• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US breast cancer drug decision 'marks start of death panels'

It appears this is being done because of Obama care

LOL and so what? The HMOs would still not pay for the damn drug because it is experimental and expensive. Obama care or not. When HMOs cut funding because they discover you had an ingrown toenail 30 years ago the required minor surgery and you forgot to mention it, do you really think they would spend that amount of money on keeping someone alive a few extra weeks? Of course if that person is a rich person, then that is another matter right?
 
probably this drug would have been disapproved anyway. only 17 thousand women receive it, and it's clearly not effective. it only prevents the disease from advancing for less than month. it doesn't cure it. why should the gov't pay for a drug that's not effective? why does this have anything to do with "obama care"? it doesn't. drugs are approved and disapproved every day. if you want to use the drug, you can pay for it.
Approving a drug and paying for it are totally separate things.
 
Here we go again.

Cost simply has to be taken into account when analyzing the benefits of a drug. Combine a cost of 'on average' $83,000 to treat people in this late-stage cancer by its being found to only extend life by one month can only mean that pharma's getting rich. That last month? It's going to be hell anyway.

We do it with super old people. You know how much it costs to extend someone old guys life another month or two? Horribly expensive. The alternative is to let them die. It may not be completely illogical as an argument, but certainly one which lacks empathy.
 
We do it with super old people. You know how much it costs to extend someone old guys life another month or two? Horribly expensive. The alternative is to let them die. It may not be completely illogical as an argument, but certainly one which lacks empathy.

There's "life," Ikari -- and then there's life. Merely extending someone's suffering because we can, is nothing short of cruel.
 
What if they want that month?
Should we stop them because it may cost them a lot of money?

If they want that month, if the FDA says it's legal to prescribe, if they can pay for it, then they should be able to go for it. Insurance companies are under no obligation to pay for treatment that is ineffective. If someone wants to "break the system" so they can say, "I told you so," it's up to the rest of us to be reasonable human beings and recognize these treatments for the profit-generating monoliths they really are. No different than going to Mexico for Laitril. You want it? Go there. Does it help? No. If you don't care and you're paying for it, more power to ya'. Placebos can do wondering things. But no society can pay $8K a month for a placebo.
 
If they want that month, if the FDA says it's legal to prescribe, if they can pay for it, then they should be able to go for it. Insurance companies are under no obligation to pay for treatment that is ineffective. If someone wants to "break the system" so they can say, "I told you so," it's up to the rest of us to be reasonable human beings and recognize these treatments for the profit-generating monoliths they really are. No different than going to Mexico for Laitril. You want it? Go there. Does it help? No. If you don't care and you're paying for it, more power to ya'. Placebos can do wondering things. But no society can pay $8K a month for a placebo.

I wasn't arguing for society to pay for it.
I don't want the FDA to stop someone from paying for it because they don't think it's cost effective.
That's not their place but it seems we may be heading in that direction.
 
Why does the FDA have to approve it if they're almost dead anyway?
 
I wasn't arguing for society to pay for it.
I don't want the FDA to stop someone from paying for it because they don't think it's cost effective.
That's not their place but it seems we may be heading in that direction.

Why does it seem we may be headed in that direction? Because of this thread? There are very few drugs that the FDA makes outright illegal to dispense. Those things are prohibited for safety reasons.
 
We certainly need more discriminating consumers but I think this is the wrong way to go about it.



My grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer in her late 70's and lived to her early 80's.
Now from a cost effectiveness stand point, they should of provided no treatment because she was elderly.

That is the pure cost effectiveness of it.

So you agree with death panels?
 
hardly. it seems the drug is simply not effective for breast cancer. did you read the article?

Yes but the appearance of it coming so quickly after the passing of Obama care is suspect
 
LOL and so what? The HMOs would still not pay for the damn drug because it is experimental and expensive. Obama care or not. When HMOs cut funding because they discover you had an ingrown toenail 30 years ago the required minor surgery and you forgot to mention it, do you really think they would spend that amount of money on keeping someone alive a few extra weeks? Of course if that person is a rich person, then that is another matter right?

Insurance companies do not have authority over the FDA, the President can influence them.
 
Yes, and apparently you would have the FDA stay out of the review process and just let "us" decide. Again I say, really?
For the most part, yes. Reviewing is one thing, giving an opinion is one thing, banning a drug is entirely another. As I said, I don't know what their decision was on this drug, if it's going to be a ban or not. But they have a history of banning drugs that actually ****ing work.

They are a political organization, not a medical one. They base their decisions not on public welfare, but on public opinion. They delay access to drugs that could save people's lives, and/or ban access altogether.

The FDA is a huge part of the reason for the expense of most drugs too. The hurdles that companies have to jump through means they spend millions they shouldn't have to spend. That cost is passed onto us.


If what you say is true, then the doctors were at fault for not prescribing the best treatment. Now, if you're talking "overkill," that's something else. If you're talking "triage," that's something else. Example please.
"Bare minimum" Get them stable, send them home. They treated the symptoms, not the cause because Medicare wouldn't pay for this test or that test unless it was under specific conditions. Triage is different, that's not withholding care, that's postponing it. Overkill is different too, I saw that as well with certain insurances. They ran every ****ing test they could.

"I want to take that drug. I don't care if it works or not. It's my decision." Ridiculous. Patients aren't doctors. They are spoon-fed information by their healthcare professionals to lead them to the doctor's decision. That's the facts.
For the most part, yes. It's their decision if they want to pay for a treatment, or not receive a treatment at all. They are given options, and THEY choose what option they want to do. It should never be up to the government to decide how much a life is worth and if an extra month is worth it or not. It's up to the patient.
 
For the most part, yes. Reviewing is one thing, giving an opinion is one thing, banning a drug is entirely another. As I said, I don't know what their decision was on this drug, if it's going to be a ban or not. But they have a history of banning drugs that actually ****ing work.

Such as? There is a difference between "working" and risk out-weighing benefit.

They are a political organization, not a medical one. They base their decisions not on public welfare, but on public opinion. They delay access to drugs that could save people's lives, and/or ban access altogether.

Links? Or just an opinion?

The FDA is a huge part of the reason for the expense of most drugs too. The hurdles that companies have to jump through means they spend millions they shouldn't have to spend. That cost is passed onto us.

That's soooo out there. It means that the drugs that are approved have been 'supposedly' proven to be safe and effective. Yikes!

"Bare minimum" Get them stable, send them home. They treated the symptoms, not the cause because Medicare wouldn't pay for this test or that test unless it was under specific conditions. Triage is different, that's not withholding care, that's postponing it. Overkill is different too, I saw that as well with certain insurances. They ran every ****ing test they could.

No offense, but this general example sounds kind of lame.

For the most part, yes. It's their decision if they want to pay for a treatment, or not receive a treatment at all. They are given options, and THEY choose what option they want to do. It should never be up to the government to decide how much a life is worth and if an extra month is worth it or not. It's up to the patient.

Your way opens the healthcare market wide open to charletans and frauds. Back to the medicine wagon and their secret tonics. If patients don't ask the right questions, they don't even know how to make a decision. They are led to certain pre-ordained treatments by their doctors. And he's led to them by the fear of malpractice lawsuits and his discomfort with calling a spade a spade. We abhor telling people there is really no hope. As well we should.
 
Why does it seem we may be headed in that direction? Because of this thread? There are very few drugs that the FDA makes outright illegal to dispense. Those things are prohibited for safety reasons.

"Lawyers who want to sue drug companies will be drooling over the news that the FDA has “certified” a 2009 letter sent anonymously by FDA staff to President Obama describing “systemic corruption and wrongdoing that permeates all levels of FDA.”

"The FDA’s official recognition of the letter means that lawyers who want to use it to demonstrate that the FDA isn’t perfect won’t have to go through weeks of tedious discovery demands to find someone at the FDA who can officially say, “Yup, we sent that.” That’s going to be a headache for drug companies who often defend their drugs in court by saying, “Hey, the FDA said this product was fine and we did everything they asked — so it’s not fair to hold us responsible.”

FDA “Corruption” Letter Authenticated: Lawyers, Start Your Engines! | BNET

The FDA is a highly questionable organization with lots of ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Their approval and safety decisions, do not comfort me one bit.
 
"Lawyers who want to sue drug companies will be drooling over the news that the FDA has “certified” a 2009 letter sent anonymously by FDA staff to President Obama describing “systemic corruption and wrongdoing that permeates all levels of FDA.”

"The FDA’s official recognition of the letter means that lawyers who want to use it to demonstrate that the FDA isn’t perfect won’t have to go through weeks of tedious discovery demands to find someone at the FDA who can officially say, “Yup, we sent that.” That’s going to be a headache for drug companies who often defend their drugs in court by saying, “Hey, the FDA said this product was fine and we did everything they asked — so it’s not fair to hold us responsible.”

FDA “Corruption” Letter Authenticated: Lawyers, Start Your Engines! | BNET

The FDA is a highly questionable organization with lots of ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Their approval and safety decisions, do not comfort me one bit.

I wonder how effective that letter will be considering it's anonymous. It's no surprise to anybody they're in bed with pharma. Those anonymous drafters are cowards. With all the whistleblower laws in place, there would be absolutely no reason for them to withhold their names. Makes me doubt its legitimacy. I also wonder what they mean by the FDA has legitimitzed the letter? That it's really on their stationery? Weird.
 
Such as? There is a difference between "working" and risk out-weighing benefit.
They should really have no say at all, the FDA shouldn't even exist. But the most they should do is give opinion. Not ban, and not delay access.

Links? Or just an opinion?
You need a link to know that the FDA is a bunch of bureaucrats? That the FDA delays access to lifesaving drugs sometimes by 10 years due to their absolutely retardedly rigid protocols?

That's soooo out there. It means that the drugs that are approved have been 'supposedly' proven to be safe and effective. Yikes!
Supposedly. That's the key word.

Here's the thing: We don't need the FDA to do that. The FDA worries so much about some person dying and then they get a bad rap that they make it super expensive, tedious, and time consuming to get any drug approved. It's ridiculous.

No offense, but this general example sounds kind of lame.
Your opinion cannot offend me.

Your way opens the healthcare market wide open to charletans and frauds. Back to the medicine wagon and their secret tonics. If patients don't ask the right questions, they don't even know how to make a decision. They are led to certain pre-ordained treatments by their doctors. And he's led to them by the fear of malpractice lawsuits and his discomfort with calling a spade a spade. We abhor telling people there is really no hope. As well we should.
Yeah, my way puts the patients back as the responsible party for their own health. If they buy the snake oil and die, that's really no one's fault but theirs. Their health is THEIR responsibility.

My way also opens the door for third party, non-partisan, non-political, non-bureaucrat agencies to test and give opinions about drugs. It lets the consumer do research and gather information for themselves. It lets the consumer decide for themselves. My way doesn't assume that everyone is a ****ing idiot incapable of reading and listening.

My way also opens the door for more direct competition.

If you want to do some reading, do a google search on "abolish the FDA". But here's a couple links to get your started, some by economists, some docs, etc.

Economists Against the FDA: Publications: The Independent Institute
Abolish the FDA!! by Jim Grichar
Hands off my Meds « John Stossel
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_1_tabarrok.pdf
Uncommon Knowledge: TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism | Hoover Institution
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/21329.pdf
 
I often can't believe the shelf life of stupid arguments. How can the death panel nonsense still be used by any thinking person?

:lamo :(
 
Here we go again.

Cost simply has to be taken into account when analyzing the benefits of a drug. Combine a cost of 'on average' $83,000 to treat people in this late-stage cancer by its being found to only extend life by one month can only mean that pharma's getting rich. That last month? It's going to be hell anyway.

Hmmmmmmm.....

Last month, the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee sifted through data from two subsequent studies. These showed that progression-free survival time ranged from about one month to nearly three months -- even less than the original study -- without extending patients' overall survival. Further, with known risks such as gastrointestinal perforations, bleeding and blood clots, the risk-benefit may not be favorable, the panel said. The panel voted 12 to one to remove the advanced breast cancer indication from Avastin's U.S. label.

Roche doesn't agree, saying the studies showed the drug reduced the risk of progression or death by 31% to 52%. The agency is set to decide the matter by Sept. 17.

On Monday, Rob Stein of the Washington Post noted cost considerations may play a part in the FDA's decision:

The debate over Avastin, prescribed to about 17,500 women with breast cancer a year, has become entangled in the politically explosive struggle over medical spending and effectiveness that flared during the battle over health-care reform: How should the government balance protecting patients and controlling costs without restricting access to cutting-edge, and often costly, treatments?He adds: "The FDA is not supposed to consider costs in its decisions, but if the agency rescinds approval, insurers are likely to stop paying for treatment." Doctors are allowed to prescribe treatment for off-label uses, so they may continue to use Avastin to treat breast cancer, even if the FDA revokes the approval. [/u]Whether or not insurers would approve payment is a different story, considering that Avastin is a $50,000 plus a year drug.[/u]

FDA Reviews Roche's Drug Avastin for Use Against Breast Cancer - DailyFinance

Looks political to me.... and yes, if the FDA approves it, private insurance companies pay for it.
 
Of course they'll say no if the govt forbids the drug approval via the FDA.


Can't. The FDA removed approval for the drug.

And, this whole "spend your money not mine" is the whole ****ing reason why people don't want public healthcare. THIS is precisely the reason. They will put a price on everyone's head. They already DO.


It's not anyone's place to determine that but the patient. Most assuredly not the government's job. Which is why so many of us oppose govt provided healthcare. Because THEN is will become their job to determine if we're worthy of living any longer.


That's absolutely correct.... but those panels that decide whether your are worth the cost of saving are not death panels, they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm, for your own good? :roll:
 
That's absolutely correct.... but those panels that decide whether your are worth the cost of saving are not death panels, they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm, for your own good? :roll:

"they are, uhhhh, errr, hmmmmmm",.....Insurance companies. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom