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

[joeydb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...th-panels.html

Excerpt: "The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.

If the approval of the drug is revoked then US insurers would be likely to stop paying for Avastin. "

[SniperSB23]

So wait, are you a socialist or anti-socialist? Cause the idea that people who can't afford a drug at $8,000 a month that may not even extend the life of a terminally ill patient by a month should have that drug paid for by taxpayer dollars sure sounds socialist to me. Let's face it, this is just a drug company trying to stick it to the American people by vastly overcharging for an inferior product.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So wait, are you a socialist or anti-socialist? Cause the idea that people who can't afford a drug at $8,000 a month that may not even extend the life of a terminally ill patient by a month should have that drug paid for by taxpayer dollars sure sounds socialist to me. Let's face it, this is just a drug company trying to stick it to the American people by vastly overcharging for an inferior product.

I agree about the price vs effectivity if that's true. I think the article was referring to the process of how it will go, when someday it's blocking drugs that are much cheaper than $8000 with better results, all because of the bottom line.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...th-panels.html

Excerpt: "The FDA advisory panel has now voted 12-1 to drop the endorsement for breast cancer treatment. The panel unusually cited "effectiveness" grounds for the decision. But it has been claimed that "cost effectiveness" was the real reason ahead of reforms in which the government will extend health insurance to the poorest.

If the approval of the drug is revoked then US insurers would be likely to stop paying for Avastin. "

By whom? Seems that the only person that the article says "claimed" that it was a cost effectiveness issue was David "diapers with hookers" Vitter, surely America's brightest shining beacon of honesty and integrity.

Christ.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

By whom? Seems that the only person that the article says "claimed" that it was a cost effectiveness issue was David "diapers with hookers" Vitter, surely America's brightest shining beacon of honesty and integrity.

Christ.

I don't know who David Vitter is, so the reference is escaping me. I take it he's not credible?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I don't know who David Vitter is, so the reference is escaping me. I take it he's not credible?

He's a politician from Louisiana who is one of those great crusaders for morality and telling other people what to do with their lives based on his religious views -- and then got caught having sexy diaper-play time with hookers.

So no, nobody should care what he thinks, and he's the only one in the article "claiming" anything nefarious. Then again, it depends on what you find to be a credibility-builder -- I mean, there are people who are married and divorced multiple times, but are still given credibility to screech about the "sanctity of marriage" and people taken them seriously -- so maybe David Vitter is credible to you, not sure.

This is a total non-story, and most certainly nowhere near "death panel" hysteria.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

He's a politician from Louisiana who is one of those great crusaders for morality and telling other people what to do with their lives based on his religious views -- and then got caught having sexy diaper-play time with hookers.

So no, nobody should care what he thinks, and he's the only one in the article "claiming" anything nefarious. Then again, it depends on what you find to be a credibility-builder -- I mean, there are people who are married and divorced multiple times, but are still given credibility to screech about the "sanctity of marriage" and people taken them seriously -- so maybe David Vitter is credible to you, not sure.

This is a total non-story, and most certainly nowhere near "death panel" hysteria.

I want to know what sexy diaper - play time means?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I want to know what sexy diaper - play time means?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=david+vitter+diaper

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I mean, there are people who are married and divorced multiple times, but are still given credibility to screech about the "sanctity of marriage" and people taken them seriously

You have a point there. If Larry King or Liz Taylor were the only advocates for marriage then everyone would stay single.