Any time a drug is denied, and I believe if I wanted I could find other examples, you have a class of patient singled out.
Thank you for the definition. A class, then, would be a group of people with the same conditions--the same disease, stage, etc.
I don't want the government involved at all.
We already have the government involved. I don't see how that can be stopped. We may escape Obamacare but we will continue to have Medicare and Medicaid. So the only question remains is who sets the standards. Right now the feds go to school off the insurance companies. As long as the insurance companies play a big enough role in the market, the feds can continue to do that. If we lose the insurance companies or they lose their autonomy, then the feds will have to set up some body to do the job. If that becomes inevitable, then the choice is between an independent body offering guidance and the bureaucracy doing the job. Don't know which I'd prefer. Hope it doesn't ever come down to that.
Our government should not be in the place of forcing their decision or those of "bio-ethicists" on people.
You didn't answer my question, which was "are you just opposed to the whole notion that in a pooled funding environment decisions are made that the pool won't shell out $20K for an extra week of life?"
I infer from your response, then, that you think that pooled payment systems should pay for whatever the doctor orders/bills. Which means that there would be no controls on cost effectiveness. Are you sure that's what you want? If he orders taxol for a cold, the insurance company or Medicare should pay? If he orders a hip replacement for someone circling the drain, Obamacare should pay? Really? Or is it just bioethicist input your object to and economist input is welcome? |
