Welcome to Medical Rationing

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

With the FDA preparing to initiate cost-based rationing of late stage cancer drugs, the intellectual giants at the New York Times have decided to lay down a gauntlet to defend rationing of medical care. Welcome to the Brave New World of ObamaCare.

To the Times, it is an outrage that drugs are approved with “no consideration of cost,” begging the question, which bureaucrat will determine what is the value of life? We have already seen evidence that $8,000 for an average six months of more life for breast cancer patients is too much for some bureaucrats to bear.

The opinion writers at the Times show sympathy for the sick by suggesting in that they don’t want to “bar patients from getting the treatment they need. But without curtailing the use of unnecessary, overly costly and even dangerous new technologies and surgical procedures, there is little hope of restraining the relentless rise in health care costs. That is a truth that American politicians and taxpayers cannot afford to ignore for much longer.”

There you have it. In one subjective packed paragraph, the proponents of rationing within the administration have called in air support from the New York Times.

Voters will not forget that Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother to the president’s chief of staff and a presidential appointee has written extensively, as Betsy McCaughey reminded us, about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs.

But Emanuel is not alone in advocating denial of care from within the executive branch of government. The president’s own Medicare appointee has Dr. Donald Berwick long been an advocate for a single-payer system. While speaking in England in 2008, he praised the British system and said “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” Unfortunately for the sick, this often means redistribution of health from the sick to the healthy.

With the public clearly rejecting ObamaCare and its rationing mechanisms, the Times laments that supporters of “reform” curtailed the ability of bureaucrats to limit new drugs based on cost factors. Or did they?

With the FDA preparing to limit access of a critical late stage cancer drug for breast cancer patients as early as this week, observers note that quickly the FDA can become our health care system’s judge and executioner.

Americans should never be denied treatment because a bureaucrat determines a treatment, procedure or drug is too expensive. But that is where we are heading. Can Americans, this November, take the country back from those who want government and not doctors to make these life or death decisions?

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/09/13/obamacares-brave-new-world/#more-166921

[Atencio 43]

Oregon has been doing a form of rationing with its Medicaid program for a few years now.

[Dan J 277]

With the FDA preparing to initiate cost-based rationing of late stage cancer drugs, the intellectual giants at the New York Times have decided to lay down a gauntlet to defend rationing of medical care. Welcome to the Brave New World of ObamaCare.

To the Times, it is an outrage that drugs are approved with “no consideration of cost,” begging the question, which bureaucrat will determine what is the value of life? We have already seen evidence that $8,000 for an average six months of more life for breast cancer patients is too much for some bureaucrats to bear.

The opinion writers at the Times show sympathy for the sick by suggesting in that they don’t want to “bar patients from getting the treatment they need. But without curtailing the use of unnecessary, overly costly and even dangerous new technologies and surgical procedures, there is little hope of restraining the relentless rise in health care costs. That is a truth that American politicians and taxpayers cannot afford to ignore for much longer.”

There you have it. In one subjective packed paragraph, the proponents of rationing within the administration have called in air support from the New York Times.

Voters will not forget that Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother to the president’s chief of staff and a presidential appointee has written extensively, as Betsy McCaughey reminded us, about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs.

But Emanuel is not alone in advocating denial of care from within the executive branch of government. The president’s own Medicare appointee has Dr. Donald Berwick long been an advocate for a single-payer system. While speaking in England in 2008, he praised the British system and said “Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” Unfortunately for the sick, this often means redistribution of health from the sick to the healthy.

With the public clearly rejecting ObamaCare and its rationing mechanisms, the Times laments that supporters of “reform” curtailed the ability of bureaucrats to limit new drugs based on cost factors. Or did they?

With the FDA preparing to limit access of a critical late stage cancer drug for breast cancer patients as early as this week, observers note that quickly the FDA can become our health care system’s judge and executioner.

Americans should never be denied treatment because a bureaucrat determines a treatment, procedure or drug is too expensive. But that is where we are heading. Can Americans, this November, take the country back from those who want government and not doctors to make these life or death decisions?

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/09/13/obamacares-brave-new-world/#more-166921

I would think conservatives would be first to point out that the health care system does not have unlimited resources, yet they are the ones who are most vocal against using resources wisely.

I guess they would prefer that they health care system delivers everything they want and damn everyone else.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I would think conservatives would be first to point out that the health care system does not have unlimited resources, yet they are the ones who are most vocal against using resources wisely.

I guess they would prefer that they health care system delivers everything they want and damn everyone else.

Edited September 14, 2010 by ##########

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think most conservatives, and most working Americans, want the healthcare they pay for, or rather, that their employers pay for, nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, if you are getting healthcare paid for by the taxpayers, and you want everything covered, with as little out of pocket expense as possible, that be why you need rationing, or the system will continue to fail.

[Peikko 1,575]

I think most conservatives, and most working Americans, want the healthcare they pay for, or rather, that their employers pay for, nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, if you are getting healthcare paid for by the taxpayers, and you want everything covered, with as little out of pocket expense as possible, that be why you need rationing, or the system will continue to fail.

Like the system we have now? I thought you were an advocate of universal health care? In such a system what is available necessarily has to undergo cost/benefit analysis which is what this 'rationing' consists of (talk about loaded language again). As a result, everyone has access to a reasonable standard of care which does not preclude those who can afford to, and who wish to, from buying outside of what is provided universally. The key is to have an independent and knowledgeable cost/benefit review panel that is trusted. We have that in Europe - I am not sure that's possible here.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Well Bill, I guess this means you can't go to the doctor every week for your hemorrhoids and bunyons

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well Bill, I guess this means you can't go to the doctor every week for your hemorrhoids and bunyons

I thought you were an advocate of universal health care?

Yes, but only because I am a cold hearted #######.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, but only because I am a cold hearted #######.

Did I imply that you were somewhere? I might think you are a ninny at times...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Did I imply that you were somewhere? I might think you are a ninny at times...

That would be a personal attack, and a violation of the TOS.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I would think conservatives would be first to point out that the health care system does not have unlimited resources, yet they are the ones who are most vocal against using resources wisely.

I guess they would prefer that they health care system delivers everything they want and damn everyone else.

Conservatives do not believe the government is the one to choose what "wisely" means. That should be up to the individual. Why should YOU have to pay for MY health care? Why should I have to receive only what someone else decides for me?

Given this approach, Senator Kennedy would have been denied his brain surgery because his chances of survival for more than 1 year after were very small and it was a "Waste of resources"

I knew it would only be a matter of moments before there would be rationing, waiting lists, reduced access to health care, increased costs (they will NOT be lower). And now the libs not only agree with it (after saying it would never happen) they sare saying "Well, what do you expect, everything you want?" YES! I expect everything I want for MY health care and I am willing to pay for it, or pay for the insurance for it.

One can only hope that once the Dems are tossed this fall, the Republicans will DE-FUND the health care system until such time (2012) as Obama can be tossed and the system scrapped and repealed. As long as Obama has the veto pen it is hopeless to repeal, BUT it can be de-funded without his approval.

[Peikko 1,575]

That would be a personal attack, and a violation of the TOS.

Thinking you're a ninny? I see, Big Brother IS watching me...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thinking you're a ninny? I see, Big Brother IS watching me...

Again with the personal attacks. How about a little respect for the opinions of others?

[Peikko 1,575]

Again with the personal attacks. How about a little respect for the opinions of others?

Grow up.

[tmma 467]

Like the system we have now? I thought you were an advocate of universal health care? In such a system what is available necessarily has to undergo cost/benefit analysis which is what this 'rationing' consists of (talk about loaded language again). As a result, everyone has access to a reasonable standard of care which does not preclude those who can afford to, and who wish to, from buying outside of what is provided universally. The key is to have an independent and knowledgeable cost/benefit review panel that is trusted. We have that in Europe - I am not sure that's possible here.

I would like to know what cost/benefit criteria is used in Europe, because I witnessed a certain NHS Trusts cost/benefit review 1st hand with my Mum. She was dead within weeks- when here the average life span of someone with her cancer here was years and with some quality of life.

Edited September 15, 2010 by tmma