I hate articles like this. The title "Last-hope prostate drug not funded" is nonsense. This is a no-hope drug; it never cures anyone. , it only gives a marginal extension to the life of a terminally ill patient. It extends the life of a terminally ill cancer patient by approximately 4 months. If the person has, say, a 3-year expected survival, is it worth a cost of $200,000 to extend that to 3-years-and-4-months?

If you have a public health care system, you are spending other people's money. It sounds like they made exactly the right decision in this case.

A non-public system, i.e., one where everyone has private insurance, is not necessarily better. The people who would otherwise rely on the public system will be the same people who have either no insurance, or very limited policies. They will still not get this kind of treatment. The wealthy will, either because they can afford better insurance, or else because they can pay for the treatment themselves.

So...what was the point of this article?

The point of this article is that cures won't be forthcoming either, when research dries up for lack of funding.

So, if I were Canadian, I could at least count on a doctor prescribing pain killers. Here in the US, he'd probably be investigated.

Government. There's nothing it can't do.

Don't worry this won't happen here because it will be illegal to have private insurance or attempt to pay your own way. My dad found this out the hard way earlier this year. He became very sick with an illness that sounded like it could be really bad acid reflux, but could also have been his gall bladder. Well, he was forced to suffer terribly for two months unable to eat anything but rice because as a Medicare patient he had to follow the process. He has the good supplemental insurance and the money to pay for the tests. When he told the doctor he was willing to pay the doctor said no that is illegal and that he (the doctor) was probably going to be fined for even giving him the tests. Now keep in mind, this was a specialist who knew it was most likely my dad's gall bladder causing the problem, but he was constrained by "the system" from giving my dad the most direct treatment. He then told my dad, regardless of how bad your symptoms are, if your gall bladder function doesn't fall below a certain percentage we can do NOTHING to alleviate your suffering. Fortunately, his gall bladder was all but dead so he got it removed, but the lag in treatment has left him with long term problems. He still cannot eat properly because the bike and other acids have ruined his taste buds.

This is just beginning. It will get worse and your own private insurance and your own money will not save you.

"It extends the life of a terminally ill cancer patient by approximately 4 months. If the person has, say, a 3-year expected survival, is it worth a cost of $200,000 to extend that to 3-years-and-4-months?"

Life is terminal. Take your argument to its logical conclusion. What about $200,000 for four years? Would you approve if some government dictate allowed that? How about if we lowered it to $20,000 for four months? What price is YOUR life worth? Who decides - the vote of the majority of your fellow citizens? Or worse, some unelected bureaucrat or "expert"?

No thanks. As even you admit, that's what you get when you have a government-run health care system.

It's the exact point that conservatives and libertarians were trying to make in 2010 when they (accurately) labeled groups like IPAB "death panels". And we were mocked as extremist.

So to answer your question, the point of this post is to point out that government-run health care does, in fact and by definition, lead to death panels.

My late friend Cathy Seipp, paid for Blue Cross as a freelance writer, because she valued good health care, got some of these drugs.

As I recall, she had a lot of stressful fights with them to get her experimental treatment funded. That's why so many people support federal healthcare, because they think that removing the profit motive will suddenly bring fair and balanced treatment. Canada is showing otherwise (though I think that anyone who has ever tried to get service at the DMV in Washington, D.C. should have learned the same).

"government-run health care does, in fact and by definition, lead to death panels"

Yes, of course it does. Of course, so does private insurance, just in a different way. Resources are not unlimited, there *is* a point beyond which someone's care will not be paid.

Start ridiculously high: $1 million for a one-day life extension. Will any insurance or government pay that? No? What about 10 bucks? Yes? Then there is, in fact a limit, a cost-benefit ratio that reason, or finances, says should not be crossed.

Someone, or some "panel" will make that decision. Simple reality. Calling the groups that make these decisions "death panels" is just petty. And, again, has nothing particularly to do with government health care, because you'll have something similar with private insurers as well, depending on your policy, on your particular health situation, and (unfortunately) on whether or not you able to get publicity if you are denied some treatment you want.

"Yes, of course it does."

Thank you for admitting that we weren't all "extremists" when we pointed this out two years ago.

"Of course, so does private insurance, just in a different way. Resources are not unlimited, there *is* a point beyond which someone's care will not be paid."

This is a straw man. There is absolutely no reason why I couldn't purchase a an insurance policy that included a clause to pay $1 million for a one-day life extension. It would be expensive, and the insurer would pass the cost off to me, but if I'm willing to pay, that's my choice.

When government is in control, the freedom of choice is lost.

AB: I actually agree with you (and Amy) that the free market will provide a better solution. However, I disagree that my argument is a straw man. No insurance policy is unlimited; whatever insurance you have will have some limit as to what it will pay.

If we stick to the question of public health programs, since that's where this started: it is entirely reasonable for a public health program to have relatively low limits. After all, they are spending your money on someone else's health problems. People with enough money will arrange for private insurance to supplement or replace the public program. That is a *good* thing - that's the free market picking up where the government leaves off.

If anyone's interested:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/08/20/make-the-affordable-care-act-gender-neutral/

By lawyer Robert Franklin:

Last week, my wife excitedly told me that, as of August 1st, the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) allowed her to get well woman exams free of charge – no deductibles, no co-pays. Great, I thought, finally some preventive care that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg. Then it occurred to me that I’d seen nothing of the sort on behalf of men. Indeed, I’d just been to the doctor for my annual blood draw and I’d paid for the office visit and the lab fee. What gives?

What gives, as it turns out, is that I’m a man and she’s a woman. The Affordable Care Act has a list of preventive care for adults (i.e. men and women), a list of preventive care for women, and a list for children. Who’s missing? That’s right, I am. I’m an adult, so I get whatever is on the ‘adult’ list as does my wife. But are my uniquely-male medical needs addressed? Nope. There’s nary a peep about prostate cancer screening, testicular cancer or well man exams. Nothing. In a law that runs to thousands of pages, that covers every possible situation, they managed to neglect half the adult population. Amazing, but true.

(snip)

Here's the petition:

https://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-stop-sexism-in-the-affordable-care-act

I can understand your use of the term death panels but it is not a term that accurately reflects what is occurring. You could just as easily call them life panels.

I can thank the Canadian healthcare system for my robotic heart surgery and for my ICD. I had my ICD surgically inserted in my chest and connected to my heart before patients in the United States. Why? Simply because my ICD model was cleared for use in Canada before it was O.K.'d for use in the States.

My one nephew had his cancer treated in his late teens thanks to the government plan and today he is in his early fifties. Another nephew had brain surgery for an aneurysm and he, too, is alive today thanks for the coverage. My sister, in her late '70s, recently had a hip replaced. My mother when she was in her '80s received a pacemaker. I could go on, but you get the idea. There are a lot of good stories to accompany the bad ones.

It is not only Ontario that has choked at paying for Zytiga. It is an expensive drug. It is true that in one test it only increased life expectancy by a median amount of 4.6 months but that is not the whole story either. Zytiga is proving to be a valuable prostate fighting drug.

I would expect, if the outcomes in other countries are a guide, that a low price for Zytiga will be negotiated and the drug supplied to Ontario patients in cases where it is deemed the applicable drug therapy.

Healthcare is expensive. Finding ways to provide it to all those in need is a tough job. Flinging around "death panels" foolishness does not further a discussion that needs attention. (Spend all your healthcare money (whether it is from a private or a public fund) and, stripped of resources, you will truly see "death panels".

p.s. I got ill in the States and ran up a bill in the order of $27,500 in just hours. I wasn't under medical care in the American hospital for more than two days. Despite the great cost, the U.S. doctors failed to discover what caused my heart to race to 300 beats per minute. When I returned home, the doctors in Ontario, Canada, discovered the cause using a T3 MRI (a state-of-the-art device). I saw no bill for the months of medical work that my case demanded.

1. Sheep mommy I thought Roe v Wade established that Govt commits an unreasonable search and seizure when it tries to intervene between a patient and a doctor as to the type of medical treatment an individual receives.

2. The issue of new expensive drugs will cease to be a problem. The US has been subsidizing the cost of expensive medical research for the whole world. hen the US stops paying for the costs associated with developing expensive new drugs, which no doubt will happen under ObamaCare, then there will be little or no research, except that paid by Govt. Of course, medical research will be funded based on political correctness, so we will see billions for breast cancer and AIDs, but nothing for prostate cancer. In any case, there will be little or no new drugs developed.

"No insurance policy is unlimited; whatever insurance you have will have some limit as to what it will pay."

But the point is, in a free market system I can make that decision for myself, based on how much money I'm willing to spend on insurance. I get to decide how much additional lifespan is worth, rather than some government bureaucracy deciding for me. That's what people hate about the death panels.

Bill~
To answer your question. Abortion is different because it is an elective private surgery. The government does not fund abortion. When you are on Medicare you have to play by their rules. And before you ask, no you cannot opt out of Medicare. To get your social security benefits, you have to apply for Medicare. The decision to retire is actually quite complicated. As I said, my dad has really great private insurance to go along with his Medicare. This is how they plan to control al of us.

My one nephew had his cancer treated in his late teens thanks to the government plan and today he is in his early fifties. Another nephew had brain surgery for an aneurysm and he, too, is alive today thanks for the coverage. My sister, in her late '70s, recently had a hip replaced. My mother when she was in her '80s received a pacemaker. I could go on, but you get the idea. There are a lot of good stories to accompany the bad ones. -- Rockinon at August 24, 2012 11:48 AM

At a minimum that was more than 31 years ago if not longer. What were the financial conditions back then? Would he get the same treatment today?

Why or why not?

Hip replacement is a common procedure today. How long did she have to wait in line?

A pacemaker is about a $50 taser that has about a $1K of studies and certifications placed on it.

Canada is slowly trying to move away from socialism. And the other part to note is that Canada probably started out with a reserve or surplus. I've heard they are trying to move away from the socialist agenda.

Regardless -- you are spending OPM (Other People's Money) like a drunken soldier. The U.S. is already out of OPM and wants to pull out the credit card.

Well the credit card is pretty much maxed too.

Trying to spend OPM is not the answer.