| Author | Message | ||
     Bbbob |
I took the wife for a chest x-ray this morning, in settling up the bill they said it was $126. But they just had to collect the co-pay. I explained we'd pay in cash as we had no insurance yet. "Oh, for no-insurance that will be $44." No wonder insurance premiums are so high (My insurance kicks in 6/1). | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I hear what you're saying. I just had to switch to a new chemo drug cause the last stopped working. When I went to get the new script filled they told me it was....... $7,500. Yep, $7,500, and that was only for a 30 day supply. Works out to $250 a pill. Without an ins. company to gouge there's no way Bristol Myers could charge a price like that. From a business standpoint its unsustainable. There are very very few people in the world who could afford $90k a year for one drug. And of those who are financially able, I'd be willing to bet there are no more than a handful (in the whole damn world) that have the same leukemia that I do. Needless to say, w/o ins. I'd be a dead man walking. (Message edited by sayitaintso on May 28, 2009) | ||
| Spike |
Rest assured, all of these problems will go away once the government takes over health care. The boys in D.C. are masters of efficiency and will make sure not a penny is wasted. As an added bonus, it will be completely FREE . . . just like in Europe. </sarcasm> | ||
| Rfischer |
Or in Canada, where if you have an issue requiring timely specialist services, you're going to hop a flight to the U.S. to get it....or die. Your choice entirely. | ||
| Indybuell |
Yeah. Bristol Meyers won't be spending the MILLIONS of dollars it takes to invent these treatments, if they can't charge to recoup the costs and make a profit. F Socialized Medicine. What a crock. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Indy, I hear ya. No way BMS could develop a drug if they weren't going to be able to patent and profit from their investment. Problem with my drug is that it was basically developed on gov't research dollars at a university. It was then obtained by BMS, refined into a product, patented, and now being sold for huge profits. Us the taxpayers that paid for a big portion of the development costs get jack $hit for our investment. I haven't thought it through enough to suggest a solution (and I sure as hell don't want the gov't running the show) but imo taxpayers should get some type of ROI. If I had to guess, I'd say most basic research is done by universities and then the refinement, packaging, MARKETING, and sales are done by the drug companies. But then pharma is just a part of health care, an expensive one, but still just a part. Look at the 10Q's of some pharma companies and you can see that pharma is BIG business. | ||
| Indybuell |
For sure. Not saying there aren't issues, and the one that you pointed out is definitely one of them. I just don't want the same folks that have bankrupted everything they have touched to be making my medical decisions, etc. I hope the chemo works well for you. | ||
| Court |
>>>It was then obtained by BMS, refined into a product, patented, and now being sold for huge profits. Perfect. The American Pharmaceutical companies (95% located in New Jersey) are the envy of the world. As a human being I WANT them profitable, motivated to research, develop and improve. Someone recently asked "what is done better in the United States than anywhere in the world?". . . DRUGS and SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH world top that list. Don't get me wrong . . . it's a jumbled up system. Nothing, however, will serve to sort it out better than capitalism at work. MOST (that's a guess on my part, but I'll go with if) of the broken parts are where government has tried to "help". I hope the chemo works well for you as well. Court | ||
| Fast1075 |
And I thought my maintenance meds were expensive!!! Yikes!! Hope the chemo works out for yah man!! | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Thanks for the well wishes. You're dead right....."its a jumbled system" that's the main reason why I won't even venture to suggest a solution. But to me there are a few big parts of the pharma equation: research, development/testing, intellectual property rights, and sales. Simplistically put: Without research there isn't any development and testing. Without development and testing there isn't any intellectual property to protect. Without protection of intellectual property rights, sales collapse. Without the sales the whole thing ceases to exist. Today the gov't has their fingers in (to one degree or another) the first 3 of the 4 parts I've pointed out, and they want their fingers in the last one...... the one that makes the whole thing work. So, imo, if the sales part is messed with too much the whole thing will collapse. At the same time though, it galls me that an entire industry is built somewhat on taxpayers. (Similar to natural resource exploitation on public lands without just compensation to the property owners, another thing that bothers me but I dont have a suggestion to address) I guess its the size of the profits that are being generated by companies that obtain the raw materials of their business from the "public" that bugs me. But then, similar to what Churchill said about democracy...... Capitalism is the worst economic model ever developed, except for all others. (Message edited by sayitaintso on May 28, 2009) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Being a resident of Tennessee, I have a unique perspective on the health care issue. For the last several years, we have had "government healthcare" in the state of Tennessee. The program was heralded as the prototype of the national healthcare system desired by progressives and what is proposed currently by the Obama Administration. It was designed to provide government paid healthcare to the 7% of the tennessee population not covered by health insurance. Sounds great right? The problem is that those who aren't paying for the coverage have no real reason to be reasonable in it's use. TennCare enrollees regularly visited emergency rooms on the weekend for cough syrup or a prescription for Advil (why pay for it when you can get it for free). Health praticioners in TN were required to provide TennCare benefits to enrollees based upon the set schedule of benefits reimbursement regardless of ACTUAL costs. The result? Physicians, who had costs and overhead resulting from care provided, had to have their expenses covered. If the reimbursements from TennCare were insufficient to cover those costs, the remaining costs had to come from SOMEWHERE. The reimbursement came from those PAYING for the benefits either in cash or through insurance. Insurance rates climbed significantly in Tennessee as did the bureaucratic hassle in collecting reimbursements from TennCare and the Insurance companies. The insurance companies had to become more diligent in the payment of claims as a result of the higher negotiated rates required by physicians to become part of the insurance networks. Cash on the barrel head, because of the low bureaucratic drag, is worth more than insurance reimbursement. If you pay me $50 today, my net is higher than if you pay me $150 via an insurance company for which I have to pay three people 6 hours to collect and is received 120 days in the future. The population of Tennessee covered by TennCare climbed from 7% at inception to the current rate of 29% of the Tennessee population. Does ANYONE really think that the number of "uninsured" in the US to be served by government health care will remain at 45,000,000? It'll be all or none. We will either have a VERY expensive program for those paying for coverage in order to pay for the 142,000,000 covered by the government program OR we will have 100% of the population covered with NO chance to leave. When the profit motive is greatly reduced, the end system will be anything but what we would choose. Given a nation that created the all you can eat food bar, the abuses of the system by those not paying for care will doom the rest of the system for those who are paying. Ever been to a pizza buffet when the little league baseball teams are in the house? | ||
| Hootowl |
"Similar to natural resource exploitation on public lands without just compensation to the property owners" The public is compensated through the huge taxes levied on such corporations. | ||
| Uncbuell |
The problem with big pharma in the USA is that they are motivated solely by profit. Why would they develop drugs to cure diseases when disease is their money maker? Believing that the pharmaceutical companies in New Jersey are trying to improve the lives of the citizens of America is just plain stupid. Link Twelve years ago, Irving Weissman discovered a treatment that might have saved the lives of thousands of women with advanced breast cancer, but pharmaceutical companies weren’t interested in developing the therapy. Though that interest is finally being reignited, Weissman doesn’t pull any punches. “I hate to say I told you so,” he said. Weissman, a professor of pathology and developmental biology at Stanford University, spoke Wednesday and Thursday as part of the Columbia University Department of Religion’s Bampton Lecture series. The lecture series is modeled after a centuries-old Oxford series of the same name, and invites famous authorities in their respective fields to give talks on various issues of interest to the religious community. In Wednesday’s lecture, Weissman laid out the conceptual foundation of his work—that stem cells are rare, self-renewing, and can regenerate body tissues. Weissman repeatedly expressed frustration that while many of his discoveries seemed to hold remarkable potential for life-saving treatments, commercial or regulatory hurdles have prevented his scientific research from benefiting human beings. One example is Weissman’s mid-’90s research on type I diabetes, in which he demonstrated the ability to fully cure type I diabetes in mice using stem cells. But even though the experiments avoided political controversy by using so-called adult stem cells, which do not come from embryos, Weissman ran into a road block when pharmaceutical companies refused to sponsor clinical trials. The therapy went nowhere. Weissman implied that the pharmaceutical companies had put profit over principle, preferring to keep diabetes sufferers dependent on costly insulin than to cure them once and for all. “He [Weissman] has a long history of being at the forefront of his field,” Arthur Palmer, professor of structural biology at Columbia said, remarking that Weissman has never been afraid to challenge scientific orthodoxy. One example of this iconoclastic streak is Weissman’s outspoken disagreement with recent reports that adult stem cells can be “reprogrammed,” obliviating the need for the more powerful embryonic stem cells. Weissman geared his presentation to a lay audience, only occasionally drifting into jargon. Jaffer Kolb, who was visiting his sister at Columbia, enjoyed Weissman’s talk. “I have no science background,” he said, “so I was afraid I would have a hard time. But it was really easy to follow.” The presentation left some audience members with questions. Susan Doubileg, a Columbia alumna, wondered if Weissman’s results were as conclusive as presented. “If they were so useful, why weren’t they picked up in other countries?” she asked, referring to Europe’s less restrictive stem cell regulations. Nonetheless, Palmer cautioned against dismissing Weissman’s research. “He’s been right a lot in the past,” he said. | ||
| 4cammer |
Had my appendix removed as an emergency procedure 4 weeks ago...the bill? 47,000.00 dollars. Thank G-d for Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Care was incredible and I had my own room for 3 days. Can not imagine what it would have been like if the Gov was (totally) running the show. | ||
| Reepicheep |
He's a genius. There was a similar Dilbert strip: Communism: The most painful path to go from Capitalism, to Capitalism. Another great Churchill quote: "If you are young and conservative, you have no heart. If you are old and liberal, you have no brain". (No offense to our esteemed and respected liberal voices on the board, Mr Guess and GentlemanJim)... | ||
| Steve_mackay |
I had my own room for 3 days They allowed you to stay in the Hospital for 3 days? WOW! My 6 year old was in and out of the Hospital in 15 hours after the same procedure. | ||
| Xodot |
"Or in Canada, where if you have an issue requiring timely specialist services, you're going to hop a flight to the U.S. to get it....or die. Your choice entirely."  With all respect, that statement just ain't so amigo. | ||
| Teddagreek |
It's more profitable to treat a problem than to cure it... I have a very close friend who lost his leg and nearly died from Gang green and infection.. He was in the hospital for 15 days Not being to afford healthcare for a period of time was a contributing factor.. Had he been able to have gone to a wound care specialist maybe he wouldn't be sporting his titanium peg In the end we all eat it.. He and many others go bankrupt 100K vs 1-2K for treatment... | ||
| Corporatemonkey |
Now where's that bucket of popcorn?  These threads always end up spiraling down the drain. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
As long as the American Health Care system is F'd up, I will have a lucrative consulting side job. (I still have all my insurance licenses, and do billing consulting, collection, audit, patient advocacy; It keeps my bikes running in the off season.) | ||
| Rfischer |
Xodot, Tell that to my daughter - you'll get a short, and profane reply. And I have the c.c. bill for the plane ticket to back her up. | ||
| Xodot |
Avoiding the emotions inherent in such a topic, I would respectfully submit that certainly some Canadians have opted to pay for US medical services to save time. However.... if, as stated, dying was the only option to getting US based services, then our 33 million people would whittle away to zero population in just a couple of generations right? I do not know of anyone who goes state-side for medical. Obviously some do, as well as going to other countries - which is totally their privilege and a reflection of their considerations and values and resources. There are others who come to Canada for medical treatment from outside, including the US. I have met some of them. Maybe we are observing a permeable border that just allows people under stress to do what they think is best for them at the time. Perhaps it is not an indicator of a failing or better health care system on either side of the border. I submit some evidence of health care ranking can be found in the CIA World Factbook stats for infant mortality rates and longevity. Let's see here.... hmmmm Canada infant mortality rate 5.04 deaths per 1,000 births. USA 6.26 deaths. Expectant age of death in Canada is 81.23 years and 78.11 years in the US. Those are just numbers. What they mean is open to speculation and opinion - both of which are in rich supply in this wonderful forum!  | ||
| Old_man |
When I retired I lost my dental coverage. They won't let be pick up the premiums after the cobra time. My dentist gave the insurance company a discount price. He wants me to pay full price. I'm going to find a new dentist. | ||
| Hootowl |
Part of the reason infant mortality is rising in this country is the resurgence of home based births that has become all the rage in certain circles. Women are also waiting until much later in their lives to have children, and that increases the risk for both themselves and their babies. Drugs probably also play a part. I'm pretty sure meth is not good for babies. |
