The doughnut is bad for you.

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
Prices are soooooooooooooo high Americans have greatly increased their drug consumption in the past 5 years. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....

Prices aren't responsible for most of the prescription drug cost increases, raw quantities are.

Uh... prices ARE sooooooooooo high. There's no competition in drugs, and the monopoly power of the pharmaceutical companies is protected by legislation - even public drug plans can't really negotiate for better prices.

Even in the world of drugs still undr patent, your prices are higher than other first-world nations - 50-100% higher than Canadian prices!

So why is demand for American drugs so high and still rising compared to other countries?

Guess more and more Americans, especially the elderly, have trouble getting their hardons.

Is the demand actually higher or do you just not hear about it as much because you're comparing us to countries with socialized medicine?

 

[Jhhnn]

I object to the fact that the measure has absolutely no cost control mechanisms, unlike the VA drug procurement system, so it's just a sop to big pharma and big insurance... I also object to the fact that it doesn't target seniors who need assistance in this regard, at all...

( Too bad I don't have a .wav file of pigs feeding to insert here)

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Man, I wish I could be around to see what happens when you get old.

When I get old all these ponzi schemes will be as dead as you will be.

No more 40 million seniors frivolously using 80% of the nations prescription drugs because the cheaper masked price leads to much higher excessive demand.

And the richbashers here hate the CEOs who make a piddly $100 million, nothing compared to the hordes of seniors in its effect on the cost of healthcare.

Keep in mind that it is these hordes of Seniors thant made American the great country you and your folks choose to immigrate too.

Presciption drugs and the companies and the people that work there have also made America the great country it is today, and for a fraction of the cost of seniors I might add.

Without the Seniors, there would be a significantly smaller market for prescriptions. That would be bad for those fat cat CEOs that you worship and adore.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Uh... prices ARE sooooooooooo high. There's no competition in drugs, and the monopoly power of the pharmaceutical companies is protected by legislation - even public drug plans can't really negotiate for better prices.

Even in the world of drugs still undr patent, your prices are higher than other first-world nations - 50-100% higher than Canadian prices!

So why is demand for American drugs so high and still rising compared to other countries?

Guess more and more Americans, especially the elderly, have trouble getting their hardons.

Is the demand actually higher or do you just not hear about it as much because you're comparing us to countries with socialized medicine?

Text

Unfortunately the sources of these increases are widely misunderstood by the general public and politicians. What is increasing most rapidly is drug consumption not drug prices.

Money spent on pharmaceuticals

In the US, 2.9 billion prescriptions were dispensed on the retail market, up from 2.7 billion in 1999 representing 10.4 prescriptions per person.
In 2000, Canadians filled 291 million retail prescriptions at a total retail price of $11 billion. This is equivalent to 9 prescriptions per person.


There you have it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

Unfortunately the sources of these increases are widely misunderstood by the general public and politicians. What is increasing most rapidly is drug consumption not drug prices.

Money spent on pharmaceuticals

In the US, 2.9 billion prescriptions were dispensed on the retail market, up from 2.7 billion in 1999 representing 10.4 prescriptions per person.
In 2000, Canadians filled 291 million retail prescriptions at a total retail price of $11 billion. This is equivalent to 9 prescriptions per person.


There you have it.

I'm not sure what Canada has to do with your argument, but you'll note that Canada buys about 1/10th the prescriptions, and spends about 1/20th the money doing so.

There isn't enough data to know if the mix of drugs prescribed, and the size of the average prescription are comparable; the difference seems too high given the normal figure of around 60-70% higher prices in the US (the range is bigger than this, but on average it is less than the ~100% difference represented in the linked data).

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: charrison
Sp does this mean we are not spending enough on the medicare drug bill? I could have swore everyone thought we were spending too much on it.

Good question.

I think we are spending too much on it. But then again, I am not part of the gang who thinks Prescription drugs should be paid for by the tax payers.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
Someone using $1500 a year of prescription drugs a year on someone else's bill is what is crazy.

I don't think I've used $1500 of prescription drugs in the last 10 years.

Man, I wish I could be around to see what happens when you get old.

When I get old all these ponzi schemes will be as dead as you will be.

No more 40 million seniors frivolously using 80% of the nations prescription drugs because the cheaper masked price leads to much higher excessive demand.

And the richbashers here hate the CEOs who make a piddly $100 million, nothing compared to the hordes of seniors in its effect on the cost of healthcare.

Keep in mind that it is these hordes of Seniors thant made American the great country you and your folks choose to immigrate too.

Because of Zen and the rest of his ilk I am glad I won;t be around because this once mighty Nation will be gone too.

We're witness to him and his ilk destryoing it right before our eyes and that is sad enough.

Give it a break Dave, like you his is just part of the lunatic fringe and really has no influence on those who are capable of thinking for themselves.

Seriously... this guy is like a moveon.org version of one of those tennis ball machines that keeps spouting out party lines every 3 minutes without fail

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

Unfortunately the sources of these increases are widely misunderstood by the general public and politicians. What is increasing most rapidly is drug consumption not drug prices.

Money spent on pharmaceuticals

In the US, 2.9 billion prescriptions were dispensed on the retail market, up from 2.7 billion in 1999 representing 10.4 prescriptions per person.
In 2000, Canadians filled 291 million retail prescriptions at a total retail price of $11 billion. This is equivalent to 9 prescriptions per person.


There you have it.

I'm not sure what Canada has to do with your argument, but you'll note that Canada buys about 1/10th the prescriptions, and spends about 1/20th the money doing so.

There isn't enough data to know if the mix of drugs prescribed, and the size of the average prescription are comparable; the difference seems too high given the normal figure of around 60-70% higher prices in the US (the range is bigger than this, but on average it is less than the ~100% difference represented in the linked data).

Canada is just an example of a country that uses less prescription drugs per capita. Not sure why the mix of drugs matters, the clear truth is that the US citizen uses more of them, or at least a similar amount. Interesting how they continue to demand huge quantities of drugs regardless of the soooooooooooooo high price.

Canada does have less than 1/10 the people as well. But believe what you will.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison
Sp does this mean we are not spending enough on the medicare drug bill? I could have swore everyone thought we were spending too much on it.

We are. ALL of it.

Interesting tidbit about the new drug bill: Is it possibly a "corporate bailout" of retiree insurance drug plans? My company recently told retirees that those who participated in this new plan would be dropped from the company drug coverage for retirees (no longer offered to the rest of us non-retirees). If you opted to keep the company coverage, then your premiums went up substantially. Seems that companies are eager to jump on this, and why not, free social medicine to help the bottom corporate line! :roll:

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Man, I wish I could be around to see what happens when you get old.

When I get old all these ponzi schemes will be as dead as you will be.

No more 40 million seniors frivolously using 80% of the nations prescription drugs because the cheaper masked price leads to much higher excessive demand.

And the richbashers here hate the CEOs who make a piddly $100 million, nothing compared to the hordes of seniors in its effect on the cost of healthcare.

Keep in mind that it is these hordes of Seniors thant made American the great country you and your folks choose to immigrate too.

Presciption drugs and the companies and the people that work there have also made America the great country it is today, and for a fraction of the cost of seniors I might add.

I can't believe you value drugs and companies over the value of human life. :disgust:

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

Unfortunately the sources of these increases are widely misunderstood by the general public and politicians. What is increasing most rapidly is drug consumption not drug prices.

Money spent on pharmaceuticals

In the US, 2.9 billion prescriptions were dispensed on the retail market, up from 2.7 billion in 1999 representing 10.4 prescriptions per person.
In 2000, Canadians filled 291 million retail prescriptions at a total retail price of $11 billion. This is equivalent to 9 prescriptions per person.


There you have it.

I'm not sure what Canada has to do with your argument, but you'll note that Canada buys about 1/10th the prescriptions, and spends about 1/20th the money doing so.

There isn't enough data to know if the mix of drugs prescribed, and the size of the average prescription are comparable; the difference seems too high given the normal figure of around 60-70% higher prices in the US (the range is bigger than this, but on average it is less than the ~100% difference represented in the linked data).

Canada is just an example of a country that uses less prescription drugs per capita. Not sure why the mix of drugs matters, the clear truth is that the US citizen uses more of them, or at least a similar amount. Interesting how they continue to demand huge quantities of drugs regardless of the soooooooooooooo high price.

Canada does have less than 1/10 the people as well. But believe what you will.

Actually, Canada has a little more than 1/10th the people, and spends an average of half as much per prescription. Note the prescriptions per capita are about 86% as high in Canada as the US. Lower, but hardly incomparable, and irrelevent to the back-of-envelope drug cost caluclation I was making. Now the real number is apparently closer to 60-70% higher, not 100%, but either way, Canada still has patent protection for drugs, we just don't have the protectionist legilation to ensure pharmaceutical companies massive profits.

Try cutting your prices 40% and see what that does to your social programs cost.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
No more 40 million seniors frivolously using 80% of the nations prescription drugs because the cheaper masked price leads to much higher excessive demand.

And the richbashers here hate the CEOs who make a piddly $100 million, nothing compared to the hordes of seniors in its effect on the cost of healthcare.

Originally posted by: zendari
Presciption drugs and the companies and the people that work there have also made America the great country it is today, and for a fraction of the cost of seniors I might add.

Originally posted by: zendari
Prices aren't responsible for most of the prescription drug cost increases, raw quantities are.

Sure wish I knew what drugs Zendari is taking. I have absolutely no clue what he is trying to say.

A request, Zendari: Instead of your usual sound-bite, sniper-attack method of "argumentation", please write a coherent, logical paragraph or two explaining what you are getting at. In doing so, justify each of the following claims:

Seniors are frivolously using prescription drugs. (Do you really think seniors would be spending many thousands of dollars each year - currently with ZERO insurance subsidy - paying for drugs they don't need to take? Oh, sure, there are generic subsitutes in some cases, but the amounts of money that could be saved with generics is a small fraction of the full amount spent on drugs, and the generics issue is not specific to seniors.)

Seniors are driving up the cost of drugs unnecessarily. (Please explain how seniors specifically are responsible for the high cost of drugs, and what actions could be taken on the part of seniors that would make the prices much lower.)

I get the sense that you think seniors are by and large paying a fraction of the full cost of drugs, and that's leading to over-use. Ironically, seniors are the one group that does NOT pay only an insurance co-pay for drugs (most of them are no longer working, and therefore they are NOT covered by gilt-edged company health insurance plans that pay for most of the cost of drugs). Instead, it's the working NON-elderly - with company health-insurance plans - who get "masked" prices.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
No more 40 million seniors frivolously using 80% of the nations prescription drugs because the cheaper masked price leads to much higher excessive demand.

And the richbashers here hate the CEOs who make a piddly $100 million, nothing compared to the hordes of seniors in its effect on the cost of healthcare.

Originally posted by: zendari
Presciption drugs and the companies and the people that work there have also made America the great country it is today, and for a fraction of the cost of seniors I might add.

Originally posted by: zendari
Prices aren't responsible for most of the prescription drug cost increases, raw quantities are.

Sure wish I knew what drugs Zendari is taking. I have absolutely no clue what he is trying to say.

A request, Zendari: Instead of your usual sound-bite, sniper-attack method of "argumentation", please write a coherent, logical paragraph or two explaining what you are getting at. In doing so, justify each of the following claims:

Seniors are frivolously using prescription drugs. (Do you really think seniors would be spending many thousands of dollars each year - currently with ZERO insurance subsidy - paying for drugs they don't need to take? Oh, sure, there are generic subsitutes in some cases, but the amounts of money that could be saved with generics is a small fraction of the full amount spent on drugs, and the generics issue is not specific to seniors.)

Seniors are driving up the cost of drugs unnecessarily. (Please explain how seniors specifically are responsible for the high cost of drugs, and what actions could be taken on the part of seniors that would make the prices much lower.)

I get the sense that you think seniors are by and large paying a fraction of the full cost of drugs, and that's leading to over-use. Ironically, seniors are the one group that does NOT pay only an insurance co-pay for drugs (most of them are no longer working, and therefore they are NOT covered by gilt-edged company health insurance plans that pay for most of the cost of drugs). Instead, it's the working NON-elderly - with company health-insurance plans - who get "masked" prices.

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Man, I wish I could be around to see what happens when you get old.

When I get old all these ponzi schemes will be as dead as you will be.

No more 40 million seniors frivolously using 80% of the nations prescription drugs because the cheaper masked price leads to much higher excessive demand.

And the richbashers here hate the CEOs who make a piddly $100 million, nothing compared to the hordes of seniors in its effect on the cost of healthcare.

Keep in mind that it is these hordes of Seniors thant made American the great country you and your folks choose to immigrate too.

Presciption drugs and the companies and the people that work there have also made America the great country it is today, and for a fraction of the cost of seniors I might add.

I can't believe you value drugs and companies over the value of human life. :disgust:

Total summed up Zen quite well.

He apparently has never had a elderly family members that need medicine to extend their life and/or quality of life.

Were they killed off or something???

 

[imported_Condor]

I lived in a police state for three years with no doughnut shop. Talk about a mean bunch of cops!

 

[techs]

Interesting points being made. I agree that the plan is structered to help businesses who are seeing drug costs for their retirees skyrocket.

As to the structure of the plan, with the doughnut, its almost the stupidest plan you could imagine. Instead of paying 66 percent of the first 2250 dollars to really help people it should pay 66 percent of the amount between 2250 and 5100 dollars. Those are the people who need the most help. As high as 2250 is a year for many people on a retirement income the idea of asking people to pay the 2250 to 5100 is bascially a plan that hurts the people who can LEAST afford it.
Of course a skeptic would think that the plan is designed to put as many small checks in as many indivduals pockets as possible by paying from day one of drug costs. And thus to gain political support for the party that passed it. And a skeptic might say the doughnut is designed to hurt the poor.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: techs
Interesting points being made. I agree that the plan is structered to help businesses who are seeing drug costs for their retirees skyrocket.

As to the structure of the plan, with the doughnut, its almost the stupidest plan you could imagine. Instead of paying 66 percent of the first 2250 dollars to really help people it should pay 66 percent of the amount between 2250 and 5100 dollars. Those are the people who need the most help. As high as 2250 is a year for many people on a retirement income the idea of asking people to pay the 2250 to 5100 is bascially a plan that hurts the people who can LEAST afford it.
Of course a skeptic would think that the plan is designed to put as many small checks in as many indivduals pockets as possible by paying from day one of drug costs. And thus to gain political support for the party that passed it. And a skeptic might say the doughnut is designed to hurt the poor.

The only problem with that hteory is that before this bill was passed the poor were left paying for the entire donut and not just the hole.

 

[Jadow]

that's the same system that many CDHCs (consumer driven health plans) go. There is an initial health account funded by your employer, once that's used up, you have to meet the remainder of the premium, then the regular insurance kicks in.

I have a plan like that for 2005 and love it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: techs
Thats the doughnut hole.

I strongly dispute this characterization.

This appears to me to more strongly resemble what I see when my father pilfers a slice of my mother's cooking before the rest of the family sits down to dinner.

You know, a meatloaf-gap thingy.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira
Seniors are frivolously using prescription drugs. (Do you really think seniors would be spending many thousands of dollars each year - currently with ZERO insurance subsidy - paying for drugs they don't need to take? Oh, sure, there are generic subsitutes in some cases, but the amounts of money that could be saved with generics is a small fraction of the full amount spent on drugs, and the generics issue is not specific to seniors.)

Absolutely, unless you really think that hardons and hair are "needed". It's much easier to go on a pillpopping spree than take care of your own health, and now the spree is on someone else's bill!

Seniors are driving up the cost of drugs unnecessarily. (Please explain how seniors specifically are responsible for the high cost of drugs, and what actions could be taken on the part of seniors that would make the prices much lower.)

They consume some 80% of the nations drugs and are primarily responsible for the US's excessive 10.4 prescriptions/person/year. Prices increase when you drive up demand.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Total summed up Zen quite well.

He apparently has never had a elderly family members that need medicine to extend their life and/or quality of life.

Were they killed off or something???

All 4 of my grandparents are dead. But even if they weren't, they would be taken care of by family instead of cheerfully dumping them on the state like liberals do.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: shira
Seniors are frivolously using prescription drugs. (Do you really think seniors would be spending many thousands of dollars each year - currently with ZERO insurance subsidy - paying for drugs they don't need to take? Oh, sure, there are generic subsitutes in some cases, but the amounts of money that could be saved with generics is a small fraction of the full amount spent on drugs, and the generics issue is not specific to seniors.)

Originally posted by: zendari
Absolutely, unless you really think that hardons and hair are "needed". It's much easier to go on a pillpopping spree than take care of your own health, and now the spree is on someone else's bill!

You are unbelieveable. so completely misinformed in so many ways that it is almost impossible to know where to begin:

First, the world-wide total cost for all erectile disfunction drugs is less than $3 billion a year and the revenue for propecia, the prescription hair-growth drug, is 270 million. So, even assuming ALL of these drugs unneeded, you grand total waste would be about $3.25 billion. This is what YOU think is making drug costs so outrageous?

Second, your assumption that ED drugs are not needed is absurd. Do you really think impotence is not a legitimate medical condition, deserving treatment? If a man is unable to get or maintain an erection, and that condition seriously interferes with his sex life, do you REALLY think he should just "deal with it"? Based on your previous posts on this any many other thread, I'd already come to the conclusion that you are a hateful and heartless, but your expressed attitudes in this thread just proves how utterly lacking in any human feeling you are.

Third, your assumption that ED drugs are primarily used by the over-65 crowed is absurd. I can't find the reference here, but my recollection is that they are most-often used by men in the 50 to 60 age group and by plenty of younger people recreationally.

Fourth, your assumption that prescription drug costs for seniors are primarily paid for by insurance in nonsense. Medicare up till now hasn't paid for prescription drug costs (so any "too large" cost of drugs can't possibly have been caused by medicare drug payments) and most medicare gap-insurance policies don't include drug coverage. So most seniors pay for prescriptions out of their own pocket.

For "fifth", see below.

Seniors are driving up the cost of drugs unnecessarily. (Please explain how seniors specifically are responsible for the high cost of drugs, and what actions could be taken on the part of seniors that would make the prices much lower.)

They consume some 80% of the nations drugs and are primarily responsible for the US's excessive 10.4 prescriptions/person/year. Prices increase when you drive up demand.

Fifth, you make the assumption that the high level of prescriptions in the U.S. is "excessive". Guess what, old people get sick a lot more than young people, so whether the elderly use 80% of 95% of prescrition drugs is completely beside the point. Do you think there's something wrong about sick people getting presciptions to help with their ailments?

Hey, I know, let's just let them DIE. Why let a bunch of old people linger around, slowing down traffic, gumming up the works, spending MY money. That's right, MY MONEY. MINE, MINE, MINE. If we could somehow deprive the old farts of their prescriptions, they'd die MUCH faster and save us all a lot of trouble and would save ME MY MONEY! Those damned, selfish old people, why do they keep on clinging to life? Why do they keep spending MY MONEY to live longer. Why can't they just die already?

Does that about sum up your attitude? Do you realize what a monster you are?

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: shira
Hey, I know, let's just let them DIE. Why let a bunch of old people linger around, slowing down traffic, gumming up the works, spending MY money. That's right, MY MONEY. MINE, MINE, MINE. If we could somehow deprive the old farts of their prescriptions, they'd die MUCH faster and save us all a lot of trouble and would save ME MY MONEY! Those damned, selfish old people, why do they keep on clinging to life? Why do they keep spending MY MONEY to live longer. Why can't they just die already?

Does that about sum up your attitude? Do you realize what a monster you are?

Yep, that sums up his attitude pretty well. It's scary to think that he is so young and yet he's so bitter and hateful. I don't want to imagine what he'll be like in 40-50 years.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: fornax

Originally posted by: shira
Hey, I know, let's just let them DIE. Why let a bunch of old people linger around, slowing down traffic, gumming up the works, spending MY money. That's right, MY MONEY. MINE, MINE, MINE. If we could somehow deprive the old farts of their prescriptions, they'd die MUCH faster and save us all a lot of trouble and would save ME MY MONEY! Those damned, selfish old people, why do they keep on clinging to life? Why do they keep spending MY MONEY to live longer. Why can't they just die already?

Does that about sum up your attitude? Do you realize what a monster you are?

Yep, that sums up his attitude pretty well. It's scary to think that he is so young and yet he's so bitter and hateful. I don't want to imagine what he'll be like in 40-50 years.

The old emotional tirade used to somehow try to guilt a person into not questioning the use of their tax dollars. :roll:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Uh... prices ARE sooooooooooo high. There's no competition in drugs, and the monopoly power of the pharmaceutical companies is protected by legislation - even public drug plans can't really negotiate for better prices.

Even in the world of drugs still undr patent, your prices are higher than other first-world nations - 50-100% higher than Canadian prices!

So why is demand for American drugs so high and still rising compared to other countries?

Guess more and more Americans, especially the elderly, have trouble getting their hardons.

Is the demand actually higher or do you just not hear about it as much because you're comparing us to countries with socialized medicine?

Text

Unfortunately the sources of these increases are widely misunderstood by the general public and politicians. What is increasing most rapidly is drug consumption not drug prices.

Money spent on pharmaceuticals

In the US, 2.9 billion prescriptions were dispensed on the retail market, up from 2.7 billion in 1999 representing 10.4 prescriptions per person.
In 2000, Canadians filled 291 million retail prescriptions at a total retail price of $11 billion. This is equivalent to 9 prescriptions per person.


There you have it.

So Canada, a country with 1/10 our population, uses 1/10 the amount of drugs we do? K....

And your second link has one serious issue in it: why does Japan and the US spend so much more than the other countries per capita? (Japan looks slightly higher per person than us) Well, I know we have the major issue with the prescription drug bill not allowing negotiations, but that hasn't gone into effect yet.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: techs
With the Medicare prescription drug plan going into effect in about 6 weeks its time to look at the deadly doughnut.
Check out this wacky drug plan. For the first 2,250 dollars of drug costs yearly the Medicare recipient will get about 66 percent in re-imbursement.
BUT at 2,250 dollars the Medicare drug plan STOPS until you reach 5,100 in drug costs. Leaving the senior citizen to pay the full cost of their drugs from 2,250 up to 5,100 dollars.
Thats the doughnut hole.
If thats not wacky enough for you try and buy health insurance coverage to cover the doughnut between 2,250 and 5,100. You CANNOT. Its illegal. Congress put it in the Medicare drug law. Their reason? You would then become "insensitive" to the cost of your drugs.
Have you ever heard of anything crazier?

And let me guess. . .the vast majority of elderly spend between $2,250 and $5,100 per year on drugs?