We need medical reform NOW!!!!!!!! - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 11-21-2005, 12:23 PM

THIS IS FUCKED UP!!!!!!!!!

I just got off the phone with "Quality Assurance Medical" or whatever (They are the ones that find grants and what not to help people pay)..... Anyway, they called me to see if I was still working and if I planned to continue working..... when I said yes, the lady told me, that if I decided not to work, she could find money for me to pay.....

WTF IS THAT???????

I can't get any help if I work, yet if I don't work, and can't pay any other bills I can get help on my medical bills........

WOW..... WTF, so I'm fucked because I choose to better my life...... maybe when I see the doctor Wednesday I'll tell him how excrutiating the pain is at times (no lie there) or how I have insomnia and a stiff neck. Maybe I can get on disability, get everything fucking paid for, even school, open my halfway house/therapeutic community and place it under some type of partnership where I am just the manager/live in partner........

Yeah, I'll just abuse the system now..... fuck the people who would rather not have any type of universal healthcare, I'll just join the system and take everything I can....

Except for a few things, my pride, the fact I couldn't allow myself to do that, the fact I LOVE my job helping other addicts more than anything else I have ever done or how much money I have ever had and the fact that I'm bettering myself despite the people who would rather have systems like this than universal healthcare even if it were on a sliding scale basis.

They need to face the facts, government is going to pay the bills one way or another for those who can't, and people in my position given the chance...... I have a feeling the majority would jump at it. Especially knowing school financial aid would be there also.

Cynthetiq · 11-21-2005, 02:45 PM

It is.

But my personal take on it is when you can use the system that you've paid into for quite some time, use it. You paid for it fair and square, not much can be said for the generational welfare families.

Ustwo · 11-21-2005, 03:24 PM

Quote:

The University Student Health Insurance plan provides worldwide coverage, with the student's choice of provider. Discounts may be available if the provider is part of the Private Healthcare System (PHCS). The plan is independent of McKinley Health Center and benefits are not contingent upon McKinley Health Center referrals. The fee for the plan is automatically assessed along with other tuition and fees. For the 2005-2006 plan year, the graduate student fee is $230.00 per semester and the undergrad student fee is $167.00 per semester.

Tuition and fee waivers do not apply to the Student Insurance fee.

Each semester during the Enrollment/Change Period, students can apply for an exemption from the Student Insurance fee, purchase dependent coverage, apply for graduate dental and/or vision coverage, request an extension of prior coverage and apply for open enrollment reinstatement. Go to "Important Dates" regarding the Enrollment/Change Period.

Necessary forms can be downloaded from this web site. Due to a form inventory being conducted, all forms printed from this website must be mailed (807 S. Wright, Suite 480) or faxed (217-244-9886) to the Student Insurance office. Students wishing to come in person will be required to use different forms. To avoid long lines in our office, it is strongly suggested that students obtain the necessary forms from this website and submit the forms by mail or fax.

We are located on the fourth floor of the Illini Union Bookstore building. Use the northeast entrance to the building, not the Bookstore entrance (view map). We can be reached at 217 333-0165; or insure@uiuc.edu

My former school.

What school do you go to?

Personally I think you have a bit of martyr syndrome going, you have outs but instead are taking the high road even if it leads you to the cross. Getting nailed to crosses, even figuratively, sucks, you have your outs, use them.

Edit:As a side note, I've said on this board before, that the people who get screwed by health care are the working lower/lower middle classes. If I could change it, if they asked if you had a job and you said no, thats when they say they can't help you, not the other way around.

pan6467 · 11-22-2005, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My former school.

What school do you go to?

Personally I think you have a bit of martyr syndrome going, you have outs but instead are taking the high road even if it leads you to the cross. Getting nailed to crosses, even figuratively, sucks, you have your outs, use them.

Edit:As a side note, I've said on this board before, that the people who get screwed by health care are the working lower/lower middle classes. If I could change it, if they asked if you had a job and you said no, thats when they say they can't help you, not the other way around.

I really don't need you trying to pick a fight, you and I both got the warning letter, so please just go about your own business UsTwo. You have no respect for me, and I just don't like your attitude.

I am not a martyr, I am trying to do what is right. So just leave me alone.

Ustwo · 11-22-2005, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I really don't need you trying to pick a fight, you and I both got the warning letter, so please just go about your own business UsTwo. You have no respect for me, and I just don't like your attitude.

I am not a martyr, I am trying to do what is right. So just leave me alone.

Quite frankly this doesn't belong in politics UNLESS you are trying to be the martyr. This isn't a what can I do post, this is a SEE HOW BAD THE SYSTEM SUCKS POST, well the system sometimes does suck, all systems suck at some point. You have a way to make it not suck for you and you refuse to take it on a moral high ground. If thats not being a martyr I don't know what would qualify.

Quote:

Audio pronunciation of "martyr" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (märtr)
n.

1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.

Its pretty textbook.

pan6467 · 11-23-2005, 04:36 AM

You're just trying to pick a fight UsTwo and you know what, it's not working. You got the message from BerMuda same as I..... I think you first post was to antagonize and your second to further try to pick the fight..... I'll let a Mod decide.

Cynthetiq · 11-23-2005, 05:47 AM

On it's face, Ustwo is right, the definition of a martyr is what fits.

as for you two picking a fight... pan please use the ignore feature of the board.

pan6467 · 11-23-2005, 06:38 AM

One posts bad policy and its effects on politics so that the people can see why policy needs changed.

That is my purpose a personal account to show why policy needs changed.

Elphaba · 11-25-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Pan posts:I just got off the phone with "Quality Assurance Medical" or whatever (They are the ones that find grants and what not to help people pay)..... Anyway, they called me to see if I was still working and if I planned to continue working..... when I said yes, the lady told me, that if I decided not to work, she could find money for me to pay.....

WTF IS THAT???????

I can't get any help if I work, yet if I don't work, and can't pay any other bills I can get help on my medical bills........

Pan, I have trouble finding the martyr position of which you are accused. Please tell me if I am missing something here:

* You can only get medical help if you are NOT working.

* You can't pay your rent, buy groceries, or pay any other expenses other than medical, if you are NOT working.

"On it's face," your situation appears to be between a rock and a hard place, NOT martyrdom.

pan6467 · 11-25-2005, 08:46 PM

Thank you Elph. and that is exactly where I am at. As I stated above policy needs changed and my speaking out may get someone else thinking and doing something to change policy also. I don't see how martyrdom is even close. my choice is I work and live or I don't work and starve but my medical bills are paid for. How that is being a martyr is beyond me.

It was just UsTwo personally attacking me, childishly. I could post the letter/personal message that we both recieved from a mod to not antagonize each other, and I have IM'd mods about it, but I guess the warning meant nothing.

Perhaps, he felt it had been a month or 2 and he could get away with it, while I have not replied to any of his posts in other threads and in fact have gone out of my way to avoid even refering to him or his posts directly.

Sorry but, I am upset about being attacked on here needlessly, it was wrong and I truly believe I need an appology.

PS I won't be bullied off here, if he attacks me again I'll just leave..... I don't need to have assholes attack me when I open up about an illness and personal problem. I posted it on here to show policy needed changed and to have a debate... not be attacked and called names.

ArellaNova · 11-30-2005, 10:47 AM

I think your case is a perfect example of why there is a demand for the support of the private insurance industry.

Government let you down. Government wants to provide for everyone, but it can't. The insurance industry is in the business of risk management. Their livelyhood depends upon providing you an adequate service.

For example. I am in the same boat. Working part time and going to school part time. I can't afford massive health care coverage either, but I sacrafice some shopping, and possable vacationing to purchase my own minimum health care plan. Now I have to pay out the wazoo if I get an infection, but major emergencies -like cancer- are covered to a specific amount. I am buying assurance that for *some* drastic measures I wont go personally bankrupt.

Locobot · 11-30-2005, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

I think your case is a perfect example of why there is a demand for the support of the private insurance industry.

Government let you down. Government wants to provide for everyone, but it can't. The insurance industry is in the business of risk management. Their livelyhood depends upon providing you an adequate service.

For example. I am in the same boat. Working part time and going to school part time. I can't afford massive health care coverage either, but I sacrafice some shopping, and possable vacationing to purchase my own minimum health care plan. Now I have to pay out the wazoo if I get an infection, but major emergencies -like cancer- are covered to a specific amount. I am buying assurance that for *some* drastic measures I wont go personally bankrupt.

*cough* *gag* what? Demand for the what? Who is demanding this besides the private insurance companies? How could a for-profit company better serve the medical needs of population than a non-profit system run by the people themselves? What you're arguing for is actually the status quo in the U.S. - the Republican medical plan - which includes MORE middlemen MORE bureaucracy and MORE people cut off from medical care than a universal state-run system.

Insurance companies' primary purpose is to serve their share holders, not provide medical care. Insurance companies can, and do quite often, themselves declare bankruptcy (a much less punative process than a personal bankruptcy) in which case you've lost your medical coverage and have to start anew with a different company.

I garauntee you Arella, if you have medical catastrophe your insurance will run out long before your need for medical care will. You'll find yourself in a position similiar to Pan's where you'd be better off not working, not contributing, and dropping out.

Ustwo-I love how you complain all the time about people abusing the social welfare systems, yet when someone like Pan refuses to do so he becomes a "martyr."

Ustwo · 11-30-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

How could a for-profit company better serve the medical needs of population than a non-profit system run by the people themselves?

DMV, Post Office, IRS - Run by the people for the people.

Quote:

Ustwo-I love how you complain all the time about people abusing the social welfare systems, yet when someone like Pan refuses to do so he becomes a "martyr." You are a contemptible hypocrite Ustwo and you've never contributed anything to this board that would remotely justify your constant presence.

At first I was going to answer your first, misguided, point but then I had the misfortune of continuing to read.

I could get quite insulting with you, you are not a hard target, but I will wait for the inevitable.

Paq · 11-30-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

*cough* *gag* what? Demand for the what? Who is demanding this besides the private insurance companies? How could a for-profit company better serve the medical needs of population than a non-profit system run by the people themselves? What you're arguing for is actually the status quo in the U.S. - the Republican medical plan - which includes MORE middlemen MORE bureaucracy and MORE people cut off from medical care than a universal state-run system.

Insurance companies' primary purpose is to serve their share holders, not provide medical care. Insurance companies can, and do quite often, themselves declare bankruptcy (a much less punative process than a personal bankruptcy) in which case you've lost your medical coverage and have to start anew with a different company.

I garauntee you Arella, if you have medical catastrophe your insurance will run out long before your need for medical care will. You'll find yourself in a position similiar to Pan's where you'd be better off not working, not contributing, and dropping out.

Ustwo-I love how you complain all the time about people abusing the social welfare systems, yet when someone like Pan refuses to do so he becomes a "martyr." You are a contemptible hypocrite Ustwo and you've never contributed anything to this board that would remotely justify your constant presence.

^^^^

agreed about all the insurance stuff bc i have seen them cut off people who have had VERY treatable illnesses that, through no fault of their own, costed over the normal $1,000,000...That, to me, is astounding.

as for the Ustwo comment, i have found that the /ignore feature is great...i haven't even noticed he's gone other than when someone bitches about something he says.

Cynthetiq · 11-30-2005, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

^^^^

agreed, but i have found that the /ignore feature is great...i have'nt even noticed he's gone other than wehn someone bitches about something he says.

And more people should use it accordingly.

flstf · 11-30-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

^^^^
as for the Ustwo comment, i have found that the /ignore feature is great...i haven't even noticed he's gone other than when someone bitches about something he says.

IMHO it would be a mistake to ignore what Ustwo has to say especially in regards to the medical industry. I disagree with much of what some others post as well on political matters but still want to read their opinions. Even most of the ones I disagree with seem to be very smart people.

Paq · 11-30-2005, 03:36 PM

flstf, while i have read his stuff, i find that my life is much happier w/out his 'input' either way. i have, on occassion, agreed with what he was saying, or could, at least, see where he was coming from, but i find that every time i do, i turn around and read another post on how someone is making a martyr of themselves or how some people are lazy and good for nothing or just things that make jerry falwell seem open minded.

So, for the sake of me and any of my comments, i just use the /ignore feature anymore. Every now and then, i'll go throguh and read his stuff, but on the whole, i would rather not

Ustwo · 11-30-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

And more people should use it accordingly.

And due to the lack of comment I take it locobots type of reply is now acceptable and I can reply in kind? I don't care who I piss off with my opinions and a lot of opinions here piss me off too, but do we now accept personal insults and perhaps just use ignore?

pan6467 · 11-30-2005, 05:11 PM

DMV runs fine in Ohio, they have nothing to do with cost (except to add maybe a small $2.00 surcharge).... as for lines, maybe that's because the government needs more locations.... as it is still a government office.

Post Office gets mail out on time.... just they lost footing to technology because they were slow to pick it up... but they kept costs down and do a damned good job. Hey for 37 cents I can have a letter mailed anywhere in the US (and Canada I believe) and it'll be there within a week or less (I get letters from my sister in Prescott Az within 3 days of her mailing them).... that's not shabby. Plus, they are cheaper than UPS, FedEx..... so how are they bad? OOO I forgot they're bad because they are easy targets, they prove that they can do a job effectively, and rather cheaply.

IRS.... it's the ultimate government run beaureucracy. The IRS is bogged down by the government's tax laws..... people tend to throw stones at them for enforcing the law.... but that's all they do is enforce.

I don't see how your examples are even pertinent as all 3 run pretty effectively.

LOL Ustwo you personally come in here and insult me and then get all offended when someone calls you out.

It is true you bitch about people abusing the system and when I say I could but choose not to because I am bettering myself you call me a martyr and personally attack me. You are a hypocrite and cannot stand anyone who upstages you.

You got the same PM from Bermuda I did and YOU broke it and not a damned thing happened to you. If you had attacked me in any other thread I would have ignored you, but you chose this thread and to kick me while I was down. Well I'm up now and the kicking won't be so easy.

You start the fight and then you wait for others to get into trouble. You are an immature bully. And for all who think so...... I think it is time to use the ignore and just shut the UsTwo off. IF enough people ignore him and turn him off my guess is that he'll either just leave and find somewhere else to pick fights and bully, or he'll keep making new nicks until he gets caught and banned. It's not like we'll miss anything of substance as he never brings any facts to debate, just picks fights.

Goodbye UsTwo..... you're own hatred will destroy you.

Loco thank you...... but please be careful don't want you banned because of him. I'll bite the bullet...... he attacked me he was warned and he chose to make it personal.

WE were both told to basically leave each other alone.... yet the second he could kick me he did..... and nothing happened to him..... so I'm answering back and ending it by ignoring him and waiting because he'll attack again under a new nick.... my guess is that he has the new nicks waiting, if he hasn't used them already........ and he'll keep attacking till even those who like him start seeing him for what he is.

You want to see less fighting in this forum, make a rule that people need to back up their facts, something UsTwo does very little of.

SecretMethod70 · 11-30-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And due to the lack of comment I take it locobots type of reply is now acceptable and I can reply in kind? I don't care who I piss off with my opinions and a lot of opinions here piss me off too, but do we now accept personal insults and perhaps just use ignore?

No, and it is about to be removed. It was originally overlooked. Let this be a reminder to avoid personal insults...I know you all are capable of being more civil than that.

MoonDog · 11-30-2005, 06:36 PM

Someone stole my thunder when they recommended that you talk to your school. They can often point you to a person or office within the school that might be able to help.

I believe that my school had student insurance as well. I was looking it up just a minute ago, and the premium for the year is $1,257. It isn't the greatest plan - maxes out at $25,000 in covered expenses, but pre-existing conditions are covered. Maybe your school has something similar? Still seems to expensive for what you earn in a year.

I have no real experience in Medicaid/Medicare qualifications, although it is my understanding that borderline cases are often automatically denied, forcing people to demand a hearing, hire a lawyer, etc., before they are allowed coverage. Maybe someone could point you in the direction of a law firm that handles these types of cases?

On a personal note, my grandfather died of sarcoidosis, and you have my sympathy for the pain you have/are experiencing. I assume you are on Prednisone? Maybe the docs have cooked up something better since my grandfather passed?

To address the "topic" of the post, my father is a doctor, and he believes that there is a need for universal coverage. I believe it too, but I have no idea which method/proposal is going to be best for us, or how we can overcome the industry lobby to get it done! I think it is obvious, however, that such a program will have to be paired with reforms that address the litigious nature of American society as well.

Finally, I have to agree with some on the fact that this post - as is - might have been better located in Tilted Living. Not taking a swipe here, although it may seem that way. I just felt as I read through the posts that this was different than our "normal" discussions here. Maybe its just the more personal nature of the post?

In any case, best of luck in finding a solution.

(most appropriate emoticon I could find!)

pan6467 · 11-30-2005, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoonDog

Someone stole my thunder when they recommended that you talk to your school. They can often point you to a person or office within the school that might be able to help.

I believe that my school had student insurance as well. I was looking it up just a minute ago, and the premium for the year is $1,257. It isn't the greatest plan - maxes out at $25,000 in covered expenses, but pre-existing conditions are covered. Maybe your school has something similar? Still seems to expensive for what you earn in a year.

I have no real experience in Medicaid/Medicare qualifications, although it is my understanding that borderline cases are often automatically denied, forcing people to demand a hearing, hire a lawyer, etc., before they are allowed coverage. Maybe someone could point you in the direction of a law firm that handles these types of cases?

On a personal note, my grandfather died of sarcoidosis, and you have my sympathy for the pain you have/are experiencing. I assume you are on Prednisone? Maybe the docs have cooked up something better since my grandfather passed?

To address the "topic" of the post, my father is a doctor, and he believes that there is a need for universal coverage. I believe it too, but I have no idea which method/proposal is going to be best for us, or how we can overcome the industry lobby to get it done! I think it is obvious, however, that such a program will have to be paired with reforms that address the litigious nature of American society as well.

Finally, I have to agree with some on the fact that this post - as is - might have been better located in Tilted Living. Not taking a swipe here, although it may seem that way. I just felt as I read through the posts that this was different than our "normal" discussions here. Maybe its just the more personal nature of the post?

In any case, best of luck in finding a solution.

(most appropriate emoticon I could find!)

Thanks for the well wishes Moondog and yes, sarcoidosis can be very serious. Luckily, I have no lung damage and am not on anything yet (yes they treat with prednisone and then Chemo drugs if the pred. doesn't work), but have to be checked every 6 months.The pain while still there I am getting used to, I'll have twinges where it feels like an alien is trying to burst through my chest, or I'm being stabbed from the inside in the side belly area, but with deep breathing and calm it goes away pretty quickly.

Now, whether I have Sarcoid elsewhere (as it can affect everypart of your body) I don't know. From what I've read most white males who get it, get it in the lungs and it eventually goes away.

There is some personal nature on this, yes. Because people like you have wished me well and I have thanked them and updated my health.

However, this thread also is to talk about the need for healthcare reform and as I stated, when a policy needs changed and you can add a personal story that sayd "look what the system is doing and this needs changed" then politics (in this case) is the right forum.

I'm not asking for sympathy, pity, or anything but to address my personal situation and show why it needs changed.

Politicians use personal stories and bring out people to show their personal stories and why we need to change a policy..... EVERY politician does it. This is similar.....only I am able to discuss first hand and can explain, answer questions and offer my opinion and the facts given to me, to hopefully influence some people to realize healthcare needs fixed in the US.

There is no martyrdom..... I choose to live and better myself. But I also choose to spend as much time as possible to work for healthcare reform. If someone chooses to call me a martyr because I choose to work and expose the system instead of not working and getting my medical bills paid for as I live in a homeless shelter and lose everything I have worked for then so be it.

As for school insurance..... for a male student my age (38) the cost is out of my range, the quote I got was close to $150 a month and that still was with a high deductible and 70-30 not 80-20.

And at $20,000+ that would still be $6,000 so I'd still be heavily indebt.

The program needs changed. You can't tell someone who is trying to better their life that they need to not work so they can get their medical bills paid. My not working would mean, I would end up homeless as there is no way I could possibly get disability.... nor is there a need for me to be on disability.

That's what the point of this thread is to expose the system and say they are trying to tell someone to give up hope and just become a part of the welfare system or work, go to school then go bankrupt, have their credit destroyed and so on.

It's a catch 22. I work I lose any help, face collections, bad credit and so on, but better my life and self esteem...... I don't work I get my medical paid for but I end up homeless and trying to get into the welfare system and my self esteem goes out the door.

I choose to work. I choose to fight and expose the system and work to get others to demand we find a newer better system.

Elphaba · 11-30-2005, 10:11 PM

Pan, thank you for sharing your personal story. You have encouraged me to share a bit of mine. It is likely that we will lose our insurance at the end of the year, and no private insurance company would ever consider insuring my husband with a cancer history, or myself for that matter for other chronic issues.

Getting older and self-employed... I guess some would say that we shouldn't have followed a dream, but stayed on the money train. No regrets here, but hub and I are in for "interesting" times.

pan6467 · 11-30-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Pan, thank you for sharing your personal story. You have encouraged me to share a bit of mine. It is likely that we will lose our insurance at the end of the year, and no private insurance company would ever consider insuring my husband with a cancer history, or myself for that matter for other chronic issues.

Getting older and self-employed... I guess some would say that we shouldn't have followed a dream, but stayed on the money train. No regrets here, but hub and I are in for "interesting" times.

Elph,

I truly wish you and your hubby the best.

Yes, the insurance industry is all about profit margin now. We're numbers and with cancer or major illness the insurance gets maxed out fast and people lose everything they have worked hard for.

It's not right.

It's not what America was ever supposed to be about.

Look at Christopher Reeve, he died almost broke. If it hadn't been for Robin Williams' generosity he would have.

We as a nation can do better.

We as a nation MUST do better.

Our kids and grandkids will be the true victims if we do not change the process and system NOW.

Those who fight for the status quo do so for 1 of 2 reasons.....

1) they make more money the way the system is and they know a change would mean less money for them

2) they are just plain ignorant to the facts, would rather believe the hype that a true universal healthcare would hurt us, and choose to laugh at everyone else's "misfortune" because those people weren't as prepared as they are, plus it's only the poor affected.

But when it happens to them, and the way the system is right now, it WILL happen to anyone not ultra rich..... then they'll cry louder than anyone. Only because they were so adamnant about not changing the system when others were affected... their cries will fall on deaf ears.

NOONE working hard to better themselves and society should face bankruptcy because of a greedy system that takes advantage of others pain and suffering. Not when we have the power, the tools and the ability to help our fellow brothers and sisters live life without that fear.

GM is going bankrupt because of it, mom and pop stores the backbone of the country are going broke, the people are going broke....... but the few in control wish you to believe it is better they go broke than it is to fix the system.

If we do not fix the system and soon, we will destroy ourselves.

Who do you think pays for the medical bills of people uninsured? The taxpayers, those with insurance, every single one of us.

And are we to call ourselves a truly civilized nation if we deny true medical treatment not just emergency services to those who need it?

There are those who fight against change, and yet they have no true excuse except for greed.

Is greed what we are put on this planet for?

The funny thing is the party that espouses God and Christianity so loudly are the ones tthat Christ would expose for using others misery to make their fortunes. If need be I'll quote chapters and verses wher Jesus condemns people for such actions...... and yet the party that supposedly is built for him, the Neocons who want the Christians to believe what they are selling so they wave and thump the Bible for them...... are the ones leading them away from God's will.

As Lennon sang in the song "INSTANT KARMA".....

Quote:

Why in the world are we here
Surely not to live in pain and fear

flstf · 12-01-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Those who fight for the status quo do so for 1 of 2 reasons.....

1) they make more money the way the system is and they know a change would mean less money for them

2) they are just plain ignorant to the facts, would rather believe the hype that a true universal healthcare would hurt us, and choose to laugh at everyone else's "misfortune" because those people weren't as prepared as they are, plus it's only the poor affected.

I know several people who are against government provided healthcare who genuinely believe that the government is so inefficient that they will make the situation much worse.They are not laughing at anyone but are concerned (and rightfully so) that the federal burocracy will bring everyone's medical care down while now at least most can get decent care through their employers etc...

I agree that almost everything the government does is less efficient than the private sector. However the medical/insurance industry is so out of control that I believe the government will have to eventually provide universal healthcare. As I've said before the medical industry just doesn't seem to be capable of operating in a competitive manner.

I don't think that it is just the religious right who are resisting this change. I imagine the trial lawyers will still want the ability to sue for malpractice only now they would have to sue us (the government) which may not be possible. All polititians are being lobbied by other medical industries amd groups who have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. Our polititians seem to care more about getting contributions (and re-elected) than doing what is right for most of us. Just look at the latest bankruptcy rules they passed making it more difficult to file even though a large percentage of those filing is because of medical bills. They did this even though the credit card companies are showing record profits.

ArellaNova · 12-01-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

*cough* *gag* what? Demand for the what? Who is demanding this besides the private insurance companies? How could a for-profit company better serve the medical needs of population than a non-profit system run by the people themselves? What you're arguing for is actually the status quo in the U.S. - the Republican medical plan - which includes MORE middlemen MORE bureaucracy and MORE people cut off from medical care than a universal state-run system.

Insurance companies' primary purpose is to serve their share holders, not provide medical care. Insurance companies can, and do quite often, themselves declare bankruptcy (a much less punative process than a personal bankruptcy) in which case you've lost your medical coverage and have to start anew with a different company.

I garauntee you Arella, if you have medical catastrophe your insurance will run out long before your need for medical care will. You'll find yourself in a position similiar to Pan's where you'd be better off not working, not contributing, and dropping out.

Ustwo-I love how you complain all the time about people abusing the social welfare systems, yet when someone like Pan refuses to do so he becomes a "martyr."

My faimly happens to be in the business so I have an insiders view on what is the objective of private insurers, and also as a consumer myself. As I said, I pay for my own private coverage. The private coverage doesn't guarentee that if something horrible does happen I don't have to pay a cent. That is unrealistic to expect from anyone. It does, however, cover me up to a certian amount. For example, if I were, unfortunatly, in the situation described above, I would only have had to pay 12 thousand instead of the full 20.

I don't beleive you understood my use of the word "demand". I meant demand as in "supply and demand". Insurance companies supply a service (called risk management) and there is a demand for such services because shit happens.

You beleive that government programs are "non-for-profit"? This seems ludicrous to me that you would beleive this and I would like to understand why. If the Government ran under a non-for-profit basis they would take charitible donations instead of taxes.

Yes, it is you who are paying for it. And it is me. I, in my taxes, pay for the risk management (by the government) of thousands of other individuals. I also pay for my own. The taxes I can not help. The individual coverage is just self-responsability.

Indeed, I would be better off - as an individual - scamming the system and letting apathy take over my own beleif in individual economic enterprise. I could save myself thousands of dollars by choosing to live off of the "forced donations" of others.

I would choose not to.

As far as the companies declaring bankruptcy. That is why you shop wisely. Is it the companies fault that they fell under? Yes. Did they foce you to buy their policy? No.

Pan's situation is not ideal, but we all choose whether to take precautions or not. Nothing may ever happen to me in my lifetime and I may die peacfull in my bed, having wasted thousands of dollars on healthcare coverage that I never used. Okay then, I will take that over being sick, or having the risk of being uncovered anyday.

ArellaNova · 12-01-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Our kids and grandkids will be the true victims if we do not change the process and system NOW.

The same with Social Security. The same with rising Taxes. The same with social morality deteroriation - or rising social acceptance (whichever side you see it from)

Quote:

2) they are just plain ignorant to the facts, would rather believe the hype that a true universal healthcare would hurt us, and choose to laugh at everyone else's "misfortune" because those people weren't as prepared as they are, plus it's only the poor affected

True Universal Healthcare hasn't done much for Canada. It is not the idea that people should be helped that "they" are fighting. It is the realistic view that "life sucks, and there is only so much we can do, lets not make a system that would take away the good things about our society, like individual freedom of choice, and the free market."

It's only the poor that are affected? Is that just your opinion, or are there statistics or studies behind there, somwhere.

It COULD happen to ANYONE. The world could end tomorrow. And, to point out the futility of it all, we are all going to die anyway. I like it when everything is in a realistic perspective that way.

Quote:

There are those who fight against change, and yet they have no true excuse except for greed.

Do you equate greed with entreprenurial ambitions?

Quote:

And are we to call ourselves a truly civilized nation if we deny true medical treatment not just emergency services to those who need it?

I would refute that Doctors need to eat to, and because everyone who got free or government sunsidized health care is busy suing them they are not having such an easy time of it.

Quote:

The funny thing is the party that espouses God and Christianity so loudly are the ones that Christ would expose for using others misery to make their fortunes. If need be I'll quote chapters and verses wher Jesus condemns people for such actions...... and yet the party that supposedly is built for him, the Neocons who want the Christians to believe what they are selling so they wave and thump the Bible for them...... are the ones leading them away from God's will.

Do you expect Christians to be perfect? I say then that you ask to much of mere mortals.

The conservative movement is built for God? News ot me.

NeoCons have their opinions, same as liberals, and there are devout Christians on both sides. I would ask, why bring Christianity into a matter of economics and political reform.

If I had to guess (and this is mearly a matter of opinion) you are in a situation that you did not expect. It is tragic. It is costing you dearly - not only in resources, but in emotions and daily life as well. You are angry. You see the people who are billing you for your medical expenses as being unmerciful. You see the system as choosing to screw you over by its inherant nature.

If that is the case there is no help for you. You said at the start that you work hard to put yourself through school. If at all possable, don't cease that. Don't cease trying to understand the world God has put before you. Don't become so wrapped up in bitterness that you demand everyday that society change because you were hurt.

Rather stretch yourself. Adapt and overcome. Having been through this fire you will know no end to your personal growth if you can just keep your eye on what is important.

I disagree with your solution to your problem, for it is your problem we are discussing here, not societies. We are all self-interested people. Something only matters to us when it affects us "close to home". The solution to your problem lies within you and how you coose to work in the system that you are presented with.

Understand, I am not apathetic. I have no idea what you are going through, personally, but understand its traumatic and life changing nature. I have nothing but hopes and good prayers for you. Good Luck.

pan6467 · 12-01-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

The same with Social Security. The same with rising Taxes. The same with social morality deteroriation - or rising social acceptance (whichever side you see it from) .

If society is deteriorating, I would argue that is is not lack of morals, bur greed and fear. The fact there are more people living in the US that are unable to achieve advancement. The fact that multinational conglomerates and faceless companies own the shops and places of employment. That there is very little community involvement or loyalty from these places.

America was built with communities and pride. It is now built on greed.

There is your moral decay.

Quote:

True Universal Healthcare hasn't done much for Canada. It is not the idea that people should be helped that "they" are fighting. It is the realistic view that "life sucks, and there is only so much we can do, lets not make a system that would take away the good things about our society, like individual freedom of choice, and the free market."

I maybe wrong, but from the way the Canadians on this forum talk and others I have met, their healthcare works better than ours. Britain, Japan, Sweden, Norway, France, Germany, Italy, and on and on.... all have a form of socialized medicine, all pay less, and all have lower infant mortality rates. (We're 42nd in the world...... link: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2091rank.html)

The reason theose countries are attacked about their healthcare is because it works and the US right and Healthcare industry are scared to death if the people knew we'd get it here. (and my next post will show this.... this post is to answer you directly.)

Quote:

It's only the poor that are affected? Is that just your opinion, or are there statistics or studies behind there, somwhere. It COULD happen to ANYONE. The world could end tomorrow. And, to point out the futility of it all, we are all going to die anyway. I like it when everything is in a realistic perspective that way.

No, I argued that eventually everyone but the ultra rich will be affected. Who do you think pays the poor's healthcare? With hospital, medicine, doctor rates as they stand now, it does not take long to reach that million dollar ceiling and lose everything.

Where did I say it only happens to the poor?

Quote:

Do you equate greed with entreprenurial ambitions?

NOt at all, but in the healthcare industry, absolutely there is no doubt.

Quote:

I would refute that Doctors need to eat to, and because everyone who got free or government sunsidized health care is busy suing them they are not having such an easy time of it.

Lawsuits are not as costly as the Right would have you believe. There maybe frivilous lawsuits but my feeling is they get thrown out. Name 1 frivilous lawsuit against a hospital or doctor that has made any news whatsoever. Just 1.

Quote:

Do you expect Christians to be perfect? I say then that you ask to much of mere mortals.

The conservative movement is built for God? News ot me. NeoCons have their opinions, same as liberals, and there are devout Christians on both sides. I would ask, why bring Christianity into a matter of economics and political reform.

No I am saying that these Christians the Right has suckered into supporting their party are being led down a road that is taking them farther away from Christ's teachings.

I bring Christ in because 1) the healthcare industry is run for greed, how is that helping people? What would Jesus Do?

2) I bring Jesus in to show "devout Christians" how the neo Cons are suckering them in. The Neo Cons fight for Jesus, "the US was founded on Christianity... the Left is Godless, immoral, and so on..."

those are their cries to get that religious vote.... is it not?

So then why would a party so in tuned with what the Bible says about Homosexuality, abortion, sex in the media, and so on, be ok with a basic human need ran for extreme profit?

Where does Jesus say "Make sure they have that HMO card and can pay the deductible, before you help them"? Where does it say that?

I argue Christ preached we should help our fellow brothers and sisters and in doing so the reward is far greater in Heaven.

But it seems to me that this party, that refuses change, that claims they are "the friend of the conservative Christian" "God's Party", believes that man's illnesses are there for him to make great profit on. And for those who can't pay, well they can lose everything, get sicker and die..... more for us.

So where is the Christian outrage against this party that treats man as profit?

The Neo-Cons have sold this group a bill of fluff and have gotten them silent on the issues that provide profit.

Quote:

If I had to guess (and this is mearly a matter of opinion) you are in a situation that you did not expect. It is tragic. It is costing you dearly - not only in resources, but in emotions and daily life as well. You are angry. You see the people who are billing you for your medical expenses as being unmerciful. You see the system as choosing to screw you over by its inherant nature.

Actually, I didn't expect this, who does? It is costing me dearly.

Am I angry? No, because I could have refused treatment, I knew the cost.

Do I see those people as unmerciful? Not at all, they have done all the system could allow to help me.

I see the system as flawed, as destructive and as eventually a force that will bankrupt America, run for greed, not for what it's true purpose is, and that is to help keep people healthy and productive.

When the system tells someone to stop working so that their bills can be paid.... one has to wonder who would pay the bills then, why would they want me to stop working, and why is society letting this farce continue?

Are you saying I'm the only one going through this? Am I the only one who has been told to stop working?

I'm not I'm just being vocal and saying the system needs changed now. Before it is too late.

Quote:

If that is the case there is no help for you. You said at the start that you work hard to put yourself through school. If at all possable, don't cease that. Don't cease trying to understand the world God has put before you. Don't become so wrapped up in bitterness that you demand everyday that society change because you were hurt.

I am not wrapped up in bitterness, I am quite happy and thankful. However, I am being very vocal about the system and demanding change.

Nice spin though. Get it to look like I am the bitter one, that I am the loose spoke, that the system is ok, it's just me. Then offer nothing that shows how the system works.

Quote:

Rather stretch yourself. Adapt and overcome. Having been through this fire you will know no end to your personal growth if you can just keep your eye on what is important.

You obviously know nothing about me.

Quote:

I disagree with your solution to your problem, for it is your problem we are discussing here, not societies. We are all self-interested people. Something only matters to us when it affects us "close to home". The solution to your problem lies within you and how you coose to work in the system that you are presented with.

Again, make this my problem and that way you can dismiss it. It is very much a societal problem.

If say 1,000,000 uninsured people go to the hospital, get the treatment I gotand can't pay and are told to not work so that the bills get paid and 250,000 (a low number I have a feeling) say okay. And so they stop working.

How is that scenario helping society? Is that not more tax money to pay for those bills, is that not higher insurance premiums to pay for those bills, more homeless housing, more tax dollars in the form of welfare that is shelled out? More crime from those who have lost everything because of the inherent greed of the system?

So it is very much a societal problem. Not just mine, because I'll survive...... but I see the need for change and I will not be silent about it. I will be very vocal and demanding change and I will share my story, my experience to others and hopefully others will and people will see the truth about the system and not what the Right and the Industry spin as the truth.

Quote:

Understand, I am not apathetic. I have no idea what you are going through, personally, but understand its traumatic and life changing nature. I have nothing but hopes and good prayers for you. Good Luck

I don't believe you are apethetic. I think you don't see the true toll the system and the industry's greed is extolling from the nation.

You believe the status quo to be perfectly fine in a pure capitalistic society. But America is not a pure capitalistic society. America is founded on social supports to keep it strong.

It all boils down to this..... and I have yet to see a defense of the system, except attacks on me, my character, on this not being a society problem because, I'm the affected one and I speak out in anger and whatever......

So because I can relate what I see as wrong with the system, since I can say the system is fucked up and give explicit accounts and detailed examples.... it's just all me.

Yet, there is not one argument on here how the current system is what it claims. There is not one example truly defending the industry.

Instead it is attacks on me. I need to prove why we need change?

I am....... it is the side that refuses change, that lives on the greed, that shows no defense only attacks.

Claiming this is not a societal problem, this is not political...... when the truth is it is very much a societal problem, it is very much a political problem and it needs changed and it needs voices to come forward, that won't be silenced, that can't be bought off, that can share their experiences to change it.

People are paying for my medical care, people would be paying more if I stopped working...... keep watching the premiums raise, keep watching as more and more uninsured decide to drop out so that their bills will be paid for.... how long does this have to go on before people see the need to start demanding change?

pan6467 · 12-01-2005, 11:27 AM

I don't know how well this will come out as there are charts and I suck at ccping charts....

Here's the link: http://www.eriposte.com/health/other/healthcare_US.htm

It compares our healthcare spending to 23 other "civilized nations" and how we finish last in just about every category. We spend more of our GDP on healthcare than any other nation and we get less results. And yet these 23 other nations have some form of Universal Healthcare.....

so 23 - 1 and we show worst...... which system works best???????

Quote:

HEALTHCARE IN THE UNITED STATES: PART I

MYTHS VS. REALITIES IN HEALTHCARE SPENDING and HEALTH METRICS - UNITED STATES v. OTHER WEALTHY CAPITALIST COUNTRIES

Healthcare costs have been soaring in the United States for some time now. In that context, I came across some data published by some bloggers on healthcare spending in the U.S. vs. health metrics and how it compares to data from a bunch of other wealthy capitalist countries. The data is limited, but at face value it shows interesting trends which appear to contradict what is commonly stated by some conservatives - namely that public spending on healthcare is to be avoided because it is less efficient and less effective. Indeed, the data suggests that the opposite could be true in some cases. (In Part II, I highlight myths versus realities on prescription drug costs (for brand-name drugs) in the United States).

I. REFERENCES

II. DATA

III. EXCLUSIONS

IV. RESULTS

IV-A. INFANT MORTALITY

IV-B. LIFE EXPECTANCY

IV-C. PRACTICING PHYSICIANS

IV-D. HEALTHCARE SPENDING

V. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

VI. AFTERWORD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. REFERENCES

The main references for the data/charts shown below are the following:
[1] Brian Weatherson, Crooked Timber, 11/20/03
[2] Kieran Healy, Crooked Timber, 7/14/04 - via Kevin Drum (Political Animal)
[3] Kevin Drum, Political Animal, 5/20/04

II. DATA

Brian [1] provides much of the data I use for the charts in this page. Here is the crux of what Brian found:

For amusement I was traipsing through the OECD health stats for various countries, and I was stunned by one of the things that springs out of the data - health care systems that are government run or funded tend to be cheaper despite being just as effective in every respect, and more effective in some respects. I'm sure someone somewhere has analysed the data properly, but even a crude analysis suggests the empirical case for having a government run or funded health care system is quite strong.

Brian shows a table with a wealth of useful information - I am not reproducing the table here. What I have done is import his data (mostly from 1999, taken from the OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and chart it into relevant graphs. Although the data is not up-to-date, it is quite acceptable for this preliminary analysis.

III. EXCLUSIONS

Brian provides data for 30 countries - mostly from Europe and North America. What I did was to reduce the country list to 24 - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.

I excluded the following countries - Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Slovak Republic and Turkey. I believe there are good reasons why these countries could be excluded for this preliminary "analysis" (for lack of a better word).
(a) Countries that have only recently become capitalistic ("New Europe" as opposed to "Old Europe") or those that are not part of the traditionally wealthy, capitalistic economies (Mexico, Turkey) should not be compared one-to-one with the richer, capitalistic economies of the West.
(b) Even if the exclusion seems arbitrary (which I don't believe it is), my goal is to compare the wealthier, capitalistic nations amongst each other, to see how the U.S. fares in comparison. In itself, this is a justifiable comparison. There is no specific requirement that the system in the U.S. has to be compared with every country possible for the objective of this study is to understand whether a more efficient and effective system is possible, not to quantitatively judge every system that exists.

IV. RESULTS

Brain [1] already summarized the results in brief. I show the same results in chart form to highlight some key points.

IV-A. INFANT MORTALITY

The U.S. had about the worst infant mortality compared to the 23 other wealthy capitalist countries, even though healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was highest in the U.S. Note, though, that total healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was not a very good predictor of infant mortality as a whole.

Also, the U.S. had almost the lowest amount of public healthcare spending among these countries. Interestingly, higher public spending on healthcare seems to have a slight (positive) correlation to better infant mortality, but only slight.

IV-B. LIFE EXPECTANCY

The U.S. had close to the lowest male and female life expectancies at birth compared to the 23 other wealthy capitalist countries, even though healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was highest in the U.S. and public healthcare spending as a percentage of total healthcare spending was almost the lowest in the U.S. Higher public spending on healthcare (as a percentage of total healthcare spending) and higher healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP were more generally associated with better life expectancies - but there are exceptions.

IV-C. PRACTICING PHYSICIANS

Although higher healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP in the 24 wealthy capitalist countries was more generally associated with more practicing physicians per 1000 population, the U.S. was again an exception - there were significantly fewer practicing physicians in the U.S. per 1000 population when compared to the amount of healthcare spending/GDP.

Note that physician count was not very strongly dependent, however, on the percentage of total healthcare spending that was public spending.

IV-D. HEALTHCARE SPENDING

Even though the U.S. had nearly the least amount of public healthcare spending, the per capita healthcare expenses in the U.S. and the total healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP in the U.S. were the highest among the 24 countries examined.

The former was true even when data in the timeframe of 1990-2001 was charted (last chart below).

CHART FROM REFERENCE [2]

V. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

Now, I am more than willing to acknowledge that it is hard to draw definitive conclusions from the data above, for several reasons, including such factors like:
(a) The data being limited,
(b) The error bars on the data not being known
(c) Potential nuances in the collection and interpretation of the data.
(d) The types of health issues that dominate in one country compared to the other (which in turn depends on the culture, lifestyle, environment, etc.)

But, having said that, at the minimum there are some interesting trends here. The trends appear to suggest that there are inefficiencies in healthcare system in the U.S., to the point that the ideological reliance on private spending/plans over public/spending plans is NOT so easily justifiable. Indeed, if the trends above are real, then it is quite possible that more public spending on healthcare could indeed be a more efficient use of money and might get more effective results - if well managed.

I would say that this data calls for more systematic analysis of healthcare costs in the U.S. and a real debate on this - that involves not just ideological biases but lots more data and reality.

Thanks to Brian Weatherson, Kieran Healy and Kevin Drum for educating us!

NOTE: In Part II, I highlight some key points on the myths vs. realities of high prescription drug costs (for brand-name drugs) in the U.S.

VI. AFTERWORD

Kevin's words [3] are appropriate:

FRENCH HEALTHCARE....The Economist provides a capsule summary of healthcare in France:

Its hospitals gleam. Waiting-lists are non-existent. Doctors still make home visits. Life expectancy is two years longer than average for the western world.

....For the patient, the French health system is still a joy. Same-day appointments can be made easily; if one doctor's advice displeases, you can consult another, a habit known as nomadisme médical. Individual hospital rooms are the norm. Specialists can be consulted without referral. And while the patient pays up front, almost all the money is reimbursed, either through the public insurance system or a top-up private policy.

For family doctors too, liberty prevails. They are self-employed, can set up a practice where they like, prescribe what they like, and are paid per consultation. As the health ministry's own diagnosis put it recently: “The French system offers more freedom than any other in the world.”

And despite the Economist's scary headline, which proclaims that "crisis looms," the French system provides this service to everyone in the country and does it for less than half the cost per person of the U.S. Even if they decide to raise taxes to cover a growing deficit in their healthcare fund (the subject of the Economist's article) their costs will still be less than half ours per person.

Now, there are undoubtedly drawbacks to the French system. They probably have fewer high-tech machines than we do, and the comparative cost figures may be skewed by the American love of elective procedures. Still, there would have to be a lot of drawbacks to make their system less attractive than ours.

So why not adopt it? Well, that would be socialized medicine. Can't have that, can we? After all, everyone knows that when you socialize something it automatically declines slowly into anarchy and uselessness. Right?

Sorry the charts didn't come out.... perhaps a Mod can help.... if not simply click the link.

pan6467 · 12-01-2005, 11:34 AM

Here's part 2 no charts in this one. Please debate the facts.... don't attack the source, that's not debate. That's being defensive and trying to put the other side on a defensive so that they can make a mistake and you can then capitalize on it.... all the while your side shows nothing, proves nothing, and claims victory. But who wins? Not the people, not society as a whole....

LINK: http://www.eriposte.com/health/other...ondrugs_US.htm

Quote:

HEALTHCARE IN THE UNITED STATES: PART II

MYTHS V. REALITIES ON PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS
IN THE UNITED STATES

Healthcare costs have been soaring in the United States for some time now. In Part I, I charted some data that was generated by Brian Weatherson (Crooked Timber, 11/20/03) and Kieran Healy (Crooked Timber, 7/14/04 - via Kevin Drum) that compared U.S. healthcare spending and health metrics versus those in numerous other wealthy, capitalist countries. That data showed how, contrary to commonly transmitted conservative fables, higher public spending on healthcare could potentially bring significant benefits to Americans.

In this page (Part II), I cover some relevant issues related to the high prescription drug costs in the U.S. I applaud the pharmaceutical industry for bringing more and more life-saving drugs into the market, but note with some chagrin that greed, rather than high R&D costs, is the main reason for high prescription drug prices for brand-name drugs in the United States. Businesses should be run with profitability being one of the key goals, but profitability should not be an excuse for greed.

I. KEY REFERENCES

II. SPENDING ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN THE U.S.

III. DRUG PRICES AND PRICE INCREASES OF HIGHLY USED BRAND-NAME PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

IV. CAUSE OF HIGH PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES

IV-A. INDUSTRY CLAIM: Very High R&D costs are a big reason

IV-B. REALITY: GREED, NOT HIGH R&D COSTS, are a big reason

1. R&D costs by themselves are not really "high" when compared to total profits

2. Industry R&D costs are significantly subsidized by taxpayer-funded research

3. Industry R&D costs are significantly subsidized by lower tax rates and Government subsidies

4. Industry is not really as innovative as it would lead you to believe -- with only a fifth or less drugs being really new (versus "me-too" drugs)

5. Pharmaceutical Industry is usually the MOST profitable industry in the United States (so much for "high" costs!)

6. Rather than R&D costs, the biggest chunk of industry costs comes from advertising and marketing (especially non-innovative drugs)

7. The Pharmaceutical industry is subsidized by highly preferential monopoly power (via astonishingly generous patent "laws") granted by the Governments they successfully lobbied

V. PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TODAY: FACING A "PERFECT STORM"? PERHAPS, PERHAPS NOT

VI. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. KEY REFERENCES

The main references used here are the following:
[1] Marcia Angell, "The Truth about the Drug Companies", New York Review of Books, Vo. 51, Issue 12, 7/15/04
[2] Families USA, "Sticker Shock: Rising Prescription Drug Prices for Seniors"", June 2004
[3] Public Citizen, "Rx R&D Myths: The Case Against the Drug Industry's R&D 'Scare Card' ", July 2001
[4] Progress Report, Center for American Progress, 7/2/04

II. SPENDING ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN THE U.S.

Per Ref. [1]:

Americans now spend a staggering $200 billion a year on prescription drugs, and that figure is growing at a rate of about 12 percent a year (down from a high of 18 percent in 1999).
...
From 1960 to 1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as a percent of US gross domestic product, but from 1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more than $200 billion a year.[6] Of the many events that contributed to the industry's great and good fortune, none had to do with the quality of the drugs the companies were selling.

The claim that drugs are a $200 billion industry is an understatement. According to government sources, that is roughly how much Americans spent on prescription drugs in 2002. That figure refers to direct consumer purchases at drugstores and mail-order pharmacies (whether paid for out of pocket or not), and it includes the nearly 25 percent markup for wholesalers, pharmacists, and other middlemen and retailers. But it does not include the large amounts spent for drugs administered in hospitals, nursing homes, or doctors' offices (as is the case for many cancer drugs). In most analyses, they are allocated to costs for those facilities.

Drug company revenues (or sales) are a little different, at least as they are reported in summaries of corporate annual reports. They usually refer to a company's worldwide sales, including those to health facilities. But they do not include the revenues of middlemen and retailers.

Perhaps the most quoted source of statistics on the pharmaceutical industry, IMS Health, estimated total worldwide sales for prescription drugs to be about $400 billion in 2002. About half were in the United States. So the $200 billion colossus is really a $400 billion megacolossus.

III. DRUG PRICES AND PRICE INCREASES OF BRAND-NAME PRESCRIPTION DRUGS MOST USED BY SENIORS

Ref. [2] provides an idea of how the prices of common prescription drugs have been increasing in recent years. Key points to note:

The prices of the 30 brand-name drugs most frequently used by the elderly rose by 4.3 times the rate of inflation in 2003. On average, the cost of these 30 heavily prescribed drugs increased by 6.5 percent from January 2003 to January 2004, while the rate of inflation, excluding energy, was 1.5 percent during that same period.
...
Of the 30 brand-name drugs most frequently used by the elderly, all but four have been on the market for over three years. The prices of those 26 drugs increased, on average, by 3.6 times the rate of inflation, or 21.6 per-cent, from January 2001 to January 2004. Inflation for the same period was 6 percent.
...
Not only did the prices of these brand-name drugs increase rapidly, but they also increased often. Fifteen of the 30, or half, had more than one price increase in the one-year period from January 2003 to January 2004. Eighteen, or more than two-thirds of the drugs marketed for the three-year period of January 2001 to January 2004, increased in price more than three times.

As one might expect, PhRMA (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association) has been quick to denounce the Families USA study for focusing on wholesale prices, rather than retail prices that includes discounts. For example, they state here that:

Families USA has chosen to misinform consumers and policymakers by citing only undiscounted prices, while ignoring pharmaceutical companies’ patient assistance programs that offer free medicines, pharmaceutical company discount programs for seniors, and other discounted prices that are widely available to seniors.

Millions of patients without access to needed medicines have been helped through PhRMA member companies’ patient assistance programs. In 2002, an estimated 5.5 million patients received 14 million prescriptions free of charge through these programs. Families USA never mentions these programs. While Families USA concentrates on making political points by misinforming consumers, PhRMA’s member companies are working to help patients unable to afford medicines get the medicines they need. That’s why we’ve created www.helpingpatients.org as a one-stop source of information about patient assistance programs and other types of assistance.
...
They also go on to deride Families USA for ignoring the benefits that new drugs bring (in terms of saving more lives), the under-use of prescription drugs (!) etc.

First of all, the issue of "benefits", while relevant is overblown. By definition, all new products bring some "benefits" to some (or many) consumers, risks to some and no benefits to others. Obviously, PhRMA will agree that it makes no business sense for them to guarantee "immortality" with a new drug if it costs $10 Billion per pill for the consumer. In other words, the bottom line is (and should be) whether or not the company makes enough money to continue to fund more research, make new/improved drugs and remain profitable - and NOT whether the benefits are so great that one should not complain about the price at all. Benefits cannot be divorced from price - but the question is whether the price is fair compared to that paid by consumers for other kinds of benefits they get from other products (e.g., unaffordable car prices may prevent those who need to commute several tens of miles to their jobs from doing so - and thus potentially forcing them into poverty through lost jobs. Does this mean, that the benefit from a car is so vast that no one should complain about high car prices - especially if the price of the same car model significantly increases every year (faster than inflation) rather than decrease (either due to competition or model age)?...)

Secondly, the claim - that using average wholesale prices [AWP] to calculate price increases is misleading - is itself...misleading. Families USA explains why:

Some people suggest that AWP is not an accurate measure of drug prices paid by consumers because so many consumers enjoy discounts negotiated by discount card vendors, managed care organizations, and other bulk purchasers. For example, beginning in June 2004, Medicare will endorse multiple vendors that will market "Medicare approved" drug discount cards. These cards will be available to seniors and others in Medicare, similar to the senior discount cards that have been marketed for years.

The availability of discount cards does not negate the importance of AWP as a measure of price and, particularly, as a measure of price increases. AWP is the base price frequently used by payers and discount card vendors when negotiating with drug manufacturers. It is often the base from which consumer discounts are calculated. Changes in AWP signal changes in the base price charged to insurers and other payers and changes in the price from which discounts are calculated. As a result, increases in AWP have a direct bearing on prices paid by a wide range of prescription drug purchasers, including consumers using a discount card. Therefore, AWP continues to be a good measure of drug price inflation.

This has also been pointed out by AARP, in their own study which also highlighted high prices of prescription drugs:

[The study] focuses on the price that drug manufacturers charge wholesalers because that is a substantial component of the final retail price. A change in the price the drug manufacturers charge to wholesalers generally results in a similar percent change in the price that you, the consumer, pay.

Talking about discounts or lack thereof, it is also interesting to note the following, as Ref. [1] points out:

For obvious reasons, the elderly tend to need more prescription drugs than younger people—mainly for chronic conditions like arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol. In 2001, nearly one in four seniors reported that they skipped doses or did not fill prescriptions because of the cost. (That fraction is almost certainly higher now.) Sadly, the frailest are the least likely to have supplementary insurance. At an average cost of $1,500 a year for each drug, someone without supplementary insurance who takes six different prescription drugs—and this is not rare—would have to spend $9,000 out of pocket. Not many among the old and frail have such deep pockets.

Furthermore, in one of the more perverse of the pharmaceutical industry's practices, prices are much higher for precisely the people who most need the drugs and can least afford them. The industry charges Medicare recipients without supplementary insurance much more than it does favored customers, such as large HMOs or the Veterans Affairs (VA) system. Because the latter buy in bulk, they can bargain for steep discounts or rebates. People without insurance have no bargaining power; and so they pay the highest prices.

It must be clarified that Families USA focuses on drug prices of brand-name drugs, and not generic drugs. They explain the reason for this.

Brand-name-only drugs—drugs for which there are no generic or co-marketed alternatives—are the primary drivers of inflation in prescription drug costs. Since 1999, Families USA has monitored price increases among the 50 drugs most frequently used by seniors. Our studies have consistently found that prices for generics rose only slightly and that prices for brand-name drugs increased by many times the rate of inflation. Because frequently prescribed brand-name drugs are the principal contributor to drug price inflation, they are the focus of this report.

Clearly, this qualification is important. I believe it is relevant to focus on brand-name drugs because these are the ones which presumably are the main results of the drug companies' R&D and investments and therefore play a key role in enabling them to be profitable. Put another way, brand name drugs ostensibly represent the results of the drug companies' innovation and they are the ones that the drug companies have the best justification to price higher.

A final point on pricing and comparison to inflation. One may ask why drug price changes rather than medical inflation - are compared to general inflation. The answer is simple. In this section, we are trying to understand if prescription drug prices are reasonable or not - not whether general medical costs are high or not! Familes USA answers this question in a more nuanced way in their report (page 13).

IV. CAUSE OF HIGH PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES

IV-A. INDUSTRY CLAIM: Very high R&D costs are a big reason

As Ref. [1] points out:

Boiled down to its essentials, [the message from the Pharmaceutical Industry] is this: "Yes, prescription drugs are expensive, but that shows how valuable they are. Besides, our research and development costs are enormous, and we need to cover them somehow. As 'research-based' companies, we turn out a steady stream of innovative medicines that lengthen life, enhance its quality, and avert more expensive medical care. You are the beneficiaries of this ongoing achievement of the American free enterprise system, so be grateful, quit whining, and pay up." More prosaically, what the industry is saying is that you get what you pay for.
...
As a spokeswoman for one company explained, "Price increases are not uncommon in the industry and this allows us to be able to invest in R&D."

As Ref. [3] points out:

PhRMA’s central claim is that the industry needs extraordinary profits to fund expensive, risky and innovative research and development (R&D) for new drugs. If anything is done to moderate prices or profits, R&D will suffer, and, as PhRMA’s president recently claimed, "it’s going to harm millions of Americans who have life-threatening conditions."

IV-B. REALITY: GREED, NOT HIGH R&D COSTS, are a big reason

Don't get me wrong here. I am all for the pharmaceutical industry to be profitable and for people who own those industries to make a great living. Indeed, the pharmaceutical industry needs to be thanked for extending the lifetimes of human beings across the globe. That is a noble thing worth applauding.

However, I just think the facts should be made clear on why drug costs are high, and it needs to be pointed out that contrary to Wall Street's so-called "wisdom", greed and profitability are two separate things when we are talking about what is good for the country as a whole.

1. R&D costs for the pharmaceutical industry are not really "high" when compared to total profits

As Ref. [3] points out:

Using government studies, company filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, Public Citizen’s report exposes the industry’s R&D claims:

The drug industry’s claim that R&D costs total $500 million for each new drug (including failures) is highly misleading. Extrapolated from an often-misunderstood 1991 study by economist Joseph DiMasi, the $500 million figure includes significant expenses that are tax deductible and unrealistic scenarios of risks.
The actual after-tax cash outlay – or what drug companies really spend on R&D – for each new drug (including failures) according to the DiMasi study is approximately $110 million. (That’s in year 2000 dollars, based on data provided by drug companies.) (See Section I)
A simpler measure – also derived from data provided by the industry – suggests that after-tax R&D costs ranged from $57 million to $71 million for the average new drug brought to market in the 1990s, including failures. (See Section II)
As Ref. [1] points out (bold text is eRiposte emphasis):

Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000.

2. Pharmaceutical industry R&D costs are significantly subsidized by taxpayer-funded research

As Ref. [3] points out:

Industry R&D risks and costs are often significantly reduced by taxpayer-funded research, which has helped launch the most medically important drugs in recent years and many of the best-selling drugs, including all of the top five sellers in one recent year surveyed (1995).
An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. (See Section III)
3. Pharmaceutical industry R&D costs are significantly subsidized by lower tax rates and Government subsidies

As Ref. [3] points out:

In addition to receiving research subsidies, the drug industry is lightly taxed, thanks to tax credits. The drug industry’s effective tax rate is about 40 percent less than the average for all other industries. (See Section VII)
Drug companies also receive a huge financial incentive for testing the effects of drugs on children. This incentive called pediatric exclusivity, which Congress may reauthorize this year, amounts to $600 million in additional profits per year for the drug industry – and that’s just to get companies to test the safety of several hundred drugs for children. It is estimated that the cost of such tests is less than $100 million a year. (See Section VIII)
4. The pharmaceutical industry is not really as innovative as it would lead you to believe -- with only a fifth or less drugs being really new (versus "me-too" drugs)

As Ref. [3] points out:

Drug industry R&D is made less risky by the fact that only about 22 percent of the new drugs brought to market in the last two decades were innovative drugs that represented important therapeutic gains over existing drugs. Most were "me-too" drugs, which often replicate existing successful drugs. (See Section VI)
As Ref. [1] points out:

...the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of "new" drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called "me-too" drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first. As Dr. Sharon Levine, associate executive director of the Kaiser Permanente Medical Group, put it,

If I'm a manufacturer and I can change one molecule and get another twenty years of patent rights, and convince physicians to prescribe and consumers to demand the next form of Prilosec, or weekly Prozac instead of daily Prozac, just as my patent expires, then why would I be spending money on a lot less certain endeavor, which is looking for brand-new drugs?[4]
...drug companies no longer have to rely on their own research for new drugs, and few of the large ones do. Increasingly, they rely on academia, small biotech startup companies, and the NIH for that.[7] At least a third of drugs marketed by the major drug companies are now licensed from universities or small biotech companies, and these tend to be the most innovative ones.[8]

5.The pharmaceutical industry is usually the MOST profitable industry in the United States (so much for "high" *any* costs!)

As Ref. [3] points out:

Drug industry R&D does not appear to be as risky as companies claim. In every year since 1982, the drug industry has been the most profitable in the United States, according to Fortune magazine’s rankings. During this time, the drug industry’s returns on revenue (profit as a percent of sales) have averaged about three times the average for all other industries represented in the Fortune 500. It defies logic that R&D investments are highly risky if the industry is consistently so profitable and returns on investments are so high. (See Section V)
As Ref. [1] points out:

In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind "mining, crude oil production," and "commercial banks.") The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

...

The top ten drug companies (which included European companies) had profits of nearly 25 percent of sales in 1990, and except for a dip at the time of President Bill Clinton's health care reform proposal, profits as a percentage of sales remained about the same for the next decade. (Of course, in absolute terms, as sales mounted, so did profits.) In 2001, the ten American drug companies in the Fortune 500 list (not quite the same as the top ten worldwide, but their profit margins are much the same) ranked far above all other American industries in average net return, whether as a percentage of sales (18.5 percent), of assets (16.3 percent), or of shareholders' equity (33.2 percent). These are astonishing margins. For comparison, the median net return for all other industries in the Fortune 500 was only 3.3 percent of sales. Commercial banking, itself no slouch as an aggressive industry with many friends in high places, was a distant second, at 13.5 percent of sales.[11]

In 2002, as the economic downturn continued, big pharma showed only a slight drop in profits—from 18.5 to 17.0 percent of sales. The most startling fact about 2002 is that the combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion).[12] In 2003 profits of the Fortune 500 drug companies dropped to 14.3 percent of sales, still well above the median for all industries of 4.6 percent for that year. When I say this is a profitable industry, I mean really profitable. It is difficult to conceive of how awash in money big pharma is.

Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called "marketing and administration"—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade.[13] Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.

These figures are drawn from the industry's own annual reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and to stockholders, but what actually goes into these categories is not at all clear, because drug companies hold that information very close to their chests. It is likely, for instance, that R&D includes many activities most people would consider marketing, but no one can know for sure. For its part, "marketing and administration" is a gigantic black box that probably includes what the industry calls "education," as well as advertising and promotion, legal costs, and executive salaries—which are whopping. According to a report by the non-profit group Families USA, the for-mer chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, not counting his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011, exclusive of his $40,629,459 in stock options. And so on.[14]

6. Rather than R&D costs, the biggest chunk of pharmaceutical industry costs comes from advertising and marketing (especially non-innovative drugs)

As Ref. [3] points out:

The industry fought, and won, a nine-year legal battle to keep congressional investigators from the General Accounting Office from seeing the industry’s complete R&D records. (See Section IV) Congress can subpoena the records but has failed to do so. That might owe to the fact that in 1999-2000 the drug industry spent $262 million on federal lobbying, campaign contributions and ads for candidates thinly disguised as "issue" ads. (See accompanying report, "The Other Drug War: Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists")
...
The drug industry’s top priority increasingly is advertising and marketing, more than R&D. Increases in drug industry advertising budgets have averaged almost 40 percent a year since the government relaxed rules on direct-to-consumer advertising in 1997. Moreover, the Fortune 500 drug companies dedicated 30 percent of their revenues to marketing and administration in the year 2000, and just 12 percent to R&D. (See Section X)
As Ref. [1] points out:

...the magic words, repeated over and over like an incantation, are research, innovation, and American. Research. Innovation. American. It makes a great story.

But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits...The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.
...

Drug industry expenditures for research and development, while large, were consistently far less than profits. For the top ten companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget is neither R&D nor even profits but something usually called "marketing and administration"—a name that varies slightly from company to company. In 1990, a staggering 36 percent of sales revenues went into this category, and that proportion remained about the same for over a decade.[13] Note that this is two and a half times the expenditures for R&D.

7. The pharmaceutical industry is subsidized by highly preferential monopolistic laws (via astonishingly generous patent "laws") granted by the Governments they successfully lobbied

I am all for patents and intellectual property rights, but again, let us not forget that fostering innovation is only one of several roles that any Government has. I realize how naive this sounds in these times, but the goal of good Government is to benefit the majority of the people in the country - not the minority. Patent laws should be robust enough to stimulate innovation but not so egregious that there is a significant disincentive to really innovate or bring real benefits to the majority.

I admit I don't know yet where exactly the line should be drawn, but it is obvious that when an industry is ridiculously profitable and yet claims it has too high costs because of innovation/R&D and needs to raise prices or get Government subsidies to continue to operate, the line has been crossed. What I am highlighting here is that the current patent laws as they apply to the pharmaceutical industry are doing less to foster real innovation and doing a lot more to promote greed - and these laws must therefore be changed.

As Ref. [3] points out:

The industry fought, and won, a nine-year legal battle to keep congressional investigators from the General Accounting Office from seeing the industry’s complete R&D records. (See Section IV) Congress can subpoena the records but has failed to do so. That might owe to the fact that in 1999-2000 the drug industry spent $262 million on federal lobbying, campaign contributions and ads for candidates thinly disguised as "issue" ads. (See accompanying report, "The Other Drug War: Big Pharma’s 625 Washington Lobbyists")
As Ref. [1] points out:

...the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative— and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights.

And there is nothing peculiarly American about this industry. It is the very essence of a global enterprise...

The enormous benefits the pharmaceutical industry has obtained through over-friendly treatment in Congress (and the White House) starting with the ("pro-business") Reagan administration is further highlighted in Ref. [1].

These [industry-friendly] laws mean that drug companies no longer have to rely on their own research for new drugs, and few of the large ones do. Increasingly, they rely on academia, small biotech startup companies, and the NIH for that.[7] At least a third of drugs marketed by the major drug companies are now licensed from universities or small biotech companies, and these tend to be the most innovative ones.[8] While Bayh-Dole was clearly a bonanza for big pharma and the biotech industry, whether its enactment was a net benefit to the public is arguable.

The Reagan years and Bayh-Dole also transformed the ethos of medical schools and teaching hospitals. These nonprofit institutions started to see themselves as "partners" of industry, and they became just as enthusiastic as any entrepreneur about the opportunities to parlay their discoveries in-to financial gain. Faculty researchers were encouraged to obtain patents on their work (which were assigned to their universities), and they shared in the royalties. Many medical schools and teaching hospitals set up "technology transfer" offices to help in this activity and capitalize on faculty discoveries. As the entrepreneurial spirit grew during the 1990s, medical school faculty entered into other lucrative financial arrangements with drug companies, as did their parent institutions.

One of the results has been a growing pro-industry bias in medical research —exactly where such bias doesn't belong.
...
Starting in 1984, with legislation known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, Congress passed another series of laws that were just as big a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry. These laws extended monopoly rights for brand-name drugs. Exclusivity is the lifeblood of the industry because it means that no other company may sell the same drug for a set period. After exclusive marketing rights expire, copies (called generic drugs) enter the market, and the price usually falls to as little as 20 percent of what it was.[9] There are two forms of monopoly rights—patents granted by the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) and exclusivity granted by the FDA. While related, they operate somewhat independently, almost as backups for each other. Hatch-Waxman, named for Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), was meant mainly to stimulate the foundering generic industry by short-circuiting some of the FDA requirements for bringing generic drugs to market. While successful in doing that, Hatch-Waxman also lengthened the patent life for brand-name drugs. Since then, industry lawyers have manipulated some of its provisions to extend patents far longer than the lawmakers intended.

In the 1990s, Congress enacted other laws that further increased the patent life of brand-name drugs. Drug companies now employ small armies of lawyers to milk these laws for all they're worth—and they're worth a lot. The result is that the effective patent life of brand-name drugs increased from about eight years in 1980 to about fourteen years in 2000.[10] [eRiposte emphasis]

V. PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TODAY: FACING A "PERFECT STORM"?
PERHAPS, PERHAPS NOT

Ref. [1] suggests that the U.S. prescription drug industry is apparently close to facing a "perfect storm" now:

If 1980 was a watershed year for the pharmaceutical industry, 2000 may very well turn out to have been another one—the year things began to go wrong. As the booming economy of the late 1990s turned sour, many successful businesses found themselves in trouble. And as tax revenues dropped, state governments also found themselves in trouble. In one respect, the pharmaceutical industry is well protected against the downturn, since it has so much wealth and power. But in another respect, it is peculiarly vulnerable, since it depends on employer-sponsored insurance and state-run Medicaid programs for much of its revenues. When employers and states are in trouble, so is big pharma.

And sure enough, in just the past couple of years, employers and the private health insurers with whom they contract have started to push back against drug costs. Most big managed care plans now bargain for steep price discounts.
...
State governments, too, are looking for ways to cut their drug costs.
...
Recently the public has shown signs of being fed up. The fact that Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than Europeans and Canadians is now widely known.
...
The industry faces other, less familiar problems. It happens that, by chance, some of the top-selling drugs —with combined sales of around $35 billion a year—are scheduled to go off patent within a few years of one another.[16]
...
Even worse is the fact that there are very few drugs in the pipeline ready to take the place of blockbusters going off patent. In fact, that is the biggest problem facing the industry today, and its darkest secret. All the public relations about innovation is meant to obscure precisely this fact. The stream of new drugs has slowed to a trickle, and few of them are innovative in any sense of that word. Instead, the great majority are variations of oldies but goodies—"me-too" drugs.

Of the seventy-eight drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only seventeen contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs. The other seventy-one drugs approved that year were variations of old drugs or deemed no better than drugs already on the market. In other words, they were me-too drugs. Seven of seventy-eight is not much of a yield. Furthermore, of those seven, not one came from a major US drug company.[18] (eRiposte emphasis)
...
To be sure, profits are still beyond anything most other industries could hope for, but they have recently fallen, and for some companies they fell a lot...Nevertheless, the industry keeps promising a bright new day. It bases its reassurances on the notion that the mapping of the human genome and the accompanying burst in genetic research will yield a cornucopia of important new drugs. Left unsaid is the fact that big pharma is depending on government, universities, and small biotech companies for that innovation. While there is no doubt that genetic discoveries will lead to treatments, the fact remains that it will probably be years before the basic research pays off with new drugs.
...
The hints of trouble and the public's growing resentment over high prices are producing the first cracks in the industry's formerly firm support in Washington. In 2000, Congress passed legislation that would have closed some of the loopholes in Hatch-Waxman and also permitted American pharmacies, as well as individuals, to import drugs from certain countries where prices are lower...But the bill required the secretary of health and human services to certify that the practice would not pose any "added risk" to the public, and secretaries in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, under pressure from the industry, refused to do that.

The industry is also being hit with a tidal wave of government investigations and civil and criminal lawsuits. The litany of charges includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors, engag-ing in anticompetitive practices, colluding with generic companies to keep generic drugs off the market, illegally promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising, and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of the settlements have been huge. TAP Phar- maceuticals, for instance, paid $875 million to settle civil and criminal charges of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron.[19] All of these efforts could be summed up as increasingly desperate marketing and patent games, activities that always skirted the edge of legality but now are sometimes well on the other side.

Given all that an idealist might think that the pharmaceutical industry would develop a genuine interest in reforming itself. As Ref. [1] points out, the answer so far is a resounding NO.

How is the pharmaceutical industry responding to its difficulties? One could hope drug companies would decide to make some changes—trim their prices, or at least make them more equitable, and put more of their money into trying to discover genuinely innovative drugs, instead of just talking about it. But that is not what is happening. Instead, drug companies are doing more of what got them into this situation. They are marketing their me-too drugs even more relentlessly. They are pushing even harder to extend their monopolies on top-selling drugs. And they are pouring more money into lobbying and political campaigns. As for innovation, they are still waiting for Godot.

The news is not all bad for the industry. The Medicare prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003, and scheduled to go into effect in 2006, promises a windfall for big pharma since it for-bids the government from negotiating prices. The immediate jump in pharmaceutical stock prices after the bill passed indicated that the industry and investors were well aware of the windfall. But at best, this legislation will be only a temporary boost for the industry. As costs rise, Congress will have to reconsider its industry-friendly decision to allow drug companies to set their own prices, no questions asked.

For the moment, as long as Congress and the White House are both controlled by Republicans, it is unrealistic to expect that the problem of high prescription drug costs is going to be alleviated. Indeed, given that the hidden goal of the egregious 2003 Medicare Bill was, arguably, to make it worse for most taxpayers and consumers - using intimidation and fraud as the preferred tactics to push this Bill through to benefit Big Pharma (particularly the numerous companies that have themselves been involved in some form of fraud or another) - any hope that prices won't go up even higher in the future is wishful thinking. Already, as Ref. [4] has pointed out, prices have gone up since the Medicare Bill was passed, largely (already) negating any supposed benefits from this Bill for consumers. So, in the immediate future, the Pharmaceutical industry looks to be in good shape to weather the "perfect storm".
[ASIDE: The excellent Center for American Progress has been covering the Medicare Bill scam and other issues relating to Medicare rather comprehensively here.]

VI. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

High prescription drug prices (for brand-name drugs) in the U.S. have little or nothing to do with high R&D costs in the pharmaceutical industry. While it is worth applauding the pharmaceutical industry for bringing more and more life-saving drugs to the market, it is a fact that the industry is usually the most profitable one in the U.S. and continues to complain about profitability despite that. It is an industry that benefits substantially from Big Government, taxpayer subsidies and monopolistic laws, while reaping the ensuing windfall of record-high profits, unmatched by any other industry in most years. Thus, the main reason for high prescription drug prices is simply the age-old reason: greed. Needless to say, greed cannot be addressed until those who incentivise greed remain in power. It is as simple as that.

With the Republican Party controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, and ideological right-wingers in the party currently running the show, we can fully expect prescription drug prices (for brand-name drugs) to continue to keep going up, with marginal, if any, relief for consumers and seniors in the short-term. Unless conservatives with a conscience take over the reins of the Republican party, or power changes hands, persistent activism through educating and motivating the masses is likely to be the only approach that has some probability of bringing good results (namely lower and fairer prescription drug prices, that allow pharmaceutical companies to make good but reasonable profits).

dksuddeth · 12-01-2005, 03:31 PM

the best way to lower health care costs anywhere is to get rid of the health insurance industry.

pan6467 · 12-04-2005, 06:20 PM

Here's another example of why medical reform is necessary:

Pres. Bush seems to believe that the Avian Flu bug is serious enough to warrant Martial Law. So he puts plans into effect. (This is based on a premature fact that this will mutate to become human spread.)

Now, in our country we have people with no insurance who are scared to go see doctors because of the cost. Some of these people may get infected, some of these people may actually be travellers on airlines and on the highways and infect others, who like they, are not insured and move to another city and spread it there and so on. Not to mention the kids at school, the coworkers and everyone else they come into contact with.

So because these people do not go to see medical personnel when symptoms appear, they spread it even faster. The spread maximizes and people wait until they have full blown sickness before they get help. Thus, the infection could have been passed on to 100's (and that's very low, but don't want someone to focus and attack this because I said too high of a number here) real fast.

Now, we look at countries with universal healthcare. Someone starts showing the symptoms, goes to the hospital, can be quarantined right away and the spread can be minimal.

Now, we look at third world countries where they have few doctors..... infected people go unnoticed until the disease has spread beyond control because of lack of good medical support.....

Another question is, if in fact 1000's or 1,000,000's do get infected in the US, do those with insurance get better treatment?

Is the treatment based on how much insurance will cover?

Who is going to pay for those uninsured?

Are you Neo-Cons, who support this system and refuse any reform, willing and brave enough to tell people who don't have insurance that they deserve to die because they are leeches on the tax system?

Are you brave enough to stand behind your policies and political beliefs and tell these people, they don't deserve innoculated because the cost to the taxpayer and the system would be too much?

Are you willing to stand behind these beliefs and say the pharmaceuticals have every right to demand as much as they can possibly get for the vaccine?

And what if YOUR insurance company decides the cost is too high so they find loopholes or state that you didn't get approval to see that certain doctor or go to that particular ER (even though that was the closest ER to you)?

See, our healthcare system is fatally flawed to the point where if a pandemic hits, we're far more susceptible to a worse case scenario and equal to the third world in many ways, than our friends in Europe, to the North, and other countries that have public healthcare.

If this Avian Flu is severe enough for Pres. Bush to have Martial Law plans drawn up and ready, then the above scenario is every bit as possible if not moreso.

And what about the government?

Are they going to force the hospitals to treat everyone showing symptoms to contain the virus and the outbreak or is the government just going to intern those who are sick and without insurance to "dying camps" to save the tax payers and insurance companies from the excess cost?

And what happens if you surpass your maximum benefits? Or cannot afford the prescriptions, because the insurance companies call the vaccines "exploratory, unproven drugs", or just flatly decide the cost to them will be so high they refuse to cover and go bankrupt claiming the claims are to high and they cannot pay?

Are you, who believe that medical care is a privelege and not a right, truly going to allow this?

Speak up....... don't be scared to show your true beliefs.

Show the world truly what is more important to you.....profiit or people.

Show the world you are willing to let a pandemic destroy a nice percentage of the country just for greed.

Those countries with Universal Healthcare maybe flawed but my guess is they'll contain it and treat the patients far more humanely.

I have a feeling none of you will. Or you'll come up with excuses and say we can make this one exception because of........

P.S. for those who are going to say I am exagerrating the situation, then Pres. Bush must be also, why else would Martial Law be so important to "contain" this disease?

Ustwo · 12-04-2005, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

the best way to lower health care costs anywhere is to get rid of the health insurance industry.

So very true. This post wins the thread.

Locobot · 12-05-2005, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArellaNova

My faimly happens to be in the business so I have an insiders view on what is the objective of private insurers, and also as a consumer myself. As I said, I pay for my own private coverage. The private coverage doesn't guarentee that if something horrible does happen I don't have to pay a cent. That is unrealistic to expect from anyone. It does, however, cover me up to a certian amount. For example, if I were, unfortunatly, in the situation described above, I would only have had to pay 12 thousand instead of the full 20.

I don't beleive you understood my use of the word "demand". I meant demand as in "supply and demand". Insurance companies supply a service (called risk management) and there is a demand for such services because shit happens.

I did understand your use of "demand" but I also understand that there are no alternatives available for people who seek healthcare (aside from dropping out) so standard concepts of supply and demand do not apply. That is why I scoffed and choked at your usage. No one is demanding health insurance for any other reason besides necessity, and there is no limit to the supply. If a customer is too much of a risk simply charge more, weasel out of coverage through legal means, or go out of business when "shit happens."

Quote:

You beleive that government programs are "non-for-profit"? This seems ludicrous to me that you would beleive this and I would like to understand why. If the Government ran under a non-for-profit basis they would take charitible donations instead of taxes.

I'm not really interested in the sort of semantic quibbling you seem to seek here. Government does not operate with the purpose of creating a profit for itself. In almost every sense it is forbidden from doing so, so yes I believe the government is a non-profit entity.

Quote:

Yes, it is you who are paying for it. And it is me. I, in my taxes, pay for the risk management (by the government) of thousands of other individuals. I also pay for my own. The taxes I can not help. The individual coverage is just self-responsability.

Indeed, I would be better off - as an individual - scamming the system and letting apathy take over my own beleif in individual economic enterprise. I could save myself thousands of dollars by choosing to live off of the "forced donations" of others.

I would choose not to.

If you really would be better off earning less than $6000 a year (far less than half of the poverty level), which is the only way you would be eligible for state medical aid, then I don't believe that you're able to pay for your own private insurance currently.

Quote:

As far as the companies declaring bankruptcy. That is why you shop wisely. Is it the companies fault that they fell under? Yes. Did they foce you to buy their policy? No.

Pan's situation is not ideal, but we all choose whether to take precautions or not. Nothing may ever happen to me in my lifetime and I may die peacfull in my bed, having wasted thousands of dollars on healthcare coverage that I never used. Okay then, I will take that over being sick, or having the risk of being uncovered anyday.

After Enron, Worldcom, etc. it's obvious that there are no accurate indicators of a corporation's economic health even the week before they go bankrupt. Even the biggest, oldest, most reputable insurance company could fold tomorrow without notice.

You keep talking about people choosing to not have medical coverage, yet we've clearly illustrated in this thread that no one is making this decision. In your best case scenario you've "wasted thousands of dollars" and yet you fail to see fault in the system?

pan6467 · 12-06-2005, 11:29 AM

Amazing, my previous post and challenge to those who support healthcare the way it is has not gotten any response.

I take it from their silence:

They either don't believe that can happen....... which then leads one to ask why Bush would need a Martial Law plan for when it does....

or

They cannot answer the challenge because they see the inherent and catastrophic problem our current healthcare system has.

So again, I ask what happens when the bird flu strikes and people with no insurance get it?

Who pays?

What about those who do have insurance and can't afford the deductible, or don't have insurance at all, and don't go to the doctor as soon as symptoms occur, instead they keep working and doing whatever, all the while infecting everyone else they come into contact with?

Seems to me if we have a President deeming this worthy of Martial Law plans (instead of preparing ways to pay for the cost to help citizens by finding an innoculation everyone can afford and working to make sure the hospitals can handle it) that it is important enough to worry about this scenario...... guess not.

Guess when the insurers start filing bankruptcy because they won't be able to afford the costs and the executives million dollar salaries, these people will then worry about healthcare reform...... a bit late though.

Cynthetiq · 12-06-2005, 11:34 AM

the rhetorical question who pays?

we all pay. Who pays for uninsured motorists? Who pays for insurance fraud claims? Who pays for those who abuse the healthcare system?

We all pay for it. If we don't pay for it in direct premiums we pay for it in other soft costs.

flstf · 12-06-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Guess when the insurers start filing bankruptcy because they won't be able to afford the costs and the executives million dollar salaries, these people will then worry about healthcare reform...... a bit late though.

I'm sorry pan but I can't resist. The government will probably bail out the insurance industry. The executives will most certainly golden parachute themselves to a wealthy future no matter what happens.

pan6467 · 12-06-2005, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I'm sorry pan but I can't resist. The government will probably bail out the insurance industry. The executives will most certainly golden parachute themselves to a wealthy future no matter what happens.

You're right and by doing so it will probably cost the government far more than if they had worked a way to have universal medical care. Just a guess.

pan6467 · 12-08-2005, 06:13 AM

Still waiting to hear defnse of the current system and how we're going to pay for this nasty pandemic.......

The silence from the people opposed to scialized healthcare and supporters of the current system is deafening and very apparent they cannot answer and defend their stance.

dksuddeth · 12-08-2005, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Still waiting to hear defnse of the current system and how we're going to pay for this nasty pandemic.......

The silence from the people opposed to scialized healthcare and supporters of the current system is deafening and very apparent they cannot answer and defend their stance.

pan, your question as stated cannot be answered. you want an explanation of the current system yet are looking for reasons to oppose socialized medicine. What do you think we have right now? we have socialized medicine.

do I defend the current system? hell no. its atrocious.
how do we fix it? abolish the health insurance industry.

it is the health insurance industry, hell its the insurance industry period, that is causing the problem. It's also how we have socialized medicine. and socialized disaster insurance, auto insurance, anything with insurance.

11-21-2005, 12:23 PM	#41 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	THIS IS FUCKED UP!!!!!!!!! I just got off the phone with "Quality Assurance Medical" or whatever (They are the ones that find grants and what not to help people pay)..... Anyway, they called me to see if I was still working and if I planned to continue working..... when I said yes, the lady told me, that if I decided not to work, she could find money for me to pay..... WTF IS THAT??????? I can't get any help if I work, yet if I don't work, and can't pay any other bills I can get help on my medical bills........ WOW..... WTF, so I'm fucked because I choose to better my life...... maybe when I see the doctor Wednesday I'll tell him how excrutiating the pain is at times (no lie there) or how I have insomnia and a stiff neck. Maybe I can get on disability, get everything fucking paid for, even school, open my halfway house/therapeutic community and place it under some type of partnership where I am just the manager/live in partner........ Yeah, I'll just abuse the system now..... fuck the people who would rather not have any type of universal healthcare, I'll just join the system and take everything I can.... Except for a few things, my pride, the fact I couldn't allow myself to do that, the fact I LOVE my job helping other addicts more than anything else I have ever done or how much money I have ever had and the fact that I'm bettering myself despite the people who would rather have systems like this than universal healthcare even if it were on a sliding scale basis. They need to face the facts, government is going to pay the bills one way or another for those who can't, and people in my position given the chance...... I have a feeling the majority would jump at it. Especially knowing school financial aid would be there also. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-21-2005, 02:45 PM	#42 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	It is. But my personal take on it is when you can use the system that you've paid into for quite some time, use it. You paid for it fair and square, not much can be said for the generational welfare families. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-23-2005, 04:36 AM	#46 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	You're just trying to pick a fight UsTwo and you know what, it's not working. You got the message from BerMuda same as I..... I think you first post was to antagonize and your second to further try to pick the fight..... I'll let a Mod decide. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-23-2005, 05:47 AM	#47 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	On it's face, Ustwo is right, the definition of a martyr is what fits. as for you two picking a fight... pan please use the ignore feature of the board. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-23-2005, 06:38 AM	#48 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	One posts bad policy and its effects on politics so that the people can see why policy needs changed. That is my purpose a personal account to show why policy needs changed. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

11-25-2005, 08:46 PM	#50 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Thank you Elph. and that is exactly where I am at. As I stated above policy needs changed and my speaking out may get someone else thinking and doing something to change policy also. I don't see how martyrdom is even close. my choice is I work and live or I don't work and starve but my medical bills are paid for. How that is being a martyr is beyond me. It was just UsTwo personally attacking me, childishly. I could post the letter/personal message that we both recieved from a mod to not antagonize each other, and I have IM'd mods about it, but I guess the warning meant nothing. Perhaps, he felt it had been a month or 2 and he could get away with it, while I have not replied to any of his posts in other threads and in fact have gone out of my way to avoid even refering to him or his posts directly. Sorry but, I am upset about being attacked on here needlessly, it was wrong and I truly believe I need an appology. PS I won't be bullied off here, if he attacks me again I'll just leave..... I don't need to have assholes attack me when I open up about an illness and personal problem. I posted it on here to show policy needed changed and to have a debate... not be attacked and called names. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 11-26-2005 at 02:02 AM..

11-30-2005, 10:47 AM	#51 (permalink)
ArellaNova Upright	I think your case is a perfect example of why there is a demand for the support of the private insurance industry. Government let you down. Government wants to provide for everyone, but it can't. The insurance industry is in the business of risk management. Their livelyhood depends upon providing you an adequate service. For example. I am in the same boat. Working part time and going to school part time. I can't afford massive health care coverage either, but I sacrafice some shopping, and possable vacationing to purchase my own minimum health care plan. Now I have to pay out the wazoo if I get an infection, but major emergencies -like cancer- are covered to a specific amount. I am buying assurance that for some drastic measures I wont go personally bankrupt.

11-30-2005, 03:36 PM	#57 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	flstf, while i have read his stuff, i find that my life is much happier w/out his 'input' either way. i have, on occassion, agreed with what he was saying, or could, at least, see where he was coming from, but i find that every time i do, i turn around and read another post on how someone is making a martyr of themselves or how some people are lazy and good for nothing or just things that make jerry falwell seem open minded. So, for the sake of me and any of my comments, i just use the /ignore feature anymore. Every now and then, i'll go throguh and read his stuff, but on the whole, i would rather not __________________ Live. Chris

11-30-2005, 05:11 PM	#59 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	DMV runs fine in Ohio, they have nothing to do with cost (except to add maybe a small $2.00 surcharge).... as for lines, maybe that's because the government needs more locations.... as it is still a government office. Post Office gets mail out on time.... just they lost footing to technology because they were slow to pick it up... but they kept costs down and do a damned good job. Hey for 37 cents I can have a letter mailed anywhere in the US (and Canada I believe) and it'll be there within a week or less (I get letters from my sister in Prescott Az within 3 days of her mailing them).... that's not shabby. Plus, they are cheaper than UPS, FedEx..... so how are they bad? OOO I forgot they're bad because they are easy targets, they prove that they can do a job effectively, and rather cheaply. IRS.... it's the ultimate government run beaureucracy. The IRS is bogged down by the government's tax laws..... people tend to throw stones at them for enforcing the law.... but that's all they do is enforce. I don't see how your examples are even pertinent as all 3 run pretty effectively. LOL Ustwo you personally come in here and insult me and then get all offended when someone calls you out. It is true you bitch about people abusing the system and when I say I could but choose not to because I am bettering myself you call me a martyr and personally attack me. You are a hypocrite and cannot stand anyone who upstages you. You got the same PM from Bermuda I did and YOU broke it and not a damned thing happened to you. If you had attacked me in any other thread I would have ignored you, but you chose this thread and to kick me while I was down. Well I'm up now and the kicking won't be so easy. You start the fight and then you wait for others to get into trouble. You are an immature bully. And for all who think so...... I think it is time to use the ignore and just shut the UsTwo off. IF enough people ignore him and turn him off my guess is that he'll either just leave and find somewhere else to pick fights and bully, or he'll keep making new nicks until he gets caught and banned. It's not like we'll miss anything of substance as he never brings any facts to debate, just picks fights. Goodbye UsTwo..... you're own hatred will destroy you. Loco thank you...... but please be careful don't want you banned because of him. I'll bite the bullet...... he attacked me he was warned and he chose to make it personal. WE were both told to basically leave each other alone.... yet the second he could kick me he did..... and nothing happened to him..... so I'm answering back and ending it by ignoring him and waiting because he'll attack again under a new nick.... my guess is that he has the new nicks waiting, if he hasn't used them already........ and he'll keep attacking till even those who like him start seeing him for what he is. You want to see less fighting in this forum, make a rule that people need to back up their facts, something UsTwo does very little of. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 11-30-2005 at 05:40 PM..

11-30-2005, 06:36 PM	#61 (permalink)
MoonDog Psycho Location: Buffalo, New York	Someone stole my thunder when they recommended that you talk to your school. They can often point you to a person or office within the school that might be able to help. I believe that my school had student insurance as well. I was looking it up just a minute ago, and the premium for the year is $1,257. It isn't the greatest plan - maxes out at $25,000 in covered expenses, but pre-existing conditions are covered. Maybe your school has something similar? Still seems to expensive for what you earn in a year. I have no real experience in Medicaid/Medicare qualifications, although it is my understanding that borderline cases are often automatically denied, forcing people to demand a hearing, hire a lawyer, etc., before they are allowed coverage. Maybe someone could point you in the direction of a law firm that handles these types of cases? On a personal note, my grandfather died of sarcoidosis, and you have my sympathy for the pain you have/are experiencing. I assume you are on Prednisone? Maybe the docs have cooked up something better since my grandfather passed? To address the "topic" of the post, my father is a doctor, and he believes that there is a need for universal coverage. I believe it too, but I have no idea which method/proposal is going to be best for us, or how we can overcome the industry lobby to get it done! I think it is obvious, however, that such a program will have to be paired with reforms that address the litigious nature of American society as well. Finally, I have to agree with some on the fact that this post - as is - might have been better located in Tilted Living. Not taking a swipe here, although it may seem that way. I just felt as I read through the posts that this was different than our "normal" discussions here. Maybe its just the more personal nature of the post? In any case, best of luck in finding a solution. (most appropriate emoticon I could find!)

11-30-2005, 10:11 PM	#63 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Pan, thank you for sharing your personal story. You have encouraged me to share a bit of mine. It is likely that we will lose our insurance at the end of the year, and no private insurance company would ever consider insuring my husband with a cancer history, or myself for that matter for other chronic issues. Getting older and self-employed... I guess some would say that we shouldn't have followed a dream, but stayed on the money train. No regrets here, but hub and I are in for "interesting" times.

12-01-2005, 03:31 PM	#71 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	the best way to lower health care costs anywhere is to get rid of the health insurance industry. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

12-04-2005, 06:20 PM	#72 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Here's another example of why medical reform is necessary: Pres. Bush seems to believe that the Avian Flu bug is serious enough to warrant Martial Law. So he puts plans into effect. (This is based on a premature fact that this will mutate to become human spread.) Now, in our country we have people with no insurance who are scared to go see doctors because of the cost. Some of these people may get infected, some of these people may actually be travellers on airlines and on the highways and infect others, who like they, are not insured and move to another city and spread it there and so on. Not to mention the kids at school, the coworkers and everyone else they come into contact with. So because these people do not go to see medical personnel when symptoms appear, they spread it even faster. The spread maximizes and people wait until they have full blown sickness before they get help. Thus, the infection could have been passed on to 100's (and that's very low, but don't want someone to focus and attack this because I said too high of a number here) real fast. Now, we look at countries with universal healthcare. Someone starts showing the symptoms, goes to the hospital, can be quarantined right away and the spread can be minimal. Now, we look at third world countries where they have few doctors..... infected people go unnoticed until the disease has spread beyond control because of lack of good medical support..... Another question is, if in fact 1000's or 1,000,000's do get infected in the US, do those with insurance get better treatment? Is the treatment based on how much insurance will cover? Who is going to pay for those uninsured? Are you Neo-Cons, who support this system and refuse any reform, willing and brave enough to tell people who don't have insurance that they deserve to die because they are leeches on the tax system? Are you brave enough to stand behind your policies and political beliefs and tell these people, they don't deserve innoculated because the cost to the taxpayer and the system would be too much? Are you willing to stand behind these beliefs and say the pharmaceuticals have every right to demand as much as they can possibly get for the vaccine? And what if YOUR insurance company decides the cost is too high so they find loopholes or state that you didn't get approval to see that certain doctor or go to that particular ER (even though that was the closest ER to you)? See, our healthcare system is fatally flawed to the point where if a pandemic hits, we're far more susceptible to a worse case scenario and equal to the third world in many ways, than our friends in Europe, to the North, and other countries that have public healthcare. If this Avian Flu is severe enough for Pres. Bush to have Martial Law plans drawn up and ready, then the above scenario is every bit as possible if not moreso. And what about the government? Are they going to force the hospitals to treat everyone showing symptoms to contain the virus and the outbreak or is the government just going to intern those who are sick and without insurance to "dying camps" to save the tax payers and insurance companies from the excess cost? And what happens if you surpass your maximum benefits? Or cannot afford the prescriptions, because the insurance companies call the vaccines "exploratory, unproven drugs", or just flatly decide the cost to them will be so high they refuse to cover and go bankrupt claiming the claims are to high and they cannot pay? Are you, who believe that medical care is a privelege and not a right, truly going to allow this? Speak up....... don't be scared to show your true beliefs. Show the world truly what is more important to you.....profiit or people. Show the world you are willing to let a pandemic destroy a nice percentage of the country just for greed. Those countries with Universal Healthcare maybe flawed but my guess is they'll contain it and treat the patients far more humanely. I have a feeling none of you will. Or you'll come up with excuses and say we can make this one exception because of........ P.S. for those who are going to say I am exagerrating the situation, then Pres. Bush must be also, why else would Martial Law be so important to "contain" this disease? __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 12-04-2005 at 06:44 PM..

12-06-2005, 11:29 AM	#75 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Amazing, my previous post and challenge to those who support healthcare the way it is has not gotten any response. I take it from their silence: They either don't believe that can happen....... which then leads one to ask why Bush would need a Martial Law plan for when it does.... or They cannot answer the challenge because they see the inherent and catastrophic problem our current healthcare system has. So again, I ask what happens when the bird flu strikes and people with no insurance get it? Who pays? What about those who do have insurance and can't afford the deductible, or don't have insurance at all, and don't go to the doctor as soon as symptoms occur, instead they keep working and doing whatever, all the while infecting everyone else they come into contact with? Seems to me if we have a President deeming this worthy of Martial Law plans (instead of preparing ways to pay for the cost to help citizens by finding an innoculation everyone can afford and working to make sure the hospitals can handle it) that it is important enough to worry about this scenario...... guess not. Guess when the insurers start filing bankruptcy because they won't be able to afford the costs and the executives million dollar salaries, these people will then worry about healthcare reform...... a bit late though. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-06-2005, 11:34 AM	#76 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	the rhetorical question who pays? we all pay. Who pays for uninsured motorists? Who pays for insurance fraud claims? Who pays for those who abuse the healthcare system? We all pay for it. If we don't pay for it in direct premiums we pay for it in other soft costs. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-08-2005, 06:13 AM	#79 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Still waiting to hear defnse of the current system and how we're going to pay for this nasty pandemic....... The silence from the people opposed to scialized healthcare and supporters of the current system is deafening and very apparent they cannot answer and defend their stance. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"