Fixed it for ya. Big pharma might be part of the problem... but drugs are expensive because they cost a ton of money to R&D. So those costs get spread over the brand-name products once they hit the market, plus there's got to be some profit for the owners/shareholders. Take that away = no new drugs ever get developed. Personally, I think the most significant improvement in lowering the astronomical upward-spiraling healthcare costs would be capping malpractice lawsuits - but Obama has been clear that he has no interest or intention to pursue this. It'll be interesting to see what Congress comes up with - hopefully they work hard to get it right. I feel that many fear this will become just one more "wealth-redistribution-system" like our progressive tax system and myriad other entitlement programs.
Pharm companies hold 7 year patents and have no regulation on how much they can charge for their drugs. Once the patents come up, normally they tweek it a little to get a new patent, if not then generics come in and save the day for most people..thats how you see 4$ prescriptions at wal-mart. Thats what we need....just like anything else hospitals buy their drugs from pharm companies too, albeit prolly get cut a deal but still they are astronomically high, and all that does is get put on us..either our insurance or out of our pocket. And Heath, i am with you hear man..ive given a lot of time to becoming a doctor and im just gonna get screwed if this goes through. But then again, medicine is not for the money, because there are plenty of ways to make money easier and faster, but then again after all that i want a good living. Our borders are closed to importing medicine by the way, the government can change that but they dont...ever heard of people paying 4 or 5 bucks for a brand name prescription in mexico? it happens everyday...without insurance because they can import and export keeping everyone on a fair scale. Our pharm companies have the rule of the roost and one handshake between companies and there is 0 accountability for legally raping the public.
Great post, and good discussion. However, generics can only "save the day" because BIG pharma spent huge sums of money to develop and produce the drug... drug patents exist to help them recoup the development costs and (hopefully) make a profit - you know, so they still exist to develop new drugs going forward... many of which never pan out, but those costs presumably would be covered by the ones that do. Generics aren't identical to the name-brand stuff either, FYI... allegedly, they only need to prove to the FDA that they fall within 80% - 120% of the active ingredients contained in the existing drug that they're attempting to replicate. Point is, generics don't exist if a pharma co. hadn't already paved the way - since generic drug manufacturers don't R&D new medicines. Earlier, leukemia was mentioned - a good friend of mine is a doctor at a Children's Hospital and we were just chatting about drug costs recently. He mentioned (as an example) that leukemia responds well to chemo, but when the cancer cells burst they release toxins in the bloodstream that can introduce other risks to the patient. Fortunately, a drug company has developed medicine to specifically target and aid in the removal of these toxins. Problem is, it costs $10,000 for a 20 mL dose, and typically several doses are given upon commencing a chemo treatment - so, the first couple days' worth of treatment (including all the other factors as well) goes into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not that the drug co. is "greedy" - it's an issue of a very specialized medicine, that will never have a large enough target market for research, development, and production costs to be spread over a large quantity of product. So what's the alternative - they don't make it, and the patient doesn't benefit from it - but is that a good thing? Anyway, I'm not on the side of big pharma (nor employed by them), but I can see their side of the drug-cost discussion and the basic economics of it all. I think a more meaningful cost-reduction would occur if there were limitations placed on medical malpractice lawsuits, because 100% of those costs trickle down to the end-users - capping them would go a long way to controlling healthcare costs in the U.S. Not sure if it's in all states, but we have the same principle here in PA with auto insurance... limited tort keeps the rates down, by capping what one could sue for "pain and suffering" in an accident.
Very true Jordan. Pharmacies are really raping ppl with cost of meds. I believe ppl should make a profit. I have no problem with paying a fair price for something. I dont even mind paying MSRP for stuff. We all have to eat and pay bills like everyone else. It just seems kinda strange when you can get a $4 generic at wal-mart or a $? name brand drug.
I just googled Nationalized Insurance and this was #10 on the first page !! Go me Go me!!! To bad its not my birthday!!!
What is your life worth? Only $150k to a wife and kids for the loss of their father. Due to some idiotic mistake that could have been prevented. I think it should be situational. Not a big lawsuit because you took vioxx and nothing hapened. But if you die do to neglegance, then there should not be a cap. Insurance companies need to be regulated, they are out of control. Blue cross would not cover me because a doctor guessed on a diagnosis. 3 other doctors proved him wrong, and sent letters to Blue Cross stating that the tests showed he was wrong. They still would not cover me. Then they said, "well you had shoulder surgery twice right after college college(8 years ago)". "Plus, you had a deviated septum fixed". They just started pulling stuff out of their a**. Some pre-existing injuries/conditions need to be covered.
People think this stuff is a right, and its a privilage. You have no right to own a home, car, boat or have healthcare. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." .....the pursuit of happiness. on the subject of taxes...If you got paid in cash at work and on every pay day at work someone from the govt. came around and collected the 20+% from everyone how long would that last. I think that persons life might be in jeopardy. Yet we are just slowly letting them take more and more. Its actually nice to see that this forum is fairly conservative.
I am neither conservative or liberal. All I know that if my brother had not married a Canadian and become a Landed Immigrant he may have not been able to afford treatment, or our entire family would be riddled with debt trying to pay for his medical expenses. And who knows? Maybe he may not have had health insurance down here, or his health insurance may have dropped him (this has happened many times to Cancer patients) Insurance companies do not make money by honoring claims, they HAVE to turn as huge a profit as they can, so denying claims is their business. They have to have a "good" reputation so they let whatever cheap ones they can through.
Where did you get the $150k number from? In any event, it's JMHO that financially responsible individuals have life insurance to insure against a loss like you mention. If a negligent driver in PA maimed or killed someone, there's a limit to how much the affected individual can sue for "pain and suffering" - so, if they have medical bills, lost wages, etc etc. all those things can be fully recovered in a suit (to the best of my knowledge), it's just that they don't "win the lottery" with a $25 million pain and suffering jury verdict on top of everything else. That sort of "cap" is exactly what helps to lower everyone's auto ins. rates. FWIW, there are rare situational circumstances where the limited tort doesn't apply - like if it's a drunk driver IIRC. Why couldn't this simple approach be implemented into the medical system? The realist in me says, "because the massive lobbying influence of trial lawyers would never allow it" which is unfortunate. Also, I may be mistaken, but I think that Insurance companies are some of the most heavily regulated corporations in the U.S. :shead: Regardless, I certainly respect your opinions, and enjoy a constructive discussion like this.
Illinois has a cap of $125k. They are about to change that right now. A judge ruled it unconstitutional and far too low.
i live in Massachusetts where you must carry healthcare. While I should have healthcare, I have been to the doctor three times in the last 14 years...those visits where all related. That being said, I pay too much to have said benefits. I truly have no desire to carry such an outrageous policy. I am given NO option to a more affordable plan tailored to my specific needs. In this day in age.
Just note. For those worried about "socialized" medicine, we already have it. It is called Medicare/Medicaid. If you work for a living and pay taxes, you are contributing to this fund. For those opposed to the health care bill, please indicate specific sections you are currently opposed to...such as the public option, etc. I am curious which areas people really do not like. It looks like they did agree the public option would NOT pay at Medicare rates but higher rates. If health care costs do not get until control, the budget deficit is going to significantly. You can stop all the spending on "pork" and we still have a problem. As they say, keep your eye on the ball not side show.
They are not actually debating the issue. It is the same old: socialistic rant by opponents. The fact is we have nationalized insurance already. It is called Medicaid and Medicare. The concern is that the government spends $600+ Billion a year on this and this portion of the budget is growing rapidly due to increasing health care costs. We all pay into this (those that pay incomes taxes) but not enough to cover expenses in the out years. So, we either raise taxes to increase your medicare tax or control costs by health care reform. Obama is trying to 1) control costs and 2) increase coverage to allow people who cannot afford insurance to get some health code. The problem is every good idea gets caught in the politics that both parties play and if it passes the republicans can satisfy their people that they was against (when they actually helped it along). This is just the way the system works... Calling something socialism does not solve prroblems.
Uncle Sam does such a good job running the post office and medicare , social security etc., I just can't wait till they take over health care,not. As I get older I am worried about the section that deals with quality of life decisions. I want to be the one who decides on a procedure to prolong my life or going quietly into the night,not a panel of cost cutters. If 87% or so of the insured are happy ,then fix things for the remaining 13% instead of revamping the whole thing. When your car needs new tires you don't junk it and buy a new one.If things can't be fixed then how about a trial program instead of jumping in with both feet ?? Just an old mans 2 cents. Paul S
Obama is trying to 1) control costs and 2) increase coverage to allow people who cannot afford insurance to get some health code. To control cost maybe they should allow insurance companies to sell health ins across state lines such as what is done with life ins and car ins.Competition lowers cost. Tort reform as Texas has adopted will also go a long way in bringing down cost. A pool for those with existing conditions that would cover those refused as high risk auto drivers are covered in some states. Separate system for those that can't afford it. Keep in mid that if a 8% penalty is what a major corporation is charged for not giving you a healthcare, then most would be money ahead to dump you and let you go with the government program. Paul S
:shead:^^^ This Guy(PaulS) makes alot of sense to this Hillbilly :headbang: I've got a better Question....:shead: Why is PaulS Post Count stuck on 11 :duh: This Man has made more sense in 2 post then I have in 838 :gasp:
They keep changing the language in their speeches. I just wonder if its about nationalized insurance or has it changed to healthcare insurance reform. I believe we need reform. I believe in helping ppl since its my job profession but the thing that gets me is this. I bust my ass to buy the stuff I want and I pay for my insurance and then I see all these ppl on medicaid that get their checks monthly. They find every way they can to cheat the system and my hard earned money helps them sit at home and get a govt check. It amazes me how some women will have a half dozen babies so they can get more $$ out of the govt and theyre not married either. Yes we need we need Healthcare insurance reform. We definately need tort reform. We also need people to be investigated for defrauding the government. Will it ever get better. Nope. Its like gas, the price will just keep on going up and we'll have to pay for some big companies executives to go have a party at some nice resort. Oh happy day.
Thanks Flash for the kind words. I don't post a lot here because my detailing knowledge is somewhat limited and I mostly try and read and learn. I also drive 3,600 miles every other week and 2,400 miles on the opposite weeks. It dosen't leave a lot of free time.:drinking2: Thanks again. Paul S
I've had the Answer for ppl who abuse this System for years....Mandatory Drug Testing If you Fail Test, you get NO benefits :shakehead:
