Nov. 17 (Bloomberg) — Jack Rosser’s doctor says taking Pfizer Inc.’s Sutent cancer drug may keep him alive long enough to see his 1-year-old daughter, Emma, enter primary school. The U.K.’s National Health Service says that’s not worth the expense.

Bloomberg.com: Cancer Patients Lose Chance of Longer Life as U.K. Curbs Costs

To all of you who are into nationalized healthcare, doesn’t this just mess up your mind? Turns out, the world of cost-benefit analysis and the reality of scarce goods/choices isn’t confined to the private sector.

Imagine if John Edwards were campaigning in the UK. He wouldn’t be able to blame ‘corporate greed’ everytime someone didn’t get the coverage they wanted. What would he say? Probably something like NHS ennificiency, or somesuch nonsense.

(via josephweisenthal)

This is what’s wrong with healthcare.  The “right” thing to do for the country is exactly the “wrong” thing to do for the individual.  

People put so much value on living that they’ll spend infinite sums of money in order to prolong their lives for hours or days.  Can’t blame them for it, and if it’s their money they should absolutely be able to do that.  But what if it’s not their money?  What if it’s the insurance company’s money?  What if it’s society’s money?  What then?  Clearly someone must make a cost-benefit decision.  
Cite Arrow reblogged from josephweisenthal
4 notes | | Nov 17, 2008
  1. barthel reblogged this from josephweisenthal and added:
    Maybe it’s a little original position of me, but I’ll take those odds. Of course, people in America could just pay...
  2. mikehudack reblogged this from josephweisenthal
  3. josephweisenthal posted this