This is obviously a very expensive drug, before the NHS has said no. I'm curious if there is a situation in the US where the guy wouldn't get it there either.

Yes there most certainly are cases where a patient would be denied the care by their insurance company. My dad, who died from cancer, was denied certain treatments by the insurance company and my parents had a very good insurance plan. We in the States can also count on reading stories or watching a piece on TV about some folks being denied treatment by their insurance companies. My wife's stepfather is a doctor, he will certainly talk your ear off on how some of his patients are denied treatment as well. Trust me, it's not perfect here because of different standards in care. The richer you are, the better the care you can expect to receive. I know several people who have dropped their insurance plans because they can't afford the costs. That's a big gamble.

Our insurance companies are trying to make a profit and administrators, who often are not MDs or any other type of medical training, are making decisions as to whether or not a procedure or medication is required. And you guessed it, they never saw the patient themselves.