“When the government pays for healthcare, saving money is more important than saving lives. So bureaucrats have an incentive to delay – or deny – the introduction of new, costly drugs.”<\/p>\n
The people who write this stuff are a.) not involved in healthcare (at least, not seeing actual patients in any meaningful way) and b.)must have the best G-D insurance in the world. The idea that the US would come out on top in an “anecdote-off” is laughable to all of us actually in healthcare. Our US bureaucrats in our wonderful private insurance industry would make most Soviet era bureaucrats blush.<\/em> <\/em>read more<\/a> digg story<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
<\/em>
But the key is this: when the government pays for healthcare, if they don’t cover what we demand, then that is a problem with the citizenry, not the bureaucrats, for not taking command of the situation. When we get to a single payer system, it will be up to us to be vigilant and oversee what is being done by our government. I know that is an odd concept to the Bushies, but that is how government needs to work. And, yet, I can guarantee that the Sally Pipes’ of this world will howl the loudest when money is being spent on Rituxan for someone other than her family member because it would then be “wasteful government spending”!<\/em>
<\/em>
Cheers,<\/p>\n