• 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'

Welcome to Government Health care people. Perhaps when the state decides when you should die, your death will be spectacular.

Only if we get to go to Carousel. Then we get to float around and get zapped into sparks! Whoohoo!

1276982240-logans-run2.jpg
 
That sets up science as being the single determiner of "effective" medicine and I don't agree with that. There was medicine before science and there will be medicine during and after science. Traditonally knowledge is older than that, and many other systems don't rely on empiricism like the FDA does to establish what is useful for healing. My entire profession, for the most part, is based on non-scientific inductive reasoning that occurred over thousands of years of clinical trials. If the Canadian equivalent of the FDA started saying that I can't use herbs until each one of them (and there are thousands) are tested for efficacy, then all natural health care practitioners in Canada would disappear overnight.

Now I know where you're coming from, Orion. Actually helpful. What you say makes sense. I guess I'd be happy if they'd just debunk the claims that I have a 10-year-old cornflake in my colon.
 
From global warming doesn't exist to USA death panels lol ptif thanks for giving me one final reason to ignore you!
 
From global warming doesn't exist to USA death panels lol ptif thanks for giving me one final reason to ignore you!


If you ignore everyone that disagrees with you, you won't have any one to talk to besides yourself.
 
We have a report that 85% of new drugs have little or no new benefit over existing ones. The chances are that this applies to the cancer drug in question.

This is actually a really important point. The reason why the pharmaceutical industry continues to output redundant drugs is because their patents, and in turn their proprietary rights to be the only seller, expire. They pitch the new drugs as better even though they are qualitatively identical to previous ones, and this kind of marketing causes the wider audience to pay more even though the previous versions will become generic and therefore cheaper.
 
Now I know where you're coming from, Orion. Actually helpful. What you say makes sense. I guess I'd be happy if they'd just debunk the claims that I have a 10-year-old cornflake in my colon.

There are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there for sure, but the reason why I don't agree with the government going after them is because most of their magical cures are not causing further harm, they're just ineffective. It's up to consumers to do research and decide for themselves what works and what doesn't. I don't believe even the government is qualified to determine that for each individual.

If someone believes that there is a 10 year old corn flake in them, then they're just ignorant and have failed to do proper investigating. The government doesn't need to come in and ban those marketing cures for cornflakes in the colon. As the saying goes, there is a sucker born every minute. I don't think the Fed can really stop that.
 
No one got my previous post did they.


Logan's Run, 1976. Turn 30 and get incinerated. No healthcare problem.
 
It's not the govt's job to determine that value for us by removing FDA approval for drugs. If I want to spend $8000 for a drug that may or may not extend my life for a month, that's my business, not theirs.

You don't spend it, your insurance - frequently Medicare - does. If you want to spend it out of pocket, then go right ahead. I'm sure they'll take your money.

Be-f'ing-sides - Insurance companies do this crap all the time.

Take up arms against them, why don't you?
 
You don't spend it, your insurance - frequently Medicare - does. If you want to spend it out of pocket, then go right ahead. I'm sure they'll take your money.

Be-f'ing-sides - Insurance companies do this crap all the time.

Take up arms against them, why don't you?

I already do take up arms against insurance companies. I think they should cease to exist as well.
 
No one got my previous post did they.


Logan's Run, 1976. Turn 30 and get incinerated. No healthcare problem.

It was silly. Love the movie, but nothing like that is going on. Insurance companies do this daily, and worse. And if the med is ineffective, why would anyone py for it? This is simply more hyperbole by those who simply can't be honest about this. Silliness to be sure.
 
From global warming doesn't exist to USA death panels lol ptif thanks for giving me one final reason to ignore you!

Never said warming doesn't exist I said it is climate change and natural not caused by man
 
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.

Tell that to someone whose in late stages and whose daughter or granddaughter is set to be married in 2 weeks time.

Or whose grandchild is about to be born.

And ask that person how much 1 more month would be worth to them.
 
Tell that to someone whose in late stages and whose daughter or granddaughter is set to be married in 2 weeks time.

Or whose grandchild is about to be born.

And ask that person how much 1 more month would be worth to them.

Insurance companies tell people this all the time, no matter how thye FEEL about it. There is nothing new about these types of decisions.

Second, emotion often leads us to make poor decisions. Often the tme we hang on to is not quality, is more painful, causes more suffering, and hurts all more than just saying good by would.

And any med that really isn't effective has no place outside of selling false hope, which is a thriving market.
 
Insurance companies tell people this all the time, no matter how thye FEEL about it. There is nothing new about these types of decisions.

If that is the case, why are you arguing? If this drug would have been a choice denied by insurance companies for being too expensive, why do you support the FDA's handling in this instance? Surely, it is better to have more choices in fighting cancer even if it is too expensive for casual treatment.
 
Insurance companies tell people this all the time, no matter how thye FEEL about it. There is nothing new about these types of decisions.

Yes they do, and that's their job.

The FDA's job is to determine if a product is safe or not. Its not there to determine "Well that drugs just way to darn expensive so we're going to deny it".

In the first case, if you have the money to do it, you could still go out and purchase it yourself if you damn well please.

In the second case, you can't do that, because the government hasn't legalized it.

Second, emotion often leads us to make poor decisions. Often the tme we hang on to is not quality, is more painful, causes more suffering, and hurts all more than just saying good by would.

Perhaps that's the case, but such should not be the choice of the government. That's an individuals choice. We have freedom in this country, and part of freedom is the freedom to make the WRONG choice sometimes. But at least I am making that wrong choice, not some government official that thinks its not "worth it" for anyone to have to pay a large amount of price for "only a month".

The FDA should see if its safe, not determine if its "worth it" for people.

And any med that really isn't effective has no place outside of selling false hope, which is a thriving market.

And people who want to enter into that market foolishly should be free to without the government butting its nose in saying "no". Unless the drug is not safe or they're selling it in a way that constitutes legal fraud, it shouldn't be the governments business.
 
It appears death panels are back in Obama healthcare.\

I love it when conservatives lie through their teeth.

First off, the FDA is a fairly independent organization. This way everybody can use it as their personal whipping boy come election time.

Aside from that, last I checked the FDA has nothing whatsoever to do with "Obamacare."
 
If that is the case, why are you arguing? If this drug would have been a choice denied by insurance companies for being too expensive, why do you support the FDA's handling in this instance? Surely, it is better to have more choices in fighting cancer even if it is too expensive for casual treatment.

It's the FDa's job. Companies don't want to sell tainted peanut butter either, but do. So, making recommendations and keeping track is the job of the FDA. And let's not forget, the government also pays for care. Like I aid, there is not one new thing here. Decisions like this are made daily by both the private and public providers. Hell, doctors also make more decisions than many know. Ask one what a slow code is sometime.
 
I love it when conservatives lie through their teeth.

First off, the FDA is a fairly independent organization. This way everybody can use it as their personal whipping boy come election time.

Aside from that, last I checked the FDA has nothing whatsoever to do with "Obamacare."

Independent nothing just another Government bureaucracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom