U.S. Health Care Crisis: Profits over life

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Perhaps part of the problem is that Americans expect drug companies to subsidize their extravagant, unhealthy lifestyles. There was an article in the Mpls Star Tribune about yesterday, and while I haven't read the whole thing I read the first page and in my opinion neither side is innocent.

Americans may spend a fortune on drugs, but some of the areas that it's spent on sicken me.
- Anti-depressants: Get a clue arsehole, your life is a cakewalk compared to much of the world. There are far better ways to deal with depression than drugs.
- An ulcer drug: Slow down, life isn't a f@cking race. If you want to drive your body into the ground, be prepared to pay the piper.
- Cholestorol reducing drugs: Eat healthier you fat bastards.

Much of America's rising drug costs are self inflicted, and I hardly blame the drug companies for trying to get as much money as they can out of us. While there are certainly a lot of legitimate uses for drugs, perhaps we wouldn't have the problems we do with drug prices if doctors didn't hand them out like (very expensive) candy.

I'd agree with that for the most part. Nobody wants to have to take personal responsibility for their health - they just want a drug that'll fix em up quick when they break themselves.

CkG

No.

"Anti-depressants: Get a clue arsehole, your life is a cakewalk compared to much of the world. There are far better ways to deal with depression than drugs"
Well, I could day this. "So your leg got blown off? Your life is a cakewalk compared to much of the world. Deal.
Depression can be a serious medical condition. It isnt about being sad, or dissatisfied. People with clinical depression suffer, and medication helps, and helps those who have to deal with them.

Ulcer drugs.
Another statement spoken in ignorance. Ulcer rates are HIGHER in rural areas. Maybe you want to find out the cause of many ulcers (Hint, the initials are H.P.)

Cholesterol- Much is due to diet, but then again, many who have high cholesterol STILL have it after changing. My wife has a cholesterol of greater than 400 without Lipitor, and probably eats better than you.


CkG, perhaps you ought to find these things out too before agreeing with ignorance.

 

[43st]

I find the pharmaceuticals "R&D" argument pretty funny. The pharmaceutical industry has listed in the top three of profitable industries for many many years. One would think that if all this money is going into R&D it wouldn't show up as profit on the yearly books.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Perhaps part of the problem is that Americans expect drug companies to subsidize their extravagant, unhealthy lifestyles. There was an article in the Mpls Star Tribune about yesterday, and while I haven't read the whole thing I read the first page and in my opinion neither side is innocent.

Americans may spend a fortune on drugs, but some of the areas that it's spent on sicken me.
- Anti-depressants: Get a clue arsehole, your life is a cakewalk compared to much of the world. There are far better ways to deal with depression than drugs.
- An ulcer drug: Slow down, life isn't a f@cking race. If you want to drive your body into the ground, be prepared to pay the piper.
- Cholestorol reducing drugs: Eat healthier you fat bastards.

Much of America's rising drug costs are self inflicted, and I hardly blame the drug companies for trying to get as much money as they can out of us. While there are certainly a lot of legitimate uses for drugs, perhaps we wouldn't have the problems we do with drug prices if doctors didn't hand them out like (very expensive) candy.

I'd agree with that for the most part. Nobody wants to have to take personal responsibility for their health - they just want a drug that'll fix em up quick when they break themselves.

CkG

No.

"Anti-depressants: Get a clue arsehole, your life is a cakewalk compared to much of the world. There are far better ways to deal with depression than drugs"
Well, I could day this. "So your leg got blown off? Your life is a cakewalk compared to much of the world. Deal.
Depression can be a serious medical condition. It isnt about being sad, or dissatisfied. People with clinical depression suffer, and medication helps, and helps those who have to deal with them.

Ulcer drugs.
Another statement spoken in ignorance. Ulcer rates are HIGHER in rural areas. Maybe you want to find out the cause of many ulcers (Hint, the initials are H.P.)

Cholesterol- Much is due to diet, but then again, many who have high cholesterol STILL have it after changing. My wife has a cholesterol of greater than 400 without Lipitor, and probably eats better than you.


CkG, perhaps you ought to find these things out too before agreeing with ignorance.

No - it wasn't ignorance

Drugs can be a very good thing, but the way they are being used to day as cure-alls is absolutely assinine - THAT was my point. Sure you can find specific examples of drugs doing good things - it's just on the overall, people's lifestyles and habits are to blame. You can't argue the fact that people want a quick drug instead of doing things right. Look at the diet pill craze. It's spilled over into everything else. Drugs aren't the cureall - but have become the first line of treatment because it's quick and easy. Again - I'm not saying all drugs are bad - but they are WAY overused. Sure his examples could have been better - but that doesn't change my point.

CkG

 

[Gravity]

A few years ago there was an article, perhaps by dave barry? that told a satirical tale of a guy that goes to his docter about some stomach pain. The Doctor tells him it might be nothing but he's obligated to tell him that his HMO is running a special on early demise. The doctor tries to sell him a package that gives his spouse 10k in cash and the immediate family a caribean cruise if he'll opt for early euthanasia. It seems that the HMO calculated that it's much cheaper to pay out the 10k and the cruise than it is to let this guy age and require more care.

The guy is a bit leery and opts for tests...the doctor persists, and informs the patient that he is authorized to bump the cash award to 15k and throw in a below ground pool as well as one year's tuition for two of his kids to a local university. The guy gets scared and wants the tests to figure out if it's a real problem or just gas pains. Finally, the doctor relents and does the testing and discovers that the guy is fine.

How far are we from this? HMOs are about money, make no mistake.

Gravity

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Ulcer drugs.

No - it wasn't ignorance

Drugs can be a very good thing, but the way they are being used to day as cure-alls is absolutely assinine - THAT was my point. Sure you can find specific examples of drugs doing good things - it's just on the overall, people's lifestyles and habits are to blame. You can't argue the fact that people want a quick drug instead of doing things right. Look at the diet pill craze. It's spilled over into everything else. Drugs aren't the cureall - but have become the first line of treatment because it's quick and easy. Again - I'm not saying all drugs are bad - but they are WAY overused. Sure his examples could have been better - but that doesn't change my point.

CkG

I agree with the notion that drugs are necessary. When you tell someone with clinical depression to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", you have overlooked the obvious fact that clinically depressed people have no boot straps.

Gravity

 

[BoberFett]

Horsesh!t.

I was diagnosed as clinically depressed a few years ago and I was prescribed a variety of drugs. In the end I never took any of them for more than a few months because I didn't like the side effects. I got over my "clinical depression" through other means.

A huge percentage of Americans are on anti-anxiety or anti-depressant drugs. How many of them truly need it, and how many are in that situation because of an unhealthy lifestyle?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Horsesh!t.

I was diagnosed as clinically depressed a few years ago and I was prescribed a variety of drugs. In the end I never took any of them for more than a few months because I didn't like the side effects. I got over my "clinical depression" through other means.

A huge percentage of Americans are on anti-anxiety or anti-depressant drugs. How many of them truly need it, and how many are in that situation because of an unhealthy lifestyle?

Well, thats great for you. Congratulations.

Not everyone is you however. Maybe you are weak for having something that could be classified as depression to begin with? Are you morally or mentally inferior? Damn you lazy people. You should never have had anything to get over with, drugs or not. It's your fault.

Whenever you make sweeping generalizations, you risk looking foolish. You might make the case that medications are in certain cases overprescribed. Certainly a reverse argument is that some medications are being prescribed because they can be. Take your post about ulcers. It misses the cause of them, and that millions suffered with them not because of some percieved intestinal fortitude, or suicidal work schedule, but because there was no effective treatment.
My grandmother was the picture of calm, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Nevertheless, she had to have a large portion of her stomach removed, because at the time there was no other treatment.

Are certain medications overprescribed? I think so. I think ADD was overdiagnosed for the longest time, although it seems the medical world is getting a better grip on that.

 

[BoberFett]

Nope, nothing wrong with me. What was wrong was how quickly the doctor I was seeing diagnosed me as clinically depressed and jumped on prescribing me drugs. I'm willing to bet I'm not an isolated case. For every person that legitimately needs the latest, fashionable drug, I'm willing to bet there are 3 that don't need it.

 

[rjain]

The drug stores are just jealous of the psychiatrists.

 

[Corn]

What was wrong was how quickly the doctor I was seeing diagnosed me as clinically depressed and jumped on prescribing me drugs. I'm willing to bet I'm not an isolated case.

BINGO!!!!!!!!

It's no different than the over prescription of antibiotics for which there are ever increasing strains of antibiotic resistant strains of strep and staph, as well as other pathogens...

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Corn

It's no different than the over prescription of antibiotics for which there are ever increasing strains of antibiotic resistant strains of strep and staph, as well as other pathogens...

Not just "for which", but "because of which".

 

[BoberFett]

Yeah, we wouldn't want to wind up with a form of depression that's resistant to drugs.

 

[AEB]

I started to read the thread but i saw the same consistant mis-information. There is no health care crisis. Government regulation is what drives costs up. The people calling for more regulation need to realize that will only hurt us in the long run. Deregulation is the answer. The way capitolisim works is on supply and demand. If you create a competitive atmosphere prices will decrease. More regulation will cause prices to increase.
A well documented writing on this topic can be found in Larry Elder's book "the ten things you cant say in america" Chapter 6 THere is no health care "crisis" He tells how many qualified applicants are being denied entry to medical schools

Ill close with a passage from the chapter this is in response to why there are increases in prices

"The answer is simple: the government does not trust the pricate sector to produce "affordable" health care, "accessible" to all. As a doctor once told me, with a straight face, "The normal laws of supply and demand do not apply to health care." It is precisely that kind of thinking that made health care more, rather than less, expensive, and less, rather than more , accessible. How arrogrant"

I would reccomend reading thw whole book but at least this chapter if this topic intrests you.

 

[Corn]

Not just "for which", but "because of which".

Every one's a f'n critic................

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The greatest expense for a given drug is navigating clinical trials. In general, US Big Pharma and NIH provide most of the funding. The basic research that leads to viable drug candidates is overwelmingly supported by public entities (domestic and foreign). If we ended direct to consumer (DTC) advertisement and put reasonable caps on advertisement to physicians, American consumers (and the US government) would save well over $10B each year . . . assuming drug companies lowered prices to reflect their lower cost of doing business.

Medicine is not "just another commodity or service." Supply and demand will not work b/c ultimately people die due to lack of access. The goal of healthcare is to provide appropriate care in a timely fashion. The goal of business is to make a profit. Those goals are NOT compatible in the current system.

Larry Elder is a tool. He doesn't know squat about healthcare. There are plenty of qualified applicants turned away from law school but that doesn't mean we need more lawyers. There are tremendous shortages of skilled nurses in America but the physician shortage is a geographical phenomenon. Furthermore, the capital costs of building new medical schools makes no sense when hundreds of residency positions go empty each year. In 2000, almost 1/5 of residency positions in psychiatry were filled by international medical graduates (IMG). Nobody wants to work in North Dakota or MS . . . accordingly, per capita physician numbers tend to be low.

Competition means that my institution has a positron emission scanner (PET) and then 10 miles away (separate city and county) there's another PET scanner. In many markets, radiologists are opening free-standing MRI centers where they offer full body scans for $2K . . . just for your peace of mind . . . and a dime. The top psychiatists in my institution don't even see patients anymore but collect $200K/yr; primarily from research funding (NIH and industry) but ultimately all of that money comes from taxpayers and consumers.

 

[nowareman]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The greatest expense for a given drug is navigating clinical trials. In general, US Big Pharma and NIH provide most of the funding. The basic research that leads to viable drug candidates is overwelmingly supported by public entities (domestic and foreign). If we ended direct to consumer (DTC) advertisement and put reasonable caps on advertisement to physicians, American consumers (and the US government) would save well over $10B each year . . . assuming drug companies lowered prices to reflect their lower cost of doing business.

Medicine is not "just another commodity or service." Supply and demand will not work b/c ultimately people die due to lack of access. The goal of healthcare is to provide appropriate care in a timely fashion. The goal of business is to make a profit. Those goals are NOT compatible in the current system.

Larry Elder is a tool. He doesn't know squat about healthcare. There are plenty of qualified applicants turned away from law school but that doesn't mean we need more lawyers. There are tremendous shortages of skilled nurses in America but the physician shortage is a geographical phenomenon. Furthermore, the capital costs of building new medical schools makes no sense when hundreds of residency positions go empty each year. In 2000, almost 1/5 of residency positions in psychiatry were filled by international medical graduates (IMG). Nobody wants to work in North Dakota or MS . . . accordingly, per capita physician numbers tend to be low.

Competition means that my institution has a positron emission scanner (PET) and then 10 miles away (separate city and county) there's another PET scanner. In many markets, radiologists are opening free-standing MRI centers where they offer full body scans for $2K . . . just for your peace of mind . . . and a dime. The top psychiatists in my institution don't even see patients anymore but collect $200K/yr; primarily from research funding (NIH and industry) but ultimately all of that money comes from taxpayers and consumers.

This coming from a health care professional who has experienced the health care system in the US first hand should be a clarion call to all who need health care and that my friends is at one point or other everyone. The system is broken. Let's fix it. Problems with duplication of services and shortages of trained health care professionals are primarily logistical. The real problem IMO is the inherent corportae greed and as the good doctor put it the disparity in goals between health care and big business. As I tried to explain in my own words earlier we are talking about people's lives here and none of us since the last time I checked is God. Health care must be available when needed and medicine must be priced so the people who need it can afford it. 10 billion dollars from ending DTC and putting reasonable caps on marketing to physicians seems a good place to start.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Healthcare != Health Insurance

I've said before and I'll repeat it again. We need to give a BASE level of care - not mandate and Universalize Health insurance. We should have gov't subsidized care for children at a BASIC level so they all can recieve the preventative care they deserve/need. There *may* be other things we need to address but lets start with that (small) and make sure it works first before diving into some big wild ass gov't beauracracy like UHC or other Gov't Health Insurance money pits. Regular check-ups, shots, tests for children should be the starting point - the rest we can deal with once we figure out if this will work first and assess the costs, long-term savings, and viability of this program first. I will not be willing to accept anything but this until I see that the gov't can do this small portion without screwing it up- and even then - I will only support BASIC care - the rest should be Insurance based or HSA based.

CkG

 

[glenn1]

I've said before and I'll repeat it again. We need to give a BASE level of care - not mandate and Universalize Health insurance. We should have gov't subsidized care for children at a BASIC level so they all can recieve the preventative care they deserve/need.

Putting this idea into its own thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: glenn1

I've said before and I'll repeat it again. We need to give a BASE level of care - not mandate and Universalize Health insurance. We should have gov't subsidized care for children at a BASIC level so they all can recieve the preventative care they deserve/need.

I have no problem with providing basic, primary level care like immunizations and other minor care since that's relatively cheap, easily provided by someone with a minimum degree of medical training, and doesn't present a huge privacy issue (Uncle Sam already knows more about my finances than i do, I don't particularly care to give the government my medical records also).

Let me suggest something which i think would improve your idea significantly and be a good deal for all parties concerned. In return for the government making basic care resources available, in return those receiving care are required to participate in programs like giving blood and sign up for organ donation, etc providing they are medically able to do so. To me, that's a good compromise all the way around. The less-fortunate receive basic medical care for a relatively token "price," and the general public and taxpayers who are footing the bill get a vastly expanded donor pool to take advantage of.

Well, that sounds good but children aren't allowed to give blood and they are the ones who are the target of "my plan". Adults wouldn't be included at first...if ever. This is basic checkups(one or two a year) plus those that are scheduled more frequently when they are very young. The health care professionals have certain time frames they want checkups to be at - I'm willing to let them decide how many "free" visits are neccessary per year by age. I haven't finalized my thoughts on when a "child" becomes an adult and thus wouldn't recieve the predetermined free visits. Maybe their parents should give blood, but it's tough when you consider not all children have parents

CkG

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Well, that sounds good but children aren't allowed to give blood and they are the ones who are the target of "my plan". Adults wouldn't be included at first...if ever. This is basic checkups(one or two a year) plus those that are scheduled more frequently when they are very young. The health care professionals have certain time frames they want checkups to be at - I'm willing to let them decide how many "free" visits are neccessary per year by age. I haven't finalized my thoughts on when a "child" becomes an adult and thus wouldn't recieve the predetermined free visits. Maybe their parents should give blood, but it's tough when you consider not all children have parents

CkG

Are we really so short on blood that we need tens of millions of people to donate regularly? Also, don't forget that some people can't donate organs due to religious beliefs and the like. IMO, if you are really concerned about organs and degenerative diseases, you should lobby to lift the limitations on stem cell research and genetic research involving certain forms of cloning. Then again, when it comes to scientific endeavors I have no problem throwing on the mad scientist garb and cursing the villagers and their annoying torches .

 

[AEB]

Larry elder is not a tool whatever that is supposed to mean. He forms his opinions on a matter of facts, like i said his book is WELL documented. And lawyers dont learn how to be good lawyers nessicarily in law school thats why some are paid more than others. For a basic health care (check ups, vaccines, etc) doctors out of medical school are equal(or we can assume they are). So more doctors would create more competition thus driving prices DOWN. its easy economics. no where in the constitution does it grant the governmet the right for universal health care any way.
But let an economist explain it to you (this is also from larry elders book )

"econimist Milton Freidman calls the medical association "perhaps the strongest trade union in the United States. For decades it kept down the number of physicians, kept up the costs of medical care, and prevented competition with 'duly apprenticed and sworn' physicians by people from outside the profession"
And i can speak form experience universal health care wont work because people will go to the doctor for every reason.
I live in alaska and all alaskan natives who want it get 100% free health care. They goto the emergency room for anything, and why not its free. Wel for them but not taxpayers.
As for the old ;Harry Browne says this in his book Why government Doesnt work "The elderly now pay from their own pockets over twice as much for health care(after adjusting for inflation) than they did before medicare begain"

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: amok

Also, don't forget that some people can't donate organs due to religious beliefs and the like. IMO, if you are really concerned about organs and degenerative diseases, you should lobby to lift the limitations on stem cell research and genetic research involving certain forms of cloning.

Cloning and stem cell research is being forbidden due to religious beliefs.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

"econimist Milton Freidman calls the medical association "perhaps the strongest trade union in the United States. For decades it kept down the number of physicians, kept up the costs of medical care, and prevented competition with 'duly apprenticed and sworn' physicians by people from outside the profession"
And i can speak form experience universal health care wont work because people will go to the doctor for every reason.
I live in alaska and all alaskan natives who want it get 100% free health care. They goto the emergency room for anything, and why not its free. Wel for them but not taxpayers.

IHMO, Freidman is on to something. But physicians (and our associations) are just another factor in healthcare mess. The most prominent rise in healthcare costs come from increased utilization and costlier care. Unfortunately, the bulk of those resources are consumed in neonatalogy and geriatrics while many millions that could benefit from the basic care that I believe CAD is endorsing have minimal access.

Your Alaska anecdote means nothing to me. Elder is still a tool; ie useful only through the work/actions of others . . . does not provide a substantive intellectual contribution to the issue at hand. I've read excerpts of Elder's last? book and he's got a case on some issues. But he's way off on healthcare.

 

[drewshin]

i agree as well. i wonder if could ever be such things as healthcare trade agreements between countries?

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: amok

Also, don't forget that some people can't donate organs due to religious beliefs and the like. IMO, if you are really concerned about organs and degenerative diseases, you should lobby to lift the limitations on stem cell research and genetic research involving certain forms of cloning.

Cloning and stem cell research is being forbidden due to religious beliefs.

I know that, of course . However, not participating in something personally due to religious beliefs is one thing, but imposing those belief systems onto others is not protected by the consititution. There is a big difference in the two, and we should keep that in mind when making policy. Those who oppose certain types of research for religious reasons can simply refuse to be treated by an medical advances that comes from it. Simple enough.