Ladies and Gentlemen. May I Present the Obama-care version of the future of America:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence considers the drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer too expensive.

Lapatinib can cut in half the speed of growth of breast cancer in one in five women with an aggressive form of the disease, and Sutent is the only drug that can prolong the lives of stomach cancer patients.

“The committee concluded that Lapatinib is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources when compared with current treatment,” Dr. Gillian Leng, Nice deputy chief executive, was quoted as saying. (Source)

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

At first glance you  might think that this is a scenario from an episode of the Twilight Zone, but for thousands of British Citizens, this is all too real.  And while the Democratic Party tries to cripple our health care at the same time they cripple our economy, there is a ominous message in the above story—Socialized Medicine KILLS:

Victims Of Socialism

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 06, 2009 4:20 PM PT

What’s a life worth? Apparently not much in Great Britain.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the government agency that decides which treatments the National Health Service will pay for, has effectively banned Lapatinib, a drug that was shown to slow the progression of breast cancer, and Sutent, which is the only medicine that can prolong the lives of some stomach cancer patients.

Banning beneficial drugs due to cost is nothing new in Britain. NICE, which has to be one of history’s most ironic acronyms, forbade the use of Tarceva, a lung cancer drug proven to extend patients’ lives, and Abatacept, even though it’s one of the only drugs that has been shown in clinical testing to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Once again, we have to ask: Do we really want to use the British system as the model for a U.S. health care regime?

Promises of an effective, cost-effective health care system operated by the federal government are cruel fabrications. The British system shows that the state makes a mess of health care. So does the Canadian plan, which is plagued with unhealthy and often deadly waiting times for treatment.

The Swedish government system is no better. It also refuses to provide some expensive medication and, inhumanely, refuses to let patients buy the drugs themselves. Why? According to a Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons article, bureaucrats believe doing so “would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.”

Like Canadians, Swedes are subjected to long waits. They also have denial-of-care problems that sometimes lead to death.

A reasonable person would see the record of repeated failures in government-run medicine as evidence that such a system is not sustainable. Yet every central planner thinks he or she — or his or her immediate group — is smart enough to correct the flaws of socialist programs and therefore has the moral authority to force others to participate in his experiments. It is the same thinking that will move a person to say we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Medicine needs experimentation to progress. But experiments need to stay in the laboratories, not spread to the domain of public policy. Americans are not lab rats. They deserve to be treated with dignity and not shoved aside as expendables to be sacrificed in deference to a sacred totem of the political left.