U.S. Health Care Crisis: Profits over life

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I really don't disagree with you regarding drugs for non life threatening conditions. I also don't disagree that those who develop the drugs should be compensated for their time and investment.....as long as they don't gouge the public

How can they gouge when there's no monopoly?

If they are the only ones who have the rights to seel the drugs then they can set what ever price they want for it.

They're not the only ones with rights to sell any entire class of drugs. They have rights to the drugs they discovered and developed. Or are you opposing the idea of intellectual property?

I'm just saying that they can set the price for those drugs they have intellectual rights too for any amount they want.
In that sense their Intellectual Rights give them a"Monopoly" when it comes to the sale of that certain drug which they would be able to use to gouge the public.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm just saying that they can set the price for those drugs they have intellectual rights too for any amount they want.
In that sense their Intellectual Rights give them a"Monopoly" when it comes to the sale of that certain drug which they would be able to use to gouge the public.

How is it gouging if people are willing to pay for it?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I don't think anybody would miss HMOs if they vanished tomorrow.

Except for the people who don't have millions of dollars in the bank.

Really? How on earth did we puny humans survive before the great and powerful HMOs rescued us?

I thought HMOs were supposed to keep the cost of health care down by intelligently balancing treatment and costs? They don't seem to be delivering, so why wouldn't we want to switch back to a more traditional health insurance system?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm just saying that they can set the price for those drugs they have intellectual rights too for any amount they want.
In that sense their Intellectual Rights give them a"Monopoly" when it comes to the sale of that certain drug which they would be able to use to gouge the public.

How is it gouging if people are willing to pay for it?

Anybody would be willing to pay what ever it costs if it helps them with their maladies. Unfortunately not all can afford it

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm just saying that they can set the price for those drugs they have intellectual rights too for any amount they want.
In that sense their Intellectual Rights give them a"Monopoly" when it comes to the sale of that certain drug which they would be able to use to gouge the public.

How is it gouging if people are willing to pay for it?

Anybody would be willing to pay what ever it costs if it helps them with their maladies. Unfortunately not all can afford it

I fail to see the problem.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Really? How on earth did we puny humans survive before the great and powerful HMOs rescued us?

When the non-ultra-wealthy got sick, they had as much soup as they could and hoped they didn't die. If you want plain insurance, why don't you get it?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'm just saying that they can set the price for those drugs they have intellectual rights too for any amount they want.
In that sense their Intellectual Rights give them a"Monopoly" when it comes to the sale of that certain drug which they would be able to use to gouge the public.

How is it gouging if people are willing to pay for it?

Anybody would be willing to pay what ever it costs if it helps them with their maladies. Unfortunately not all can afford it

I fail to see the problem.

Well I guess if you don't think that people are allowed to suffer because they can not afford the drugs as a problem then there is no problem.

 

[Geekbabe]

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.

Here in MA,even the strictest of HMO's list Major Depression as a biologically based illness,it is far cheaper to pay for anti-depressant medication(many of which have generic,cheaper versions) than it is to pay for repeated stays in psychiatric facilities.A person suffering from a chemical imbalance of their brain really benefits more from psychopharm than they do from a kick in the ass.Also,many drugs that treat mood disorders are meds that were originally developed to treat other conditions.Drugs like Depakote,Tegretol are two examples.Drugs that can be used to treat more than one illness are RD money
that's been well spent imho.

As for high cholestrol,there are slim folks who suffer from this,"bad" cholestrol appears to run in families and otherwise healthy people can end up with cholestrol levels that are not responsive enough to diet changes to make a significant enough difference.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I guess if you don't think that people are allowed to suffer because they can not afford the drugs as a problem then there is no problem.

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, like any other thing you complain about.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I guess if you don't think that people are allowed to suffer because they can not afford the drugs as a problem then there is no problem.

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, like any other thing you complain about.

Damned if you do what? You haven't offered any solution other than if you are not rich then you deserve to die.

A Government and Country that does that isn't a Government or a Country, it is a Regime like many Countries in the world including the way Iraq was under Saddam. If that's the way you want the United Sates to be, well congratulations we're headed towards that Mission Accomplished.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I guess if you don't think that people are allowed to suffer because they can not afford the drugs as a problem then there is no problem.

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, like any other thing you complain about.

I think you would be better off trying convince us why your opinion is valid rather than resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Damned if you do what? You haven't offered any solution other than if you are not rich then you deserve to die.

Did I say that? No. Try reading what I've said on the topic.

A Government and Country that does that isn't a Government or a Country, it is a Regime like many Countries in the world including the way Iraq was under Saddam. If that's the way you want the United Sates to be, well congratulations we're headed towards that Mission Accomplished.

Ok, so you want drugs to magically appear for free. I get the point.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I guess if you don't think that people are allowed to suffer because they can not afford the drugs as a problem then there is no problem.

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, like any other thing you complain about.

I think you would be better off trying convince us why your opinion is valid rather than resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.

I never said your point is wrong because you said it. I said you haven't presented a point other than that any possible situation is wrong. I don't see the usefulness of such a position.

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Damned if you do what? You haven't offered any solution other than if you are not rich then you deserve to die.

Did I say that? No. Try reading what I've said on the topic.

A Government and Country that does that isn't a Government or a Country, it is a Regime like many Countries in the world including the way Iraq was under Saddam. If that's the way you want the United Sates to be, well congratulations we're headed towards that Mission Accomplished.

Ok, so you want drugs to magically appear for free. I get the point.

I don't expect "free" drugs,I do however wonder why US citzens can get RX medications that are researched and developed in this country far cheaper by importing them from other countries.Somehow that strikes me as wrong.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well I guess if you don't think that people are allowed to suffer because they can not afford the drugs as a problem then there is no problem.

So we're damned if we do, damned if we don't, like any other thing you complain about.

I think you would be better off trying convince us why your opinion is valid rather than resorting to Ad Hominem attacks.

I never said your point is wrong because you said it. I said you haven't presented a point other than that any possible situation is wrong. I don't see the usefulness of such a position.

Well it's a good thing that my previous post and the post I replied to is still up so people can see my point without my post being taken out of context for the purpose of your Ad Hom attack.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Damned if you do what? You haven't offered any solution other than if you are not rich then you deserve to die.

Did I say that? No. Try reading what I've said on the topic.

A Government and Country that does that isn't a Government or a Country, it is a Regime like many Countries in the world including the way Iraq was under Saddam. If that's the way you want the United Sates to be, well congratulations we're headed towards that Mission Accomplished.

Ok, so you want drugs to magically appear for free. I get the point.

I don't expect "free" drugs,I do however wonder why US citzens can get RX medications that are researched and developed in this country far cheaper by importing them from other countries.Somehow that strikes me as wrong.

Welcome to P&N GB. You see what we have to deal with in here, unfortunately it is many such as those that have managed to taking over and pulling the strings in this Country. At least the ones that say this stuff admit to being fat & happy and not affected by any of the ills too many Americans are suffering.

 

[BoberFett]

So why don't you just tell us what you want Dave? You want a "nanny state" that legislates prices for medical services.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So why don't you just tell us what you want Dave? You want a "nanny state" that legislates prices for medical services.

Only if these Pharmacutical Companies have been helped by public funded studies or subsidized by the Goverment through Tax Breaks then yes, the Government should have some say.

 

[Geekbabe]

I wonder if drug prices in this country could be reduced if there were limits placed on how aggresively these companies court physicans in order to get them to prescribe their medications?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So why don't you just tell us what you want Dave? You want a "nanny state" that legislates prices for medical services.

Only if these Pharmacutical Companies have been helped by public funded studies or subsidized by the Goverment through Tax Breaks then yes, the Government should have some say.

Not good enough. I think we need to make health care absolutely free. That way when a child waves a gun around and accidently shoots someone (because in a truly free society, every child should be allowed to wave guns around) even the poorest of victims would be able to receive the medical treatment necessary to stop massive bullet wounds.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I wonder if drug prices in this country could be reduced if there were limits placed on how aggresively these companies court physicans in order to get them to prescribe their medications?

Possible but unlikely. The current dogma for Big Pharma is that taking a single chemical entity from concept to market takes 10 years and $897M. For the moment we will ignore the extensive investment in infrastructure and basic science that serves as the foundation for the majority of Big Pharma's concepts . . . not to mention the billions spent by the US government in one form or another to determine if FDA-approved drugs actually work and which ones work best (Stage III-IV trials).

Every drug company is looking for a blockbuster (annual sales of $1B+). They use the proceeds from these drugs to support the development pipeline. Pfizer is noted for having the best sales force in Big Pharma. Pfizer drugs are not better but I guarantee you a typical physicians drug closet is NEVER short on Pfizer products. Samples drive sales.

Unfortunately, there's also data that drug rep inducements (beyond samples) drive sales as well. Sometimes there is a good reason to skip over aspirin or ibuprofen and give someone celecoxib (Celebrex) but there's no guarantee every doctor knows what those good reasons are. If not they will just give the Rx. But fewer celecoxib prescriptions may not affect the price of celecoxib.

 

[BoberFett]

Less prescriptions may not result in lower INDIVIDUAL drug prices, but couldn't it result in a lower OVERALL drug prices nationwide? The biggest problem (it seems to me anyway) is the overall drug bill. Government programs and private insurance can't afford the huge increase in overall drug prices, which is why they're cutting benefits or raising premiums. Lower overall costs might less the need to do those two things.