Health care

[kontulib]

Well?

[Ateo]

Everyone should have reasonably equal access to health care regardless of income. If the rich want to go to super-special doctors that require unholy amounts of money for state-of-the-art care, they should have that option.

The rich are going to get the best of care no matter what anyway. What should be a priority is making sure the poorest in society recieve adequate care.

We have to decide if we're a society of compassion & decency, or a society whose priority is serving those who have the big bucks.

[kontulib]

Ok...here is now seven votes in favor of public sector should organize health care and zero votes in favor of private sector should organize it.

What should we learn about this......?

Conservatives and right-wingers don´t vote :p

[sinecure]

Originally posted by kontulib

What should we learn about this......?

Conservatives and right-wingers don´t vote :p

Well... in polls with rigged questions, anyway. :p :p

[Hey, Tig... you class envy is showing :rolleyes: ]

[w1che]

Why don't we all become pinko commies.. We all put our money in a big pool & let the Government dole it out as they see fit. We could stop all this class warfare because there won't be any rich.. (except of course the people in government would still get theirs) ..No one would work that hard because they couldn't keep any more money than the next person..

We could have it made.. No hard work & all the free med. you need... I like it... :cool

[DustyBottoms]

Actually good food for thought. However, I have a few questions I need answered before hazarding a vote.

1. What percentage of the current population has medical insurance?

2. What percentage of hospital patents now pay for treatment?

3. What percentage of patents now get treated free. How many are illegally here? How many are now refused treatment?

It is my understanding that a hospital may not refuse to treat anyone. Many if-not most hospital bills are never paid.

We have to decide if we're a society of compassion & decency, or a society whose priority is serving those who have the big bucks.

My current medical plan cost is continuously rising - currently $787.00/month for just my wife and myself. I do not have the "big bucks" mentioned above, so I will be the crass one here and ask - How will this impact me and my wife?

Yes - food for thought..... Hummm:cool

[Phreakmeister]

W1, if I extrapolate your post, can I draw the conclusion that you support something of a free market system (competition and free market) in health care? Or is that a wrong interpretation?

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
W1, if I extrapolate your post, can I draw the conclusion that you support something of a free market system (competition and free market) in health care? Or is that a wrong interpretation?

Competition gives rise to inovation. It also means you have a choice of providers.

If I have a medical problem, I prefer to get treatment on my schedule - not the governments.

So no - that is not a wrong interpretation.:wave

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms


Competition gives rise to inovation.
...and cost increases to suffering consumers due to increased marketing (it costs a lot of money for those TV ads for allergy and arthritis and heartburn pills), not to mention paying all those lobbyists on Capitol Hill...

If we're talking about phone companies or the auto industry that's one thing. But this is an "industry" that concerns people living or dying.

Health care cannot be equated with the selling of goods.

[sinecure]

Of course you don't think the drug companies [or any other company, for that matter] take a net loss on advertising... right?

I was puzzled when I first started seeing those ads for perscription drugs everywhere. But then I thought-- What's wrong with creating a demand for your product by letting people know what's available?

And my central question.... Just how much health care do we owe everybody?

...or is it "everybody"?

How about the California prisoner who got a million-dollar-plus heart transplant compliments of the good taxpayers of California? Where would you guys draw the line?

...or would you draw a line?

[Phreakmeister]

What the problem is in privatized health care, is that it is not the product (health care) that is pivotal to the activities of the companies, but the result of the product, namely profit. Companies are there to make profit. That's what companies do. Coca-Cola wants to make a profit. Samsung wants to make a profit. BMW wants to make a profit. Every company wants to make profits, because it's quintessential to their existence.

There are two ways of creating profit: increasing revenues and decreasing expenditures. Decreasing expenditures is most easily achieved by supplying the least expensive or most profitable goods. This works for medications, operations and pre-op and post-op treatment. This means that the patients get the treatment that is most favourable to the budget of the hospital or the clinic, instead of the treatment that is most suitable to their health situation. Any similarity between the two is coincidental.
Increasing revenues can be achieved by two means. First there is raising the prices of treatments. Raising the prices of treatments means that the availibility of treatments becomes dependent on the financial situation of the patient, not on his or her health situation. Raising prices raises the "threshhold" on products. Increasing revenues can also be reached by focussing on the profitable treatments. A breast enlargement is more profitable than cancer treatment. Yet probably all here will agree that fighting cancer is more important than enlarging a woman's cup size.

Privatization means that there is competition and free market, but it also means that health care will revolve around profits instead of patients.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
I was puzzled when I first started seeing those ads for perscription drugs everywhere. But then I thought-- What's wrong with creating a demand for your product by letting people know what's available?
The problem is, the drug companies are marketing their product to doctors as much as their patients. Why? Because most doctors are too busy with their practice to do research on which medications are the most cost effective (do the best job for the best price). And there are no national "Consumer Reports"-type entities to present objective research to the doctors. So the pharmecutical companies are pushing their expensive products onto doctors & patients when, in many cases, there are less expensive, alternative meds that are just as effective. But again, the doctors aren't aware of them because there isn't any kind of scientific analysis for them to look at. And most doctors are too busy to do their own research.

[Ateo]

Also, to add: the pharmecutical co's claim that the reason their medications are so expensive is because of the research & development required to produce them (which is true--it is expensive to create miracle drugs from scratch). What they don't tell you, though, is that they spend more money on marketing than they do on R&D.

[DustyBottoms]

Are there any examples of US citizens being refused medical treatment?

I don't think so...

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Are there any examples of US citizens being refused medical treatment?

- Guadalupe Benitez was refused infertility treatment on the ground that she was lesbian
- A client of Nicholas T. Kocian, PC (http://www.kocianlaw.com/recentcases/) was not allowed medical treatment, despite suffering from a "legitimate injury" (scroll down to #8 on the link)
- A Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) member was refused medical treatment while on vacation due to "the new government policy on Medicare."
- Troy Mills was refused treatment after he committed a (failed) suicide attempt
- Scott McDonald (http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/stnrefusedtreatment12may02.shtml) was refused treatment for the simple reason that he did not have a photo ID.
- Dwight Roberts (http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/dwightroberttransfer.html) suffered from a broken nose and four bite wounds, but was refused treatment
- Jason Lucas (http://www.dailyworld.com/html/6A615D42-DB1F-4518-883A-A4EF2DD9CE2F.shtml), a 33-year old obese cancer patient was refused medical treatment at Presbyterian Hospital in Pennsylvania. He was told, "You can't be scanned; We're not doing fat people anymore," when he went in for his annual computed tomography scan for monitoring of Hodgkin's lymphoma.
- Chris Napier (http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/action/usa_westva_07252000_2.html) was sprayed with a fire extinguisher. He was refused medical treatment for injuries suffered from the extinguisher.
- Ken Kuri (http://members.tripod.com/kenkuri/your_guilty_until_proven_innocent.html) was refused medical treatment because his disease, systemic lupus erythematosus or Lupus, did not qualify as a legitimate disease
- Tyra Hunter (http://daniellesweb.com/papers/violence.html) was involved in a automobile accident. She was refused medical treatment by the Washington, D.C. paramedics on scene because of her transsexual status
- Robert Eads (http://www.transpride.org/bibliography.html), who lived in rural Georgia, developed ovarian cancer and was refused medical treatment by countless doctors solely because he was transsexual (See the documentary Southern Comfort)

To name but a few...

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


- Guadalupe Benitez was refused infertility treatment on the ground that she was lesbian
- A client of Nicholas T. Kocian, PC (http://www.kocianlaw.com/recentcases/) was not allowed medical treatment, despite suffering from a "legitimate injury" (scroll down to #8)
- A Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) member was refused medical treatment while on vacation due to "the new government policy on Medicare."
- Troy Mills was refused treatment after he committed a (failed) suicide attempt
- Scott McDonald (http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/stnrefusedtreatment12may02.shtml) was refused treatment for the simple reason that he did not have a photo ID.
- Dwight Roberts (http://www.angelfire.com/fl4/fci/dwightroberttransfer.html) suffered from a broken nose and four bite wounds, but was refused treatment
- Jason Lucas (http://www.dailyworld.com/html/6A615D42-DB1F-4518-883A-A4EF2DD9CE2F.shtml), a 33-year old obese cancer patient was refused medical treatment at Presbyterian Hospital in Pennsylvania. He was told, "You can't be scanned; We're not doing fat people anymore," when he went in for his annual computed tomography scan for monitoring of Hodgkin's lymphoma.
- Chris Napier (http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/action/usa_westva_07252000_2.html) was sprayed with a fire extinguisher. He was refused medical treatment for injuries suffered from the extinguisher.
- Ken Kuri (http://members.tripod.com/kenkuri/your_guilty_until_proven_innocent.html) was refused medical treatment because his disease, systemic lupus erythematosus or Lupus, did not qualify as a legitimate disease
- Tyra Hunter (http://daniellesweb.com/papers/violence.html) was involved in a automobile accident. She was refused medical treatment by the Washington, D.C. paramedics on scene because of her transsexual status
- Robert Eads (http://www.transpride.org/bibliography.html), who lived in rural Georgia, developed ovarian cancer and was refused medical treatment by countless doctors solely because he was transsexual (See the documentary Southern Comfort)

To name but a few...

Thanks for doing my homework Phreaky.:)

This is just as I thought. A national medical plan would not seem change these examples. These people were refused for various reasons other than not having the $$$ for care. A national plan would not necessarally change the search results.

Canada has a national plan. I will research and report back my findings. :)

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
Where would you guys draw the line?

...or would you draw a line?

Sure I would draw a line.

One of them is that only organ donors should recieve donor organs.

I am not a organ donor and will thus refuse to recieve any.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime


Sure I would draw a line.

One of them is that only organ donors should recieve donor organs.

I am not a organ donor and will thus refuse to recieve any.

How about me? I'm a kidney cancer survivor [so far] and I am prevented from donating organs, as kidney cancer is noted for metastasizing via the blood. Any organs from me could bring along the cancer, and I really wouldn't want to do that to my worst enemy... or even a liberal! :wink :lol :lol

What if I needed an organ? ...say corneas? Am I still on the "wrong" side of your line?

Why would you refuse to receive a needed organ? What about a heart valve from a pig, or other non-human donation source?

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
What if I needed an organ? ...say corneas? Am I still on the "wrong" side of your line?
I am sorry to say but, yep.

And the anser is the same for AIDS.


Why would you refuse to receive a needed organ? What about a heart valve from a pig, or other non-human donation source?
I would accept a mechanical or an organ cloned from my own tissue (their getting closes every year now, so don't worry).

[sinecure]

The question still stands-- Why? On what philosophical/religious/practical/ethical basis do you form this idea that, since you refuse to donate, you also refuse to receive organs/tissues from another life-form?

[w1che]

Why keep people alive when they become worthless anyway.. Think about it, you spend big bucks to keep them alive a few years & they die anyway.. Seems like a waste of money to me.. If they won't work and are to poor to pay for Meds let them live a shorter life so they won't be a drain on the rest of us so long.. Simple... :cool

[DustyBottoms]

I am a registered organ donor. At least it is so stated on my driver’s license.

If these ol' body parts can help some poor slob after I'm gone then maybe my life was worth something after all!:wink

( I hope Tig gets some of me):lol :lol

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
The question still stands-- Why? On what philosophical/religious/practical/ethical basis do you form this idea that, since you refuse to donate, you also refuse to receive organs/tissues from another life-form?

I want my entire body to be buried or cremated.

Thats why I am not a organ donor.

But I would be a hypocrite if I were to accept donor organs.

And I do not want to be a hypocrite.

[sinecure]

Originally posted by AWPrime


I want my entire body to be buried or cremated.

Thats why I am not a organ donor.

But I would be a hypocrite if I were to accept donor organs.

And I do not want to be a hypocrite.

That's interesting. Well, if that's what you want... here's hoping you don't suffer some catastrophic death... like blown to bits in a suicide bombing, or crushed into completely unrecognizable, disconnected semi-damp mud, like those poor souls who were in the World Trade Centers, or... well, you get the idea.

So to you, your non-participation [as a donor] would make you [as a recipient] a "hypocrite"??

Do you participate in every aspect of the world that affects your life? Do you grow [some of] your own food? Kill [some of]your own meat? Make [some of] your own shelter? pump water? generate electricity? manufacture items? etc. etc.?

Does this make you a "hypocrite" in these regards?

An interesting viewpoint, IMO. Thanks for sharing it.

I've always been fascinated in "burial beliefs"... ever since as a child I heard my older female relatives discussing what clothing they wanted to be buried [and, being good Baptists, resurrected :)] in...

Later in life, I had to attend to several exhumations of bodies buried for widely varying periods of time.... If my old aunts had only known what was actually going to happen to them...:eek:

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by sinecure
[B]Well, if that's what you want... here's hoping you don't suffer some catastrophic death... like blown to bits in a suicide bombing, or crushed into completely unrecognizable, disconnected semi-damp mud, like those poor souls who were in the World Trade Centers, or... well, you get the idea.
I thick that falls onder being buried or cremated.


Do you participate in every aspect of the world that affects your life? Do you grow [some of] your own food?
I did take care of my own a vegitable garden before I moved out.


Kill [some of]your own meat?
There is hardly anything to kill here.


Make [some of] your own shelter?
I would like to.


pump water? generate electricity? manufacture items? etc. etc.?
I pay for that.


An interesting viewpoint, IMO. Thanks for sharing it. Your welkom.

I don't believe in christianty but am more an atheist with slight shaman/druid/zen taint. So reincarnation is more of my thing.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by AWPrime
There is hardly anything to kill here.

Cows, chickens, horses, pigs, ostriches...

@w1:
You let the health care a person should get depend on the content of his or her wallet? Some people indeed do not have a job. But not every unemployed is unemployed because he or she refuses to work. Getting a job is harder than you may think, especially in times like these.

[Mary]

Originally posted by w1che
Why keep people alive when they become worthless anyway.. Think about it, you spend big bucks to keep them alive a few years & they die anyway.. Seems like a waste of money to me.. If they won't work and are to poor to pay for Meds let them live a shorter life so they won't be a drain on the rest of us so long.. Simple... :cool
So housewifes shouldn´t get anykind of health care? :rolleyes:

[w1che]

Mary being a housewife is a very productive job & a hard one at that.. So yes they should get health care but only if their husband works & doesn't sit around & drink beer all day..

Phreak if a person is looking for a job every day then they should be covered but they should have to prove that they are in fact doing all they can to get a job... Having babies out of wedlock & then sitting around whining because I won't pay for your meds don't get it...

[Mary]

Originally posted by w1che
Mary being a housewife is a very productive job & a hard one at that..
Can´t argue with that :wink

So yes they should get health care but only if their husband works & doesn't sit around & drink beer all day..

So if there aren´t jobs for husband, housewife doesn´t get health care? I don´t think that what husband does should be relative in any way.

[Phreakmeister]

So if the man is too lazy to get a job, his wife, who probably has to raise the children, because I don't see the husband doing that if he's the type to sit around and drink beer all day long, is not eligible for health care? So the only one actually doing something in this particular instance is being punished for the laziness of the other individual?

Another example I would like to hear your opinion on:
A colleague of my father lost an arm when he got smashed between two trains. For some stroke of unexplained luck, he merely lost an arm, and not his life. He'll never be able to work again. Would he, as someone who is physically unfit for labour, be able to get health care, if the system you envisage were implemented?
What about people with for instance Down syndrome, or other handicaps?

[w1che]

Quote from Phreak... /snip] So if the man is too lazy to get a job, his wife, who probably has to raise the children /snip]
>>>>>>>>

I would say the women made a very wrong choice of husbands in life if she lets him not work.. Should we pay for every wrong choice people make? You go to collage take a major that you can't get a job in when you go into the work force.. Should the tax payers support you & give you free meds until you get around to getting a job in a factory??

As for the handi-capped... I'm for sitting up free hospitals in each city for them with the stupid people that had kids without being able to support them paying as much as they can for their health support & still eat.. If they whine & cry about it they can foot the whole bill..

As for the one arm guy.. If he was on the job when he got hurt then his company should be forced to give him med insurance for the rest of his life.. If he was drunk & fell between two trains he is on his own.. A person with one arm can get a job if he really wants one.. If he does and works every day then we should chip in & get him a fake hand & arm for the one he lost..

I'm for helping people that need help through no fault of their own but they must do everything they can to get it together in a year or two...

Originally posted by w1che

I'm for helping people that need help through no fault of their own but they must do everything they can to get it together in a year or two... [/B]

Ok, I haven't had health insurance in about 10 yrs. Only 2 times have I had my state flip a hospital bill for me-that was to have my 2 kids. When I am sick-I DO NOT go to the dr, nor do I go to the hospital. My husband has insurance on himself, but we cannot afford this housewife to have it too. I cannot get a job, because, I would then have to pay someone most of my paycheck to watch my kids, while I work. Tell me how-in a year or two-I can get it together? Plus, I live in a military town, and the first openings of jobs go to the military wives-us-the general public have to wait til there are extra openings. I would love to be able to get a job like everyone else and get my own insurance, but am stuck. We do need new laws to help our health care system.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by wrotfloao


Ok, I haven't had health insurance in about 10 yrs. Only 2 times have I had my state flip a hospital bill for me-that was to have my 2 kids. When I am sick-I DO NOT go to the dr, nor do I go to the hospital. My husband has insurance on himself, but we cannot afford this housewife to have it too. I cannot get a job, because, I would then have to pay someone most of my paycheck to watch my kids, while I work. Tell me how-in a year or two-I can get it together? Plus, I live in a military town, and the first openings of jobs go to the military wives-us-the general public have to wait til there are extra openings. I would love to be able to get a job like everyone else and get my own insurance, but am stuck. We do need new laws to help our health care system.

Jees! I could not help but notice you mentioned nothing about your children’s health care. I would think they would be your primary concern.

You already have dipped into state (taxpayer) funds both times when you needed to. What if you get something (cancer for instance) that requires hospitalization? Don't tell me you wont again ask the state (taxpayers) for help.

You say all the jobs go to military spouses and at the same time you say you cant work because of the children.

Sorry, this post is not adding up.
:confused:

OOps sry! I forgot to tell that part-I do dip into the state funds everytime one of my kids gets sick-they have medicaid-so isnt that enough? I shouldn't ask for more. I dont want my kids on medicaid- I want to be able to afford the insurance. So, by asking the state to take care of my kids-I dont want to ask for more, by taking care of me. I dont want a handout. I prefer to take care of my own. But right now-I just cannot afford to. As for me, in reality-if I were to get cancer, who would take care of that bill? No one. I'd just be S*O*L*. In my state, if I needed an operation, my state would pay for anything over-I think $20,000. Then who gets stuck with the bill I cannot pay? The taxpayers. (and my hubby is a taxpayer) So, I'd just spend the remainder of my life sharing it with my family and not make my state flip a bill for me. That's just my Opinion.

[DustyBottoms]

.Canada has a national plan. I will research and report back my findings.

Here is the opinion of a canadian helth plan members negative thoughts on the plan. I am sure it also has some positive benefits.

/cut-paste/
-Lack of physicians means long waits (they leave for more lucrative opportunities in the USA or overseas). This is part of a larger problem we refer to as "The Brain Drain"

-Misappropriation of funds leads to poorly run hospitals

-Very hard to find a family doctor in some areas. Here in Halifax, there are usually no doctors taking new patients and we have no walk in clinics. If you need treatment for anything, you go to the Emerg, and emerg can be backed up 18-20 hours on a good day. This also makes it hard to shop around for a good doc that you like. Vancouver is different in that there are sooo many physicians there and I could test drive doctors until I found one that I loved (her name is Jacki Matsyk and she's on W. Broadway and Yew if anyone is looking for a doc btw)

-very hard to change the system since it is run by government policy and not consumer driven

I have yet to see a "good" system. They all have good and bad points but there is no overall one way to do this right. Last week, we had a private MRI clinic open here, and there is a group of nurses going to court to fight it, because it actually goes against the Health Canada Act and promotes what is called a 2-tier system (one for the rich (private), one for the poor (public)).

Edited to add:
In some provinces (like BC), you pay a premium for your provincial insurance. You either do that or pay cash for your health care - there is no other options. The premiums are reasonable though and follow a sliding scale based on your household income. Often employers pay that premium on your behalf as part of your benefit package.

Other provinces (like NS), have no premiums. From my experience, the provinces WITH premiums have a slightly better health care system overall than those with no premiums. We depend solely on tax dollars for our health care./end paste/

My further thoughts:

With out a privatized system we would not be the leader in developing new treatments for disease and medical conditions. Profit drives new technology - not the government.

Name a few recent breakthrough drugs or medical miracle treatments discovered by the Canadians.

Item #3 - Viagra! :wink (I may need it someday!)

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
With out a privatized system we would not be the leader in developing new treatments for disease and medical conditions. Profit drives new technology - not the government.
Very true. It does take a lot of money to research and develop medicine to cure disease.

The problem is, (and I've said this before, sorry to repeat myself) pharmecutical companies spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on research and development.

Unregulated capitalism in an industry where the priority should be making sure everyone has quality health care is morally wrong. Don't you agree?

The higher priority for you: Your elderly mother having to take her meds every other day (instead of every day as per doctors orders) because she can't afford the pills, or leaving drug companies unencumbered by regulation so that they can make an extra ton of profit above and beyond R&D costs?

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Very true. It does take a lot of money to research and develop medicine to cure disease.

The problem is, (and I've said this before, sorry to repeat myself) pharmecutical companies spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on research and development.

Unregulated capitalism in an industry where the priority should be making sure everyone has quality health care is morally wrong. Don't you agree?

The higher priority for you: Your elderly mother having to take her meds every other day (instead of every day as per doctors orders) because she can't afford the pills, or leaving drug companies unencumbered by regulation so that they can make an extra ton of profit above and beyond R&D costs?

Tig - I think you missed my point. The reality is that my elderly mother would not have the necessary "new breakthrough" drugs to take at all if we depend on the government to develop them. The doctor can’t order her to take drugs that do not exist.

Just think! Tomorrow they might develop a drug that helps bleeding heart liberals accept reality! :lol :lol

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
Tig - I think you missed my point. The reality is that my elderly mother would not have the necessary "new breakthrough" drugs to take at all if we depend on the government to develop them.
And my point is she wouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for them if the pharmecutical compaines weren't allowed to be so profit-hungry.

Just think! Tomorrow they might develop a drug that helps bleeding heart liberals accept reality! :lol :lol
It doesn't take much to tickle your funny bone, does it? :)

[sinecure]

Originally posted by tigsnort
The problem is, (and I've said this before, sorry to repeat myself) pharmecutical companies spend more on marketing and advertising than they do on research and development.

I've seen this from you a few times and always just let it slide as the ravings of another Socialist :wink:... but now I gotta ask: are you stating this as an industry-wide condemnation-- ALL pharmcos spend more on advertising than R&D??

If so, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask for some kind of proof here, Tig.

Unregulated capitalism in an industry where the priority should be making sure everyone has quality health care is morally wrong. Don't you agree?

No. The primary business of industry is PROFIT. Government is the only place where no positive cost/profit ratio [of any kind] is mandatory.

The higher priority for you: Your elderly mother having to take her meds every other day (instead of every day as per doctors orders) because she can't afford the pills, or leaving drug companies unencumbered by regulation so that they can make an extra ton of profit above and beyond R&D costs?

You like these "Lifeboat" scenarios... let me pose one... Your elderly mother needs an organ transplant, brain surgery, exotic cancer treatment, kidney dialysis, or some other incredibly expensive medical care... and she is totally without insurance or personal funds to cover the expense... and on top of all that-- she is 90 years old.

At what point do we say that the cost/benefit ratio tilts to disadvantage your mother? What are your "moral choices" then?

As far as the "extra ton of profit"... the law of supply/demand will kick in [unless the government gets it's fingers further into this pie] and, for popular drugs, the price will stabilize and the tons will become mere pounds.

I happen to have a rather personal interest in this, as my particular form of cancer is drug-resistant [a kidney cell's normal job is to filter out impurities such as chemo drugs, and so the drugs are processed instead of remaining with the tumor and killing it] About the only thing that has been found to be of any real use are immunotherapy drugs. One of the best had come from current research and development, and is made by using some of the cells from a fresh tumor to create a very personalized "vaccine" that kicks-butt on that specific cancer. The cost for the entire, very long, treatment [quoted to me last year] is $400,000.00 minimum. and the expected efficacy is around 60%. 40% of the people get no measurable actual benefit.

My personal insurance wion't pay for it because it is still considered "experimental."

Should I be whining that life has been unfair to me, and demand that the drug companies, the Government and taxpayers like YOU provide me with the only treatment on the horizon that may[or may not] extend my life?

I say "No." What would YOU say? :confused

[AWPrime]

If the system was totally unregulated(capitulized) than you can get situations like:

1. The doctor refuses to help the poor patient because there is no profit in it.

2. People getting secretly killed for their organs because the rich guy next door needs a new heart.

3. Money thrown away for advertisement instead of medication.


ps. If a new medication is really needed than the gov. would take action to find it.

[DustyBottoms]

I believe a major problem with "how it is now" is the lack of limits on lawsuits doctors must face.

A bill to put reasonable limits on medical lawsuits was just blocked again by the democrats.

Insurance costs for hospitals and doctors have skyrocketed and are partially to blame for the high costs we now face.

Incompetent doctors should not be allowed to practice. Instead the lawyers are having a field day at our expense. :smash

[Phreakmeister]

I partly agree with you on the limits. I do think that doctors face too many and unnecessary lawsuits. Just today the stepfather of the Iranian siamese twins sued the hospital they were operated in for homicide, because the doctors allegedly knew that the risks were high and that the chances of survival of the twins were slim. Something should be done about such lawsuits. The limit should not be put on number of lawsuits, but on what is liable and what is not. It must be made completely clear, once and for all, what is permissable and what isn't. It creates clarity for judges, disciplinary boards/tribunals, doctors, lawyers, patients and everyone else. The limit should not be put on amount of lawsuits. If something is done which is illegal, it should be persecuted, regardless of whether it's the 1st, 100th, 200th or 3258th case of the year.
(If this is what you meant, then I apologize for having misinterpreted/misunderstood you)

[Ateo]

Originally posted by sinecure
are you stating this as an industry-wide condemnation-- ALL pharmcos spend more on advertising than R&D??

If so, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask for some kind of proof here, Tig.
Admittedly, there's been no official, conclusive, unbiased analysis (as far as I know) on what pharmcos spend, therefore you can either believe what the pharmcos tell you which is (naturally) that they don't spend all that much on marketing, or you can consider the opinions of people who know a lot about the industry (but don't work in it). Given that choice, I tend to believe the non-industry opinions more, because as Mr. Spock would say, "logic dictates giant corporations tend to be very biased on the side of their own self-interests".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/other/interviews/angell.html
One of the problems with talking about the R&D cost and the marketing cost and the profits, and the way the pharmaceutical industry does business, is that they're very secretive about the details. You can't get at exactly what the details are. But you can get close enough. You can infer from certain things.

The major drug companies, in general, combine marketing with administrative costs. So in their annual reports and in their SEC filings, they will give total expenditures for something they call "marketing administration." The indications are that the lion's share of that is for marketing. One company, one of the major companies, does break it down, does separate out marketing from administration. That company attributes 35 percent to marketing, 6 percent to administration.

If you then also look at how the employees are apportioned, by their own figures, over a third of their employees are in marketing -- not marketing administration, but marketing. So I think it's safe to conclude that somewhere on the order of 30 percent -- over twice the R&D costs -- are marketing.

You can take the logical path, or swallow the industry line. Your choice.

Should I be whining that life has been unfair to me, and demand that the drug companies, the Government and taxpayers like YOU provide me with the only treatment on the horizon that may[or may not] extend my life?

I say "No." What would YOU say?
It's not "whining" to simply expect people be treated with respect & dignity. When you classify human beings in order to determine which ones deserve to have their lives saved and which ones don't, that's inhumane, to say the least.

Yes, I think you should be able to have the immunotherapy treatment and I think the gov't should pay for it. I can think of plenty of places to get the money--for starters, the dough we're spending on health care for the Iraqis. How about we spend that on our own people? Novel idea, huh? :wink

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by tigsnort
Admittedly, there's been no official, conclusive, unbiased analysis (as far as I know) on what pharmcos spend

Families USA, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit consumer health care advocacy group, released a report on July 10, 2001, titled Off the Charts: Pay, Profits and Spending by Drug Companies. The report analyzed company data filed with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for FY 2000. The report included nine companies -- Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Abbott Laboratories, American Home Products, Schering-Plough, Eli Lilly and Allergan. The authors of the report came to the conclusion that large pharmaceutical companies spent around twice as much money on marketing, advertising and administration than they did on the research and development of new drugs. Among the companies, all but Eli Lilly allocated more than twice as much money for marketing, advertising and administration than for research and development, and Eli Lilly allocated one-and-a-half times as much, according to the report. This report has its restrictions, as it deals with only the 9 largest companies on the market. However, these companies are responsible (?) for the majority of industry sales and in a sense dominate the pharmaceutical industry. The report is no manual to marketing budgets and R&D budgets in the pharmaceutical industry, but it is an indication to or a sketch of a quite recent situation.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
The limit should not be put on amount of lawsuits. If something is done which is illegal, it should be persecuted, regardless of whether it's the 1st, 100th, 200th or 3258th case of the year.

Exactly - And as a driver’s license, practicing medicine is a privilege, not a right. Multiple screw-ups by doctors should result in suspension or removal of their right to practice.

If you reduce marketing for drug companies, you reduce profits. The result will be no incentives to make new drugs. This is a market driven competitive business. Humanity has nothing at all to do with it.

Also, I challenge you to name one new drug ever discovered by any government. Include all social plan governments.

Remember, these are the guys that pay $250.00 for a hammer. :smash

[BeetleJuice]

Question on the pharmicos....


Is it right for them to make the lions share of their profit on the backs of the citizens in their home and sell at a markedly reduced rate to foreign nations?
Case in point. You can go to mexico (if you live close enough) and get meds that cost 1000 dollars here for just over 100 dollars there. Same meds from the same company. Why? Same with Canada.
I'm not blaming those places, I blame the pharmicos for that. Its not fair to this citizenry to be held hostage to the prices they charge here when they sell for significanly less outside the US.
Where is the justification in that?
And they HAVE to be making a profit selling to those other places too.

[Ateo]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms

If you reduce marketing for drug companies, you reduce profits. The result will be no incentives to make new drugs. This is a market driven competitive business. Humanity has nothing at all to do with it.

Also, I challenge you to name one new drug ever discovered by any government.
Hey, the government has sent men to the moon. Several times. That wasn't dictated by profits, was it? We can pull off a miracle like that, but it isn't humanly possible to cure people without somebody making lots and lots o' money. :rolleyes:

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by BeetleJuice
Question on the pharmicos....


Is it right for them to make the lions share of their profit on the backs of the citizens in their home and sell at a markedly reduced rate to foreign nations?
Case in point. You can go to mexico (if you live close enough) and get meds that cost 1000 dollars here for just over 100 dollars there. Same meds from the same company. Why? Same with Canada.
I'm not blaming those places, I blame the pharmicos for that. Its not fair to this citizenry to be held hostage to the prices they charge here when they sell for significanly less outside the US.
Where is the justification in that?
And they HAVE to be making a profit selling to those other places too.

Again, no one said that business is fair. [Clint Eastwood quote] "Fair has nothing to do with it." International vendors price their goods at what the market will bear. [Steve Martin quote] "Oh! It's a profit deal!"

Big profits are what the shareholders are after. Try to sell them humanity and they will buy GE.

If you stop and think about it, medicine is one of the few commodities that escape duties charged by other countries for consumables. This is partially why the price can remain lower to end users in poor countries.

I would like to see an alternative that lowers costs while maintaining the quality of research and development.

Any Ideas? :cool

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by tigsnort

Hey, the government has sent men to the moon. Several times. That wasn't dictated by profits, was it? We can pull off a miracle like that, but it isn't humanly possible to cure people without somebody making lots and lots o' money. :rolleyes:

Sorry Tig - buzzzz (wrong answer):smash

Every piece of sheet metal, screw, electronics and R&D was funded at top dollar by the government to private contractors. Low bid had little to do with it. i.e. The $250.00 hammer.

The government paid 10-20 times as much for some supplies as they should have. :)

The fact is - I agree with your sentiments on this issue. It should be humanly possible. That would be the - Uh Oh, here is this humanity thing again....:eek:

[sinecure]

I guess I wasn't being as clear as I thought I was...

My question is: At what point do we draw the line? Should we award government-paid medical care until any medical care is contra-indicated by the patients' condition?

Assuming a vigorous general health, should a 95-year-old be "on the list" for an available heart to transplant?

Are you denying [or don't you see] that there is a cost/benefit ratio here?

I am involved with a couple of cancer forums with international participation. It seems odd that so many people from countries with socialized medicine come here for expensive treatment... if they can afford it... when they could stay home and get their free medical treatment. Brits, Canadians, Aussies, French, even Portugese, Iranians, and Chinese, come here, to the US. Why? Because it's the best damn place to get world-class treatment for this specific malady, and without having to endure long waiting periods, that's why. With only a few exceptions, medical research in the US is [pardon the pun] cutting-edge.

I've formed the opinion that sociaized medicine is just great if you have a broken bone, burn, laceration, or some common disease... but if you have something that would have been untreatable by an American doctor in the 1960's, you'd better find a for-profit medical facility. Most any MD with a specialty has foresaken the government-run systems and gone elsewhere.

'cause that's just the way the world works...

[BeetleJuice]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms


Again, no one said that business is fair. [Clint Eastwood quote] "Fair has nothing to do with it." International vendors price their goods at what the market will bear. [Steve Martin quote] "Oh! It's a profit deal!"

Big profits are what the shareholders are after. Try to sell them humanity and they will buy GE.

If you stop and think about it, medicine is one of the few commodities that escape duties charged by other countries for consumables. This is partially why the price can remain lower to end users in poor countries.

I would like to see an alternative that lowers costs while maintaining the quality of research and development.

Any Ideas? :cool

You didn't address my question.
Why are we chaged more at home than what they sell the same drugs outside the US?
And there are no commodity taxes for selling your product in the US so that argument don't wash.

Now address the question itself. Don't side step it.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by BeetleJuice


You didn't address my question.
Why are we chaged more at home than what they sell the same drugs outside the US?
And there are no commodity taxes for selling your product in the US so that argument don't wash.

Now address the question itself. Don't side step it.

Ok BJ - One more time....

Because that is what the market will bear. Because they can..
Because you will pay it.. It is called capitalism.

I just bought a box of cigars in the Philippines. They cost about 5 cents each. The same box is more than $100 USD here.

Am I still side stepping in your opinion? If so, I will repeat myself again.