stop the war on drugs

[ElFenix]

the federal government at its finest

edit: seems even linking the google news link doesn't work. so, to read the whole thing, search for "Stop the War on Drugs" on news.google.com. it's the first link.

this is pretty appalling behavior.

if we have nationalized medical care will doctors be prosecuted for prescribing drugs that the latest medical science says work, but the FDA hasn't gotten off its lazy ass to approve? will there be a bureaucrat sitting at every pharmacy counter making sure you're only being treated for approved uses?

 

[palehorse]

Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

 

[Vic]

Even more appalling is how the FDA goes after doctors for prescribing "excessive" pain medication to the terminal ill. Can't let the patient with 2 months to live get hooked on morphine!

 

[techs]

Yeah, lets go to the Chinese system.

Seriously, drug companies try to push uses for their drugs that are outside of the uses they were tested for. This is a way to skirt the actual approval process which includes tests for, well, do they actually work?
If a drug company wants to push a drug for an illness it was not approved for they can easily submit an application and show the lab tests that show it works.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: techs
Yeah, lets go to the Chinese system.

:roll:

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

Really? I think it blows away those other systems when you consider the costs to those who choose not to participate.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

Really? I think it blows away those other systems when you consider the costs to those who choose not to participate.

See, that's where our simple opinions differ, I guess. I would have no problem paying a few more dollars a month so that everyone has access to quality health-care, even though I am healthy as a horse.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: techs
Yeah, lets go to the Chinese system.

Seriously, drug companies try to push uses for their drugs that are outside of the uses they were tested for. This is a way to skirt the actual approval process which includes tests for, well, do they actually work?
If a drug company wants to push a drug for an illness it was not approved for they can easily submit an application and show the lab tests that show it works.

we're talking about uses that the drugs have been tested for, and the results of which have been published by respected medical journals. often these studies were done by another branch of the government, such as the national institutes of health. the efficacy testing has already been done. the FDA approval process can then take another couple of years.

is it ok to tell someone who will die without the treatment that they can't have a drug that has been shown to work because the FDA hasn't approved that indication yet?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

1) My insurance and medical experiences in the U.S. have been nearly perfect for 33+ years!

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

3) My entire family has medical care for a whopping $470/mo. (That includes the company's half). Some estimates for Nationalized Healthcare show an estimated tax increase of $500-$1000 per family, per month. So why should we be forced to pay more for less flexible and less comprehensive coverage?

4) My insurance even allows for alternative medicines and alternative treatments!

5) Waiting for an appointment with my physicians, even most specialists and referrals, takes less than two weeks.

6) Many Canadians and Brits travel to the U.S. for more efficient and comprehensice medical treatments. The reverse has rarely, if ever, been known to happen.

So, like I said, tell us again how the British or Candian systems are better in every way...?!

prove it.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

Really? I think it blows away those other systems when you consider the costs to those who choose not to participate.

See, that's where our simple opinions differ, I guess. I would have no problem paying a few more dollars a month so that everyone has access to quality health-care, even though I am healthy as a horse.

Well then I recommend you pick out a charity with similar goals to donate your money to, and keep your hands out of my god damn pockets.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: techs
Yeah, lets go to the Chinese system.

Seriously, drug companies try to push uses for their drugs that are outside of the uses they were tested for. This is a way to skirt the actual approval process which includes tests for, well, do they actually work?
If a drug company wants to push a drug for an illness it was not approved for they can easily submit an application and show the lab tests that show it works.

we're talking about uses that the drugs have been tested for, and the results of which have been published by respected medical journals. often these studies were done by another branch of the government, such as the national institutes of health. the efficacy testing has already been done. the FDA approval process can then take another couple of years.

is it ok to tell someone who will die without the treatment that they can't have a drug that has been shown to work because the FDA hasn't approved that indication yet?

The problem with the FDA is that it's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The primary source of its funding comes from the very corporation whose products it is supposed to help regulate. There is increasing pressure on the FDA to bring new drugs to market more quickly. The faster they are brought to market, the more money the pharmaceutical companies can make.

Consumers, particularly those who would benefit from an unapproved treatment, also are pushing the FDA to approve these new medications faster in order to save their own lives. Because of this pressure, the FDA does fast-track medications that are designed to help those who are critically ill.

The problem, now, is that this fast-track status being applied to almost all drugs. While the approval times have decreased, the FDA has also allowed an increased number of harmful drugs into the market - only to be forced to withdraw them years later. Drug-to-drug interactions send hundreds of thousands of individuals to the emergency room and are responsible for killing thousands more every year.

Hence, we must strike a balance between the demands of the corporations (fast approval) and the safety of our society.

Let's not even get started on "off-label" use of medication.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Let's not even get started on "off-label" use of medication.

uh, that's exactly what this thread is about. uses other than the indicated use.

sheesh, does anyone read the article in the OP?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: techs
Seriously, drug companies try to push uses for their drugs that are outside of the uses they were tested for. This is a way to skirt the actual approval process which includes tests for, well, do they actually work?
If a drug company wants to push a drug for an illness it was not approved for they can easily submit an application and show the lab tests that show it works.

Seriously, on a long enough timeline, and barring death by accident or violence, you WILL have this conversation with your doctor:
"Well, techs, the time has come that we have feared, and your disease has progressed to the terminal state. Worst case scenario, if we continue your current treatment or do nothing, you have 6 months to live. There is this experimental treatment, which a few patients had some success with, but I can't offer it to you because some ideologue on the internet thinks that would violate his anti-corporatist agenda... "

:roll:

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statment or ar you just assuming?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statment or ar you just assuming?

Well, the claim is that 40 million don't have insurance and there are and estimated 10-20 million illegals so it looks like 1/3 is about correct.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statement or are you just assuming?

I sure do. The Economic Report of the President, 2004, page 197-198 shows information about who makes up the uninsured in the US. There are a portion of uninsured that have access to Medicaid but don't accept it. Unfortunately the report doesn't say how much. Also, another portion (32%) make $50,000 or more a year and decide not to get insurance.

 

[ElFenix]

can you all start your own thread? kthx.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statment or ar you just assuming?

Let me help you out using (rough) whole numbers...

Total U.S. Population:
300,000,000

Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.:
22,000,000

Estimated number of uninsured Americans:
50,000,000

Of the 50 mil uninsured Americans, an estimated 40% are that way by choice, which leaves 30,000,000 uninsured Americans who want it, but cannot afford it.

Of those, 22,000,000 are illegal Americans.

Therefore, roughly 8,000,000 legal Americans are uninsured, which is approximiately 3% of our total population.

If you include illegals in the number of those who want converage, but cannot afford it, then approximately 10% of the residents in America need coverage.

Given the various UHC proposals, to date, conservative estimates show an increase in taxes, for every family (of 4) paying into the system, of between $500 and $1000 per month!.

The current average cost, per family (of 4), for full medical coverage, is $350 (out of pocket) per month.

Therefore, the bottom line...

In order to pay for the 1 in 10 residents who do not have insurance, which includes illegals, American families of four will pay an additional $150 to 650, per month, if the U.S. implements a Nationalized/Universal Healthcare system.

I love math!

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
can you all start your own thread? kthx.

Sorry about that.

I thought for terminal diseases like cancer and HIV, there was sort of a fast track for drug trials and approval by the FDA...

It only makes sense that the FDA would streamline the process for drug approval for terminal diseases.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statment or ar you just assuming?

Let me help you out using (rough) whole numbers...

Your already a proven liar so who cares what crap you post? Not me.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statement or are you just assuming?

I sure do. The Economic Report of the President, 2004, page 197-198 shows information about who makes up the uninsured in the US. There are a portion of uninsured that have access to Medicaid but don't accept it. Unfortunately the report doesn't say how much. Also, another portion (32%) make $50,000 or more a year and decide not to get insurance.

Since you never bothered to link to it, I downloaded the report and am looking at it right now. The only thing I can see where non-US citizens are discussed is page 198 where it says (it's a pdf so I have to type it):

"Finally, many of the people included in the domestic estimates of uninsurance are citizens of other countries. Over 8.9 million of the 43.6 million people included in the US Census Burea estimate of the unisured are not US citzens. This includes both legal immigrants and foreign-born individuals with non-immigrant status, such as students, diplomats, and undocumented individuals."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf

So that number counts all the legal immigrants. I think you assumed too much in your "estimate".

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Can't read the full article without a subscription... lame.

But to answer your questions: Yes, a government bureaucracy WILL get in the way of advanced and proper medical care, at every turn! Just ask the nearest Canadian or Brit!

Your "allowed" treatments will be reduced to a short list of those "approved" (read: lobbied and paid for) by Uncle Sam.

Cool, eh?

I have, and you're wrong.

The US system is inferior in every way.

prove it.

2) Only 1/6 of this nation lacks medical coverage, and some studies indicate that nearly 40% of those are by choice!

Actually about 1/3 of that sixth are illegal immigrants. It's not too surprising that they don't have health insurance.

You got proof for that statement or are you just assuming?

I sure do. The Economic Report of the President, 2004, page 197-198 shows information about who makes up the uninsured in the US. There are a portion of uninsured that have access to Medicaid but don't accept it. Unfortunately the report doesn't say how much. Also, another portion (32%) make $50,000 or more a year and decide not to get insurance.

Since you never bothered to link to it, I downloaded the report and am looking at it right now. The only thing I can see where non-US citizens are discussed is page 198 where it says (it's a pdf so I have to type it):

"Finally, many of the people included in the domestic estimates of uninsurance are citizens of other countries. Over 8.9 million of the 43.6 million people included in the US Census Burea estimate of the unisured are not US citzens. This includes both legal immigrants and foreign-born individuals with non-immigrant status, such as students, diplomats, and undocumented individuals."

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf

So that number counts all the legal immigrants. I think you assumed too much in your "estimate".

I'd be more than happy to rework the math for you, using your numbers there, so that you can keep up with the main point. Just say the word my friend!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: ElFenix
can you all start your own thread? kthx.

Sorry about that.

I thought for terminal diseases like cancer and HIV, there was sort of a fast track for drug trials and approval by the FDA...

It only makes sense that the FDA would streamline the process for drug approval for terminal diseases.

there is. rather than taking half a decade or more, it takes a couple years (still probably too long, if someone is going to die soon without a drug it doesn't make much sense to keep them from it).


keep in mind that what the article is talking about is not drugs that haven't gone through testing for interactions and dangers (which is the concern for new drugs). these are drugs that have generally been on the market for a while indicated for one thing.