According to whom?Originally Posted by Kratos
"Rock" of Love ;)
According to whom?
Knowledgeable Member
What the US considers preventative care is not really preventative. In the US we mostly treat symptoms and not the problem. That's why 90% of people who take Viagra know nothing about HRT/TRT testosterone levels and have no idea why they have libido issues along with many other health issues that they just associate with getting older. Most doctors are only pill pushers for the pharmacies.
Ill bet anyone that in 10 years the one trillion will be 2+ trillion. Like I said/asked; when in the history of the US has the government, congress, state ever kept on budget? Whey have they ever said something will cost XXX $ and it has come in at that price or lower? It has always been 2x or more.
I feel accomplished
Well, Massachusetts for 1, who has seen their health care costs go up 46 percent, exceeding the national average substantially. Despite the fact they are pushing hospitals into bankruptcy in lower income areas. The way it works is if you don't pay hospitals well through medicare, they have to make it up on the people who have comercial insurance. Except these populations are not always in the same geographic area.
where you're going wrong here...If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.
Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.
but you're more concerned with who says....
hmmm
well, there have been over 600 studies on the subject.
a definitive review in the New England Journal of Medicine of hundreds of studies that found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.
So to be clear, it's not that all preventative medicine is bad, or more expensive. Some things pay off. Most do not, and the net effect is higher costs.
the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."
In fact when it comes to preventative testing, America spends a boat load. The number of people who get mamograms, rectal exams ect is way higher. Now we're finding out a lot of those mamograms were a waste and changing the criteria for when you should get one. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html
it was noted by insurancenet.com that Ohio, in 2005 had 250 MRI's as opposed to Canada with 151. And no there aren't more people in Ohio then Canada, not even close to as many.
If anything we overtest in the US because of the legal climate. Real preventative care would involve diet and exercise. Ask any doctor how effective it is to stress diet and exercise to their patients. Better yet ask one who's told a women they need to loose weight for their health. LMFAO, they want to try to live through the exam.
Last edited by Kratos; 03-22-2010 at 11:01 AM.
I feel accomplished
So you're ready to throw in the towel on America as a whole rather then take an interest in politics and who gets elected and what becomes law. That's kinda sad.
Anabolic Member
If you knew how much these companies spent on developing, researching and testing these drugs along with the countless ones that were not successful and millions of dollars were wasted on I dont think you would complain about them trying to make a profit...they are a business. is it wrong they make a profit? or is it wrong to have them invest in these drugs to have you go buy a generic from another country and then gripe about our economy?
Dulce bellum inexpertis
Bo, let me fill you in a little bit here.
Their profits are not "large" relative to their investment. Their profits are large in number, but their margins are not. The cost of bringing a drug to market, and getting it through Stage 1,2, and 3 clinical trials is enormous. Let me give you an idea as to why, interestingly enough government is AGAIN the problem here, not private industry.
A patent on a novel drug/substance is 12 years. The clock starts ticking from the moment that drug is patented. For every drug that makes it past all of the testing and clinical trials, there are 10 that the company was researching and spending money on teams of biologists,chemists,biochemists,and PhDs to develop and test at the same time. Those 10 other novel drugs, all aimed at treating the same condition, likely failed to make it past various stages of the development process over time. The typical time it takes to bring a drug to market is about 8 years. It typically costs about 800 million dollars in R&D to bring one drug to market. That accounts for 8 years of research and development on several drugs, of which one will make it past all animal testing for efficacy, dosage, etc, and then finally get granted FDA approval.
Why is this significant? Because it means that the "evil" drug companies typically only have between 3 and 5 years to recover all of their initial investment from 500million to 1 billion dollars, and THEN, and only THEN to turn a profit, as all companies in business wish to do. If a company succeeds with a drug and it is successful, the rewards can be great! The company gets to turn a good profit, it employs thousands of people, and not only that, it benefits the lives of millions of people not just in the United States but in other countries around the world.
What is the point of all of this? The INCENTIVE of being able to reap an unlimited amount of profits is what DRIVES companies to make such a huge investment into unknown novel substances to treat diseases in humans. Without the possibility of a great payoff, medical innovation would move at a snails pace, if not halt completely. What country is responsible for the VAST MAJORITY of research and development of new novel drugs, medical devices, and medical procedures? The United States. Why is this the case? Because of our unique health care industry where companies are free to turn huge profits for their share holders. It may not bode well with many people that yes, these companies actually make a profit, like any other business in the world. But people must understand that it is these profits which drive these innovations.
If we eliminate the ability for the private sector to reap huge profits, or if we penalize them and tax them, we will see the pace of medical innovation slow. From time to time academic institutions make a discovery but the place is slow and arduous, and if it is left solely up to academic institutions working off of NIH grants (Bureaucrats in Washington with no medical education deciding which institutions get grant money, and which medical conditions and drugs are worth researching) then people will die. They will die because the pace of medical innovation will come screeching to a halt, and drugs and medical procedures that may have saved thousands, hundreds of thousands, and millions of lives will either never be developed, or will be developed at a pace 10 times as long as at present in our quasi-free market health care system.
Senior Member
glad to see this was pointed out.
Knowledgeable Member
I think the point is when the profit becomes more important than the medicine and problems, side effects, deaths and sometimes the lack of results are overlooked due to profit and money exchange under the table.
There are many good meds out there available in other countries with less side effects, lower cost, safer but not allowed in the US because of profit from other companies paying someone off (FDA) not to approve them.
Dulce bellum inexpertis
Can you link me to an article or a study that shows who gets paid off and in what amounts? Or is this simply conjecture?
Yes, you can find medicines in other countries which are not available here, but not for the reasons you mentioned. For instance, you are able to goto Europe and have available to you more chemotherapy options which may be just beginning clinical trials here in the United States. The reason is that the US has in place checks and hoops to jump through before a medication is approved in humans by the FDA. We have loopholes where experimental drugs can be used in "compassionate use" scenarios for critically ill patients who the benefits outweigh the risks of using an unproven medication on.
Generally though, our medications once approved are much safer. And incidences like Vioxx and FenFen while tragic, PALE in comparison to the number of new drugs which gain FDA approval each year and do NOT have massive recalls. It is a trade off, the amount of time, money, and extra research that goes into making sure a medication's efficacy and relatively safe before it comes to market. Such checks and balances are not in place in Europe, and while they are able to bring drugs to market sooner, does not mean they are safer. Also keep in mind in Europe, if you are hurt because of a medication, it is significantly harder to get reparations and damages from those companies. If a doctor performs malpractice on you in a country with a National Healthcare System, you are essentially going to have to sue the government, do you know how well that usually works out?
I feel accomplished
for example?
The Real Deal - AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
You crazy, they make assholes full of money. Alot of the drugs are made over seas and then the US pharmacy fight for the patents in court. This summer Ill go down and take a pic of the guy who owns Pfizer yacht, $150 million dollars, its called perfect prescription.
Disclaimer-BG is presenting fictitious opinions and does in no way encourage nor condone the use of any illegal substances.
The information discussed is strictly for entertainment purposes only.
Everything was impossible until somebody did it!
I've got 99 problems......but my squat/dead ain't one !!
It doesnt matter how good looking she is, some where, some one is tired of her shit.
Light travels faster then sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Great place to start researching ! http://forums.steroid.com/anabolic-s...-database.html
I feel accomplished
I could also go take a picture not to far from where I live Pfizer global R and D is closing a 3/4 of a million square foot complex they built less then 10 years ago. They still don't have a new cash cow once Lipitor goes off patent.
and yeah they buy technology...but if you buy the wrong technology or pay to much, it can get expensive. They can market it more efficently then the company who developed it. Little bio-techs would rather take the lump sum rather than develop a sales force and marketing deparment. It's common sense really.
http://elitechoice.org/2009/06/09/pf...-private-jets/
they're in cost cutting mode to prepare for post lipitor reality.
torcetrapib had to be halted in development and that was the replacement.
just because you have boat envy doesn't make profit wrong...and in the long run lipitor will be on the market forever for next to nothing once it goes off patent.
150million dollar yacht, who owns it? pfizer or ex-ceo? are you sure it's that much. To my knowledge the largest yacht ever was paul allen's (microsoft) at 200 million. Do you want to nationalize the software industry...having a computer is barely an option anymore.
I feel accomplished
http://powerandmotoryacht.zeroforum....othread?id=242
seems the boat nerds can't agree on who owns it
what makes you think it has anything to do with pfizer besides the rumor?
The Real Deal - AR-Platinum Elite- Hall of Famer
No thats funny.
Disclaimer-BG is presenting fictitious opinions and does in no way encourage nor condone the use of any illegal substances.
The information discussed is strictly for entertainment purposes only.
Everything was impossible until somebody did it!
I've got 99 problems......but my squat/dead ain't one !!
It doesnt matter how good looking she is, some where, some one is tired of her shit.
Light travels faster then sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Great place to start researching ! http://forums.steroid.com/anabolic-s...-database.html
Suspended or Banned either way gone!
Knowledgeable Member
Another note... Tell me when EVER in history that they said it will cost XXX (one Trillion $$) has it ever cost that, it has always ended up being 2x at least.
"Rock" of Love ;)
I agree and never said anything about it being a right. If you are lower class and were born with cancer, then screw you.... you were meant to die.
I asked how my health care will be affected. I have Blue Cross insurance. Why is my doctor going to give me lower quality care after the bill goes into effect than he does now?
Dulce bellum inexpertis
Lol, sort of jumping the gun bro. We are talking about long term effects of this bill. For instance, in Canada, the talented doctors opt out of the public health plans and take cash only, because they know they can demand more money. What this does is creates a two-tiered health care system. The best and brightest doctors take cash only or private insurance plans because they can demand a higher rate, whilst the less talented doctors who have poorer patient outcomes stay in the public health system and are paid less money.
As wages for physicians drops, very bright and talented people who would have otherwise pursued medicine as a career, opt instead to pursue careers in other fields. You will always hear about the rare exceptions who are very bright and talented and go into the field because they have a calling, but this of course the exception and not the rule. The highest paying fields will always attract the brightest and most talented individuals. Those fields often have high and costly barriers to entry.
Additionally, if government reduces the amount of money that drug companies, and other medical technology companies can earn, by forcing them to sell their drugs for less, or by penalizing them by taxing their brand name drugs, then innovation stalls. The only reason a company like GlaxoSmithKline invests BILLIONS of dollars into finding a cure for disease X, or a treatment for disease Y, is because of the ability to recoup that initial investment and turn a large profit. Profit is in fact what drives most innovation, discoveries, and progress. Take away this key incentive and you will have medical advancements moving at a snails pace. Of course many great discoveries come out of publicly funded education institutions, but the efficiency and innovation which has come out of the private sector far rivals that.
Anabolic Member
Kratos and TGF. you mofos are too smart for your own good. its much easier and less stressful being ignorant and realizing you can fight it all you want but your gonna eventually have to bend over and take it.
I feel accomplished
I worked for a large medical device company and was part of rolling out a revoloutionary new product as an alternative to spine fusion.
We beat the market by 4 years or so, and still have the best product on the market.
The company spent over 1 billion dollars to bring to market.
it will never turn a profit because by the time insurance covers the operation the market conditions will change.
it was a gamble for the promise of profits.
I was in a doctors office not too long ago as part of my job. He had a bunch of screws and plates and hardware on his desk and to be dramatic he threw them all in the trash. He said in 20 years we aren't going to be using any of this, that's how fast things are moving.
In fact we have protein derived growth factors that can grow bone anywhere just by squirting it through a syringe. It will attract the nessicary stem cells and bone will be there eventually. That's on the market already and represents 30 years of research.
We have hopefully master molecules on the horizon that can grow any tissue. 10-20 years down the road of studies and research.
meaning...you need a spine fusion...nah, we'll just inject this in your disc space and the cartilage is all better.
I was part of running a clinical trial with a small start up company funded by venture capitol. The results were good, but not as good as expected. So the company ended up spending 50millon of borrowed money and folded.
how do you convince people to loan out 50 million? The promise that maybe they'll get more back.
I'm sorry but if you eliminate profit...who the hell is gonna bother? You take the US system offline as far as profits and there isn't a whole lot to get excited about. A lot of these companies do business in gvmt run health care at minimal margins only because it's better then nothing and bank a ton in the US.
You want to help cut costs...how about asking your doc if there is a generic that's almost as good...not interested...no problem it won't be your choice forever.
I skipped an MD because every doc I talked to told me it wasn't worth it except for specific specialties.
Last edited by Kratos; 03-22-2010 at 11:21 AM.
I feel accomplished
In addition to the previous taxes
The bill also would limit the amount of money you can put in a flexible spending account to pay medical expenses to $2,500 starting in 2013. Those using an indoor tanning salon will pay a 10 percent tax starting this year.
Why limit flexible spending? Tax money I'm gonna spend on health care anyway? Seems stupid.
I feel accomplished
Fantasy Math = Fantasy Money
The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.
As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.
The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.
http://2164th.blogspot.com/2010/03/f...ealthcare.html
former director of the CBO quotes
I feel accomplished
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.
current CBO director
Senior Member
who knows if it will work or not, I am sure there will be some good and some bad, I am very impressed he was able to get it passed. Many people have tried and never got close.
Junior Member
HmmM
Last edited by Dreamteam; 03-22-2010 at 07:04 PM.
Associate Member
As a non-US member observing from a distance, I get the impression, and I may be stating the obvious here, but the essence of this debate lies in two opposing views:
- the strongly capitalist approach i.e. the free market alone must drive health care - if you are a good citizen (read successful) in playing the whole capitalist game, then you have the most advanced health care system in the world (profit driven incentive for R&D) AND you have access to it (only the strong survive)
vs.
- The humanists view whereby life is not all about "survival of the fitest" - we are not animals so being human is also about the importance of looking after the weaker members (and animals) of a society, even if (you think) you are a better human in the the capitalistic race to acquire riches and "stuff". In other words, one be willing and happy to give up some of your "hard earned" money to help someone who is weaker (or in a weaker position) than yourself.
So it seems to me, no matter how technical this debate may become, the bottom line is that it is about those that "have" (no doubt "hard earned") being bitterly opposed to jointly helping the "have not's" (the lazy bums, leeches, no-goods...)
Both views pose difficult problems:
Providing "too much" health care welfare will no doubt encourage and stimulate "opportunists" to take advantage thereby placing a significant and unfair additional burden on those members of society that produce.
By contrast, if the health care system is based on the current model, too many people who are credible members of society simply cannot afford access to even basic health care, let alone advanced. Too many unnecessary deaths and suffering.
The answer lies somewhere in between these two views.
Last edited by xero; 03-23-2010 at 11:43 AM.
I feel accomplished
where are the bodies?
Associate Member
come on Kratos, you're not seriously asking this??
"Tactic 26:1 -- When something happens that paints your viewpoints in a negative light, immediately deny it outright.
Tactic 26:2 -- When outright denial fails, demand an unrealistic amount of proof.
Tactic 26:3 -- When denial fails, switch to the conspiracy theory.
TM & © 1999-2004 Carl Rove & Dick Cheney"
I feel accomplished
It would seem people don't have a problem asking for me to provide proof of my claims. Sure it's fine to question things I say without any evidence what I'm saying is false. But everyone else should just be able to make claims and not back them up. I almost always respond with evidence.
So now I'm demanding an unrealistic amount of proof. You said too many people dying and suffering. Well, show me that it's true. Show me that people are dying in America from lack of care at a higher rate than x country or y country. If there is enough evidence for you to form an opinion on the subject, you should be able to share it. Otherwise your claims are nothing but assumption with no basis except your own bias.
Associate Member
If one child has died (or unnecessarily suffering) simply because the parents can not afford access to readily available medical technology that could have prevented this, then that one case is enough evidence of a problem.
I am not sure that it is useful to the debate to ask for evidence of this nature when it is so glaring obvious that in any capitalistic-based society there are people who are clearly marginalized from the system - whether that be the health care system or the justice system - simply on the basis that they do not have the economic means. Beacuse of this there is undoubtedly unnecessary suffering or even death.
My point was that from a humanists perspective, the stronger members of a society may have a responsibility, as humans, to endeavor to support the weaker members. Obviously those that do not see themselves as humanists will battle to understand this.
I feel accomplished
Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.
turning 65--i.e., going on Medicare--doesn't reduce your risk of dying. If lack of insurance leads to death, then that should show up as a discontinuity in the mortality rate around the age of 65. It doesn't. it's hard to measure, because of course as elderly people age, their mortality rate starts rising dramatically. But still, there should be some kink in the curve, and in the best data we have, it just isn't there.
"Rock" of Love ;)
If that's the case, then nobody needs health insurance. Why do the health insurance companies even exist?
I feel accomplished
protecting your finances
why do life insurance companies exist? you're gonna die anyway
why car insurance? it won't stop an accident
"Rock" of Love ;)
What good are your finances when you're dead?
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
I think he meant that you're protecting your finances from accidents. A rusty nail in the foot.... a gash in your arm that requires stitches..... stuff that wont kill you but still costs you money. This would be why you still need insurance.....
~Haz~
I feel accomplished
which is why if you're having a heart attack...you might want to go ahead and dial 911 and figure out how to pay for it later.
I feel accomplished
The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became “medically unfit for surgery.” The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that “109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died.”
The BBC reports that “up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery.” The Times reports that a British woman “will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug.”
Medicaid and Medicare. Doctors are five times more likely to refuse seeing new Medicaid patients than privately-insured patients. Increasing reimbursement rates won’t help much; more than two-thirds of doctors reported being overwhelmed by Medicaid’s billing requirements, paperwork, and delays in payment.
If you call 911 in america, somebody's gonna come help you insurance or not
There are many county, state and federal programs to treat the indigent. No one has to "just die".
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
First of all..... Every hospital is required to treat you, BY LAW, even if you don't have insurance or can't pay for your treatment. Saying that our system now is leaving people to die is just false.....
~Haz~
Anabolic Member
We spend 680 BILLION a year on our military.
And we are complaining about taking care of sick people who can't afford to do so themselves?
Mind you, I just paid 32k in income taxes in West Michigan, so I'm one of the guys who is helping pay.
But I'd much rather that money go towards some health care for americans, than go toward the 12 billion we spend weekly in Iraq.
I think people are loosing sight of where our tax money really goes.
Associate Member
Exactly.
Why is it ok to pay billions year after year to sustain a questionable war in Iraq, but not ok uplift the health care for the nations people?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
