GTA
Politics and Religion => Politics And Religion Discussion => : geiger August 11, 2009, 11:54:11 PM
-
i've been watching some videos about this infamous healthcare issue.
don't really know exactly what's going on, so fill me on the detail. from what i've gathered
-it is going to be completely optional and not mandatory. which means, if you don't like it you won't pay a dime for it.
-it will abide by the same rules as private companies do and not have uncompetitive prices
-it will simulate competition so private companies will get more affordable and fair towards their consumers
sure alot can go wrong but for now it doesn't seem to catastrophic, so why all the fuss about it?
i've even heard private companies are paying selected people to disturb town hall meetings all over the country and it's always the same people riding on buses from town to town. pretty dishonest tactics if you ask me.
-
It may be voluntary to accept the insurance, but I doubt paying for it will be voluntary. Since when have federal taxes been voluntary : ) The only way the Gov't could fund such a thing is to tax everyone (or use the taxes we are already paying). I see more new taxes coming, because this plan is so expensive and given the Gov't is so far in debt now. So even though you or I may not use the plan, either because we choose not to or don't qualify, we will still pay for it, directly or indirectly. I doubt it will stimulate competition and lower overall cost for everyone's health care. I doubt my doctor/ hospitals and labs will lower their fees if and/or when this Nationalized health care plan passes. In fact I think there is a good chance they will go up for those of us that still use private insurance.
Just my $.02
Nathan
-
According to page 19 of one version of the bill, the only options will be Federal options. If you have private insurance now, you will be grandfathered in, but if your insurance company fails, or you want a new policy... Fed options only from that point forward.
-
There are no REAL long-term options. I posted a link below which covers quite a bit of it, - take the time to read it, you'll learn something. ...
.
No system is free, - it's beyond belief that some people still think like that in this day & age.
.
The ONLY long-term "option" (it's not really an option - when there is NO other choice btw) - is we're ending up with BO & friends nationalizing the health care industry, which is about 17% of the total economy. ... Once this POS kicks in, if it does, - there's law against private insurers enrolling any NEW customers after that date. Without the ability to enroll new customers, and older ones dieing off or leaving, - private health insurance is done/finished!! ...
.
Take the time to read the posted proposed regulations, - then you'll know what's going on, and can ask smarter questions.
-
"-it is going to be completely optional and not mandatory. which means, if you don't like it you won't pay a dime for it.
-it will abide by the same rules as private companies do and not have uncompetitive prices
-it will simulate competition so private companies will get more affordable and fair towards their consumers "
_____________
You won't pay a dime for it -- if you don't pay taxes, maybe. Don't kid yourself.
It will not abide by the same rules as private insurance -- the government run plans don't have to show a profit and can never go bankrupt. Medicare and Medicaid are glaring examples of failed government medical programs that are titanic Ponzi schemes. They are unfunded entitlements, and in the business world, even the business world of Enron or GM, they would have been bankrupt and out of business long, long ago. And it is Medicare and Medicaid which are fundamentally responsible for out of control costs in the medical marketplace today.
No private insurance company can compete with a government run program that can fund itself by taxing citizens and printing money. Most employers will immediately opt out of the cost of insurance coverage in favor of having the government pick up the tab. Yes, you get to keep your current insurance, but only until your employer decides that they shouldn't have to pay the cost. But even that doesn't work, because then the business will be taxed at a much higher rate.
If your current insurance policy changes in any way -- levels of coverage, deductibles, etc., you will lose it and be put in the "public option" This effectively prohibits anyone from competitively shopping for the lowest cost insurance coverage in the private market. In a very short time, the public option will be your only option. The only thing this will stimulate in the private market is the total demise of the medical insurance industry and escalating business and personal taxes to cover the government's costs. BTW, how many folks will that put out of work?
Ultimately, the politicians are promising something today that they have no hope of providing tomorrow. But that's the way of politics. If you trust that the government will always do the right thing and that government run health care will be more efficient, less costly, and just as good as the current medical care system, and more fanciful still, that none of us will have to pay for it, then it is patently obvious I am totally wasting my time typing this.
-
HNT5 - 8/12/2009 6:30 AM
It may be voluntary to accept the insurance, but I doubt paying for it will be voluntary. Since when have federal taxes been voluntary : ) The only way the Gov't could fund such a thing is to tax everyone (or use the taxes we are already paying). I see more new taxes coming, because this plan is so expensive and given the Gov't is so far in debt now. So even though you or I may not use the plan, either because we choose not to or don't qualify, we will still pay for it, directly or indirectly. I doubt it will stimulate competition and lower overall cost for everyone's health care. I doubt my doctor/ hospitals and labs will lower their fees if and/or when this Nationalized health care plan passes. In fact I think there is a good chance they will go up for those of us that still use private insurance.
Just my $.02
Nathan
partially agree. i think to start the whole program they'd need some initial investment that will probably come from other taxes, but probably only till they get a large enough base.
prices going up? hmm tough to judge but it's a valid concern, i'd like to see how will they manage this.
TCups - 8/12/2009 9:15 AM
"-it is going to be completely optional and not mandatory. which means, if you don't like it you won't pay a dime for it.
-it will abide by the same rules as private companies do and not have uncompetitive prices
-it will simulate competition so private companies will get more affordable and fair towards their consumers "
_____________
You won't pay a dime for it -- if you don't pay taxes, maybe. Don't kid yourself.
It will not abide by the same rules as private insurance -- the government run plans don't have to show a profit and can never go bankrupt. Medicare and Medicaid are glaring examples of failed government medical programs that are titanic Ponzi schemes. They are unfunded entitlements, and in the business world, even the business world of Enron or GM, they would have been bankrupt and out of business long, long ago. And it is Medicare and Medicaid which are fundamentally responsible for out of control costs in the medical marketplace today.
No private insurance company can compete with a government run program that can fund itself by taxing citizens and printing money. Most employers will immediately opt out of the cost of insurance coverage in favor of having the government pick up the tab. Yes, you get to keep your current insurance, but only until your employer decides that they shouldn't have to pay the cost. But even that doesn't work, because then the business will be taxed at a much higher rate.
If your current insurance policy changes in any way -- levels of coverage, deductibles, etc., you will lose it and be put in the "public option" This effectively prohibits anyone from competitively shopping for the lowest cost insurance coverage in the private market. In a very short time, the public option will be your only option. The only thing this will stimulate in the private market is the total demise of the medical insurance industry and escalating business and personal taxes to cover the government's costs. BTW, how many folks will that put out of work?
Ultimately, the politicians are promising something today that they have no hope of providing tomorrow. But that's the way of politics. If you trust that the government will always do the right thing and that government run health care will be more efficient, less costly, and just as good as the current medical care system, and more fanciful still, that none of us will have to pay for it, then it is patently obvious I am totally wasting my time typing this.
Medicare/Medicaid, don't really know enough to comment, but i suspect they sucked even form the beginning. Altough i hear the satisfactory rate is higher in this program.
As for your employer dumping your health care bill. can they force you to change?
I seriously doubt such a large industry such as the insurance industry will go out of business. Even in my country where we had socialized insurance since the beginning private insurance companies are up and running, and pretty well off they are. So i doubt that in the USA something like that could happen.
-
Like I said - if you're going to post about something, you should know something about it, ...
.
Pg 16: SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. lines 3-26 of the HC Bill – OUTLAWS PRIVATE INSURANCE by forbidding enrollment after HR 3022 is passed into law.
-
"So i doubt that in the USA something like that could happen."
I am a 56 year old physician. I have dealt with Medicare and Medicaid for more than 25 years now. I have a P.A. and an LLC with about 20 employees who receive corporate employment benefits. I pay personal taxes, corporate taxes and payroll taxes on an all too regular basis. Please take my solemn word on this -- any employer can change employee's benefits at any time. I am wondering if you ever had a job that provided medical benefits. And size is no assurance that any corporation or an entire industry can't fail.
Perhaps the last line of your says everything you need to tell anyone about your position most succinctly. Your doubts certainly give me no comfort or assurance. And sadly, history is full fallout that is the consequence of that attitude. God help us. The last line of my post also sums it up nicely, geiger. Adios.
-
I agree, if you're going to post about something, you should know something about it.
Here's how I understand the section that you "summarized". Of course I read the rest of the bill, so I may have been confused by all the proper context. And my legal education and all those years practicing aviation law probably didn't help, either.
As I understand Section 102: If and insurance company offers a plan that does not meet the minimum requirements set out in the bill, then the company cannot enroll new members in that plan after the date the bill is passed. It may continue to serve those already enrolled in the plan, if policyholders want to stay enrolled. Dependents of policyholders may also be enrolled. Other conditions and restrictions are also placed on these "grandfathered" plans. The intent is to require, eventually, that the old plans be phased out and replaced by private and employer-sponsored plans that meet the requirements set out in the bill.
The bill then sets out all the requirements that new health care insurance plans must meet after bill passage. The requirements, for the most part, address the most common complaints we hear about current insurance company practices.
If your argument is that no private insurance companies will offer plans that meet the bill's requirements, then make that argument. Don't make things up.
The tactics of some opponents of health care reform remind me, to some extent, of the tactics the radical left used back in the '60s. We'll see if they work any better this time.
-
My argument, of course, is that we are on the road to serfdom, that politicians have no chance of getting this right, that health care costs will actually go up, and that the government will soon, by design and by absolute necessity, ration our health care and consolidate their power over us and the power to tax us like never before in the history of our country. And why I don't profess to know or have read page by page the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of the House Bill, but I do know, first hand, about dealing with patients, Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance companies, health care delivery, cost containment, employee payrolls and benefits, and attorneys who make their livelihood from the health care profession. All the more reason I urge everyone to dig our heals in and absolutely refuse to let this legislation be rammed down our throats, like the other "emergency" legislation that has so vividly characterized this current administration.
The most fundamental principle of economics is that scarce resources can be allocated in one of two ways -- in a free market economy without price controls, or by some type of government intervention and central planning. Medical care is a scarce resource. The cost of medical care will not go down, it will go up. Barack Obama's intentions are very clear here. He has stated them very clearly. He wants squeeze doctors and hospitals to reduce costs. It is unstated, but those hardest squeezed will be health care consumers. He wants to slash any profits made by evil insurance companies. He want a single payor option, government run health care system. He wants to shift control of the health care system from the private sector and freedom of choice to the "public option" and government control. "Public" medical care (don't you love government speak) will soon be the same as Public Schools and Public Housing - a juggernaut government bureaucracy with quality of the lowest common denominator.
The result will be the destruction of the current American medical system as we know it and will be bad for the great majority of people. Medical care will have to be rationed. Those who will suffer most will be the very young, the elderly, and the chronically ill, as they are the largest consumers of health care and the greatest cost to the system (or burden to society, depending on your viewpoint). Physicians, particularly medical specialists, will become more scarce and extremely difficult to get to see. CT scans, PET scans, MRI, expensive medications, and cutting edge medical treatments and technologies will be severely limited. Your primary care physician will likely be from another country very soon if not already - India, Pakistan, China, etc. There will be little incentive for the best and brightest Americans to take on the debt and difficulty of training to be a doctor, let alone a specialist, when the government controls medicine and sets physician's salaries and dictates standards of care.
Sorry -- no amount of argument, reasoning, reassurance, propaganda or policy rhetoric (especially from any lawyer or politician) will ever convince me that socialized medicine will be good for this country or its citizens. It is a power grab by a government intent on limiting our personal freedoms and controlling our very lives like never before. Ridicule and attempt to marginalize me and call my reasoning flawed, greed-driven, ill-informed "scare tactics" if you wish (Saul Alinsky would be proud of you!). The irrefutable evidence of history and the consequences of socialized medicine clear to see in other countries . I counter and call any attempt at vacuous reassurances to the contrary damned lies and anyone who promotes the socialistic government take-over of private medicine as something to be desired and good for the people of the USA a damned liar, or a fool, or both -- the two not being mutually exclusive.
God please spare me and this great country from the evil and stupidity of liberal do-good-ers, socialists, and power-hungry politicians. Whoever first penned the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." obviously understood liberal socialism and its consequences. I hope Saul Alinsky is burning there now and that all "Community Organizers" of his political ilk join him very soon. Clear?
-
God please spare me and this great country from the evil and stupidity of liberal do-good-ers, socialists, and power-hungry politicians. Whoever first penned the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." obviously understood liberal socialism and its consequences. I hope Saul Alinsky is burning there now and that all "Community Organizers" of his political ilk join him very soon. Clear?
.
Couldn't agree more TCups, - regardless of what side you're on, the minute wording is meaningless, eventually this, (what's known so far) - will lead to nationalized health care. There is NO other option or choice, a couple of nice quaint words. Large government programs grow exponentially over VERY short time periods. In 5-10-15 years this monster will be 10x's what's proposed today. The bureaucracy behind it will be totally mind boggling. Spare me the "cost saving's" bs, - it simply adds more lies this monster. "BO & friends" (Kennedy ring a bell?) have said they strongly favor a "single payer system" - this is nothing more than putting a foot in that door. Anyone naive enough to think this, "to be completed" program is the start & finish of this idea, has to be a strong believer in the Easter Bunny too.
-
shearload - 8/13/2009 12:40 AM
...snip...
If your argument is that no private insurance companies will offer plans that meet the bill's requirements, then make that argument. Don't make things up.
...snip...
My argument is the Govt is creating the conditions that will make it impossible for Insurance Companies to stay in business and therefor force all into Fed "options". Private insurance doesn't meet the bill's standards because those standards are cost prohibitive. I don't believe for a second that the institution that brought us Amtrak, Social Security, & the Post Office even understands that concept.
-
well you're right, i don't know enough about the US health care plan to make credible arguments. but my gut feeling tells me everything is a bit exaggerated.
we shall wait and see.
i won't start this debate but TCups mentioned something about the free market...well it's not that free as you think it is. a free market is a fairytale, just like working communism. but ok enough of that.
i do have to say that since being in this forum section i did change stance a bit about gov control...but still keep the stance that a middle way is the right way to go
-
Read the bill for yourself and make up your own mind. Don't take my word for it, don't take the News' word for it. Everyone has a bias. There are a couple of copies online, and here's a link to one of them.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
Please, never trust your gut when it comes to Govt.
- Mark
-
The middle way? What a pusillanimous statement of [lack of] principle. Perhaps governments have hamstrung free market economy, but that hardly discredits the principles of free market economy, much less individual responsibility & personal liberty -- it only discredits an ever expanding, intrusive government bureaucracy and those content to depend to some degree, more or less, on a nanny State. Grow a pair, take a stance, and at least have the intellectual fortitude to say without ambiguity where you stand and why, sir.
Here is mine: Big government is the enemy of freedom loving, God fearing Americans who put credence in the principles upon which this great nation was founded and for which generations of patriots have pledged sacred honor, fortunes, and lives. There is no "middle way" that guarantee freedom, only some "other way" which sacrifices it for the short term promise of something better or more enlightened or more fair for everyone. And the "other way" is anathema to me and the indifferent death watch of those who stand idly by, looking on as our Freedom dies at the hands of the State's political garrote.
Hell, I'd respect you more if you at least clearly articulated a belief in some tangible political principle -- Socialism, or Marxism, or Communism, or whatever you perceive to be the better alternative to Capitalism, free market economy, and individual freedom and responsibility. But Saul Alinsky had it right. That is a debate the left will never have and can never win.
Rules for Radicals:
Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules[3] for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers.
He suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"
Alinsky continues by stating several rules of the ethics of means and ends:
The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
In war the end justifies almost any means.
Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004185.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slouching_Towards_Gomorrah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
-
This is a reply to T-Cup's post today. I normally read this forum using the "threaded" view, rather than the default "flat" view. I see now that, in the "flat" view, my response to an earlier post by North Pack appears directly below a post by TCups. It was not intended to a reply to his post. I will be more specific in the future.
-
Except to provide funding to maintain (not increasing) necessary and on-going basic operations, - I'd be freakin' delighted to give our Congress a couple of years off. With pay of course, just NO more freakin' new laws, rules, taxes, bright ideas, - nothing - period!!! Anything that will shut them up, and keep them "out of town".
-
Shearload:
Not to worry, sir. The context of your reply was quite clear.
So, we right-wing political conservatives are the new, dissimilating 60's style radicals, now maliciously or deceitfully or unknowingly spreading miss-information about what is really a well intentioned, straightforward piece of legislation that is intended primarily to address widespread public grievances with our nation's current private health care system. And by inference, if only we were more honest, better informed, less self-interested, more cool-headed and in fact willing to just take the time to read it more carefully, and just put more trust in our elected lawmaker's intentions and sound policy-making track record, then we would probably see the error in our ways and perhaps have a more favorable opinion of a state run socialized medicine system?
Is that more or less the correct take, or do I exaggerate and agitate without sound reason?
I think not.
-
Well, in fact, you have already agreed to and guaranteed the latter payments via government pensions and medical benefits (and for life, not for a few years), without any restrictions whatsoever, whenever you elect a Senator or Congressman, I believe.
-
TCup, - you obviously don't understand, we're picking on their "hero & savor". Savaging Bush was A-OK, lotta fun truth be known - but don't touch the messiah. It's truly a heart breaking story, ...
-
TCups - 8/13/2009 5:03 PM
Hell, I'd respect you more if you at least clearly articulated a belief in some tangible political principle -- Socialism, or Marxism, or Communism, or whatever you perceive to be the better alternative to Capitalism, free market economy, and individual freedom and responsibility. But Saul Alinsky had it right. That is a debate the left will never have and can never win.
for a free market you need a totally elastic work force, perfectly informed consumers and no trusts and monopolies. this is not how it's working today.
as for what principle do i adhere to...i'm for public health (combined with the private sector, like in france), police, military, public roads, social welfare for the ones unable to work, schools, essential infrastructure,...
what i don't need is gov advertisements, public surveillance, bailouts, taxes that have no reasonable purpose (tax on uncultivated land ownership),...
this are just things that come to mind right now.
you see there is not one thing i can adhere to, i like some stuff and hate some other. do i have to be categorized in order to be credible?
i'd probably fall into some kind of libertine socialism. you see the point of taking a middle stance is that you have to constantly revision your ideas so that they are purposeful. that's why it's so hard and in my view the right way. it's alot easier sticking to one determined category and act upon those beliefs.
for example: if 40% of the population is unable to get basic health care obviously something somewhere is wrong and needs to be fixed.
i think being close to the middle way is possible, since most European countries still stand, maybe they're not as "high flying" like the US but stable is the word here. and besides even the bible recognizes some social aspects (give to the poor,...), so it's not the devil like portrayed in the USA.
edit: just recently i've read where the british gov paid 5 billion EU for new electronic ID cards, that some hacker broke into in just 12 minutes despite the official statement that they will be impenetrable. what did the gov do? they are going forward with them. because they paid so much to private firms for the whole process of making them that they don't want to go back. this is a case where the gov and private sector are screwing you. and ID cards are something that you can't just never use to spite the government that forced them upon you. so what should done in this case?
-
in my own simple terms, ive got to say that although our current health care system and for that matter , our elected government in general leave much to be desired; ive seen far worse.
having travelled extensivelythroughout the world in my professional military and LE service days , ive seen both socialized (communist ) countries as well as socialized medicine first hand.
if anyone..............believes that our government; or any other government can reform healthcare in the manner that our current administration wants us to believe they can......then i strongly suggest that you try living in europe, canada or any other country where government healthcare is the "standard". see for your selves exactly what BO wants to do this country.
its sad enough that freedoms that we currently enjoy are quickly being buried or eroded,...sadder still that many americans choose to bury their heads in the sand and let the world pass them by.
mark my words,..............unless a strong opposition is mounted, the USA as we know it is marked for burial....
-
TCups - 8/13/2009 7:43 PM
Shearload:
Not to worry, sir. The context of your reply was quite clear.
I'm glad you appreciate context.
So, we right-wing political conservatives are the new, dissimilating 60's style radicals, now maliciously or deceitfully or unknowingly spreading miss-information about what is really a well intentioned, straightforward piece of legislation that is intended primarily to address widespread public grievances with our nation's current private health care system. And by inference, if only we were more honest, better informed, less self-interested, more cool-headed and in fact willing to just take the time to read it more carefully, and just put more trust in our elected lawmaker's intentions and sound policy-making track record, then we would probably see the error in our ways and perhaps have a more favorable opinion of a state run socialized medicine system?
Tell me about the "death panels", and how that provision came to be part of the bill. Since a conservative offered the consultation proviison in the beginning, does that mean that all conservatives are for killing off old people if they need expensive procedures? How about the TV ad we see constantly in our state, based on the same premise; health care reform will result in denial of care to old people.
The "summary" that North Pack offered for a section of one House bill is extracted, I think, from an e-mail that is circulating (both my wife and I got separate copies) that wildly distort a score or so of the bill's sections. The bill has its faults and they are significant. The e-mail list we received didn't address those faults, but instead made things up. Now the e-mail list has been quoted in this forum.
The ads, the e-mails, the screaming and chanting at town-hall meetings, all offer proponents of nationalized health care the argument that all opponents are irrational, uninformed, and anti-democratic. It offers proponents an opportunity to win an argument that they do not deserve to win. Our Blue-Dog Democratic Representative's recent statements and press releases condemn the tactics, and indicate that his support for health care reform is strengthened (Mike Ross, D-AR).
I don't know if you attend meetings in order to shout and chant, preventing anyone else from being heard. Or if you forward e-mails that exaggerate to the point of prevarication. Or argue, as others have in some forums, that the bank bailout, nationalization of automakers, nationalized health care, and Obama's Kenyan birth are all valid grounds for armed revolt. I doubt you do. Some self-styled conservatives do. I believed I was conservative until a few years ago. Somehow, conservatism was redefined, and I no longer fit the definition.
Is that more or less the correct take, or do I exaggerate and agitate without sound reason?
It is not a correct take, neither more nor less. Since I don't know the reason for the exaggeration, I don't know whether it is sound or not. I am opposed to single-payer health care, and dislike the bill that North Pack misrepresented for a lot of reasons. If you want to hear them, let me know. If not, I'll hush.
But I hate lying, and will continue to speak up when I see it.
I think not.
Then I've wasted both your and my time.
-
Shear, I do understand and share your concern - about folks getting the truth. Back in the Stone Age, my father worked in a few campaigns, Tip O'Neill's to drop one name. Years ago, I had two "political" jobs, one with the state of Mass. - and one with Middle*_*_*_*_*_* County, - as a "thank you" for my efforts in campaigns. In a small way, I have seen how campaigns are run, - and BO is good, he really is, but he's NOT telling folks - "the rest of the story", even if you don't want to believe that. ... What he's trying to do is HUGE, - and it's going to be difficult. There WILL BE rationing, NO MATTER what is said today. ... There's NO WAY he can get this thing off the ground by saying anything about rationing, - he HAS to deny anything related to rationing, or this thing will be dead in 4.9 seconds - and he knows it. ... He wanted Tom Dashel to head this up, - things didn't work out for Tom, - lucky thing for the rest of us. Dashel is a HUGE fan of the British system - and good old Tom has stated his views on "cost effectiveness" studies. ... In health care - "clinical effectiveness & cost effectiveness" are often in conflict. ... I'm telling you, down the road there WILL BE rationing - its' unavoidable in this type of program - BO just can't run on that for obvious reasons. BO is the type of politician that you have to learn to ignore what he says, - and watch what he does. ... His first choice on this was Tom Dashel - and that says it all.
.
UK Kidney Cancer Patients Face Toxic, Out-dated Treatments With Little Hope Of Change
ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2008) — Leading oncologist Professor Tim Eisen has expressed concerns that patients with advanced kidney cancer could be condemned to toxic, barely effective, 20 year-old treatments because the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is likely to rule out using all four of the new treatments it has assessed.
.
Science & Society
* Public Health
* Bioethics
* Resource Shortage
.
Writing in the December issue of BJU International, Professor Eisen, from the University of Cambridge, points out that although NICE has put its findings out for consultation, its provisional decision is that sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus and interferon plus bevacizumab are too costly.
A further review is due to be carried out in January 2009, but Professor Eisen fears that NICE - which advises the UK Department of Health - may confirm its provisional advice that none of these treatments should be provided by the UK's National Health Service.
"We had hoped that NICE would approve at least one of these drugs, as they represent a major breakthrough and there are no suitable alternatives for the large majority of the 4,000 or so patients who might be considered for these drugs in the UK" says Professor Eisen.
"Given that sunitinib was investigated as a first line option, it seemed most likely that it would be approved.
"Our hopes were dashed when NICE released its consultation document. It said that although the four drugs they looked at were clinically effective, they were not cost-effective.