Maria Bartiromo, Leading the Healthcare Debate with Stupidity

Maria Bartiromo is a "journalist" and "news anchor" for CNBC.
In my opinion she is exhibit A, why Obama and Dems in Congress should completely ignore polls on healthcare.  Face it, our country is loaded with dummies.

from Wikipedia romo

Jeopardy Performance
In March, 2006, Bartiromo appeared as a contestant[1] on celebrity Jeopardy. Matched against CNN news anchor Anderson Cooper and Kweisi Mfume, President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. After two rounds Bartiromo finished with $0, having only attempted to answer two questions in the Double Jeopardy round, answering only one correctly. Because her balance of $0 following the Double Jeopardy round would have made her ineligible for the Final Jeopardy round, Maria was 'gifted' $1,000 in order to keep playing. Maria answered the Final Jeopardy question incorrectly, and finished the game with $300 of the $1,000 she had been 'gifted'.[2]  

Now watch this. she's a "journalist" and news anchor and doesn't seem to know you have to most often be 65 to be eligible for medicare..

She keeps huffing about Erbitux not being approved in england.. the reason being it's very expensive and does not cure anything only adds one month of survival m/projects/erbitux

In the 1,125-patient pivotal FLEX (First-line in Lung cancer with ErbituX) multinational phase III study, in which Erbitux was combined with vinorelbine and cisplatin, a statistically significant improvement in overall survival was observed in the three-drug treatment arm. Median overall survival was 11.3 months in patients receiving Erbitux compared with 10.1 months in those receiving chemotherapy alone (p=0.044).

Avastin is basically the same story.. it is not a cure simply a slightly longer survival time.

These drugs are her arguments against universal single payer healthcare (which no one is even proposing in the U.S.)

Tags: obama (all tags)



Re:Eligible for Medicare?

Actually, if she doesn't 'know you have to be 65 to be eligible for Medicare', she happens to be 'correct'. There are cases in which your age doesn't matter.

I don't think that was the point she was making, nor do I think that her points otherwise are correct. I don't think you help your argument by making statements about medicare eligibility that are incorrect, especially if you do so to show someone else's ignorance. ity/home.asp?version=default&browser =Firefox|3|Win2000&language=English

by QTG 2009-09-01 01:57PM | 0 recs
specific case talking to congressman anthony

she was talking to congressman anthony weiner who obviously does not meet any eligibility requirement including the most often used one , age...

by TarHeel 2009-09-01 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I was not defending her

I was very clear. I was in no way defending her.

by QTG 2009-09-02 03:18AM | 0 recs
Maria Overthrowmo

I like John Cole's perspective on her expertise:

That is Bachman/Palin level stupid. The only thing missing from her outfit was the giant USA foam finger.

Send her over to Fox along w/Lou Dobbs and you'd have a Milton Friedmanesque Dream Team of dogmatic dumbasses who think that the free markets are the salvation for health care reform.

by PD1769 2009-09-01 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Maria Bartiromo

For all you know, she might know every single food that starts with Q.

by Steve M 2009-09-01 02:51PM | 0 recs
Weiner also missed the point

I liked that Weiner argued that Medicare is a public plan. And of course time is too limited to bring up all the arguments against Maria's stupid positions.

But the better comeback would have been to ask her how many private insurance companies cover that drug. The implication: private plans cover it, good; public plan wouldn't cover it, bad. That's the message that the right has been very effective in conveying, even though it is patently false.

I have a very good prescription plan through work, but I just checked, and to no one's surprise, Erbitux isn't a covered drug. Some quick googling showed that I'm not alone, which isn't surprising given its expense.

Giving people the option of a public plan doesn't take away the drugs that are covered by their current plan, and in most cases, that doesn't include things like Erbitux anyway.

by fsm 2009-09-01 07:43PM | 0 recs

Well new drug protocals are complicated, and as someone above mentions most, if any private insurance, companies alsow ill not cover it. These are extreme novel chemotherapies. They are desgines as I remember to selectively slow the growth of cancerous cells versus health cells by targetting blood vessels. This is again memory so I may be wrong. the problem is that these drugs being so new they are not fully tested. It will take some time to test them , and a study of that size while a good data point is not a wide enough scale to know if it will work in a large marketing trial.

However, saying that- you are actually a little wrong here. The point of these novel drugs is to find drugs that will increase the life span in cancers that are late stage, and basically incurrable. While the number of months may not impress you, you should realize that's not everyone, and nor should it be up for you to decide, and nor, for that matter is it clear to me that we can know what further advances will occur due to bringing these drugs into wider trials.

I am not sure where I fall on this, but it is not as easy as you say. Innovation is extremely important. What is novel today, becomes routine tomorrow, and assuming before hand that you can not that is a huge mistake.  There is a lot of bleeding edge science out there that we dont want to lose. The question is not whether these efforts should be included in a normal drug plan. The question is whether we can set up some alternative protocal that will allow these sorts of innovations to flourish. To me, that's a different question than the wider system.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Innovation

If I understand it correctly, we currently have a system where Medicare doesn't cover these expensive cutting-edge drugs... and most private insurance doesn't seem to cover them either.  So who is actually receiving these drugs right now?  Billionaires?

by Steve M 2009-09-02 06:31AM | 0 recs
England is actuall very reasonable

expensive biologics that barely "work" meaning only prolong life by a few weeks compared to existing much cheaper therapy are not paid for by the gov... You can still buy them...

something like Aricept on TV for Alzheimers is approved in the US but not england.. cause it doesn't stop Alzheimers from progressing but very marginally slows some aspects..

US competitors will tell you it doesn't really work.

by TarHeel 2009-09-02 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: England is actuall very reasonable

My chief problem with your posts are that you are dismissive about the effectives of drugs that unless you should not be. The jury is out. You also as I said above, and you ignored, also dismissive of life prolonging drugs. What are AIDS drugs other than life prolonging drugs? You speak 11 months as if it is nothing, and then wonder why people react to the left like we want to kill their parents. If you want to discuss whether insurance covers these things in comparison like prviate insurance, that's fine. But the point you are making implicitedly is something that is problematic. I labelled my response innovation for a reason. You seem to not fully appreciate how innovation happens. It is not a linear process of knowing perfectly before hand what the outcome will be after.

by bruh3 2009-09-02 08:13AM | 0 recs
11 months versus 10 months!

would you pay 150K for 1 month of life if it came out of your families assets?  I wouldn't.

it's not 11 months versus zero its versus 10 months!  during which you still are taking all the chemotherapy drugs (which implode quality of life) as well...

by TarHeel 2009-09-02 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: 11 months versus 10 months!

What if it changes to an extra year,w hat about 2? I am discussing policy, not the specific instance.

by bruh3 2009-09-02 08:44AM | 0 recs
Follow up on innovation

BY the way- when I say to increase the life spans of cancers that are inccurable, I mean cancers that have become mestatic (spelling?) and spread like I virus throughout the body. The goal is to to get a place where even we can not completely eradicate cancer that we can actually treat it as a chronic disease. That's part of the bleeding edge. First get it to a place where it is not out and out killing people to have cancer. Maybe there will be reoccurrences but it will not be a death sentence. Now, the quality of life of these efforts right now is not so good, but that wold have been true of HIV novel treatment sin the 80s I would guess. First it starts off like a little better and then with time with improvement and trial and error it opens more doors.

by bruh3 2009-09-01 10:19PM | 0 recs
the biologics like erbitux
are used in COMBINATION meaning in addition to standard chemotherapy = still all the bad side effects, just adds a few weeks to life..
which may be great but honestly most people would not pay 100,000$ for a few more weeks. they'd rather leave that money to their families
by TarHeel 2009-09-02 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: the biologics like erbitux

I know enough about how these drugs work. Thanks, but at this point your dismissiveness is what bothers me more than anything else. I am not advocating that this is as simple a question as you seem to want to say it is. My point is that it is not. You don't get to tell people what they would rather do. If you want to say it is not cost effective since private care is not covering it . Fine. But you ae doing more than that here. You also are dismissing the need, and don't seem to understand how innovation works. This is why I am not in favor of single payer, but instead the public option for now.

by bruh3 2009-09-02 08:16AM | 0 recs
it should be a choice

ideally people should decide whether or not they want to pay 1,000$ extra in premiums each year to have access to any and all possible treatments..

it is an ethical question not a scientific one!

England decided that ethically and scientifically it is better to cover their ENTIRE population for common conditions that extend life by years and decades rather than spending money on certain drugs that either don't extend life by much nor increase the quality of that daily living

by TarHeel 2009-09-02 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: it should be a choice

Labeling something as non scentific does not change the question that I am raising and you are avoiding. The issue is how does innovation happen? You are dismissive of the idea itself. It is not as simple or straight forward you describe. That's my main point.  also not as concerned about this one drug as I am about the innovaction process itself and the mindset that you can pred etermine it as simply as you seem to think. What England does , does not mean they are right . Do you get that? Different countries will think different things on the science, and it is not simply a straight line to how innovation happens. That's my only point.

by bruh3 2009-09-02 08:53AM | 0 recs
innovation happens

cause someone pays for it ..

most of the seeds of innovation happen in academia
including BOTH erbitux and avastin...

Pharma pays for clinical trials and marketing..  (or acquisition of smaller startups)

so innovation in medicine happens partly through NIH funded taxpayer research and the later part through pharma through paying for products..

What should be encouraged are innovative products that either promote cures (not avasting/erbitux) or quality of life improvement...  

by TarHeel 2009-09-02 09:20AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads