Canadian Health Care Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

[TexanBob]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

As this presidential campaign continues, the candidates' comments about health care will continue to include stories of their own experiences and anecdotes of people across the country: the uninsured woman in Ohio, the diabetic in Detroit, the overworked doctor in Orlando, to name a few.

But no one will mention Claude Castonguay — perhaps not surprising because this statesman isn't an American and hasn't held office in over three decades.

Castonguay's evolving view of Canadian health care, however, should weigh heavily on how the candidates think about the issue in this country.

Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.

In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.

De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.

Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.

A typical example: The Ministry of Health declared that British patients should get ER care within four hours. The result? At some hospitals, seriously ill patients are kept in ambulances for hours so as not to run afoul of the regulation; at other hospitals, patients are admitted to inappropriate wards.

Declarations can't solve staffing shortages and the other rationing of care that occurs in government-run systems.

Polls show Americans are desperately unhappy with their system and a government solution grows in popularity. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain is explicitly pushing for single-payer health care, as the Canadian system is known in America.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program," Obama said back in the 1990s. Last year, Obama told the New Yorker that "if you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system probably makes sense."

As for the Republicans, simply criticizing Democratic health care proposals will not suffice — it's not 1994 anymore. And, while McCain's health care proposals hold promise of putting families in charge of their health care and perhaps even taming costs, McCain, at least so far, doesn't seem terribly interested in discussing health care on the campaign trail.

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada's government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

David Gratzer is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a physician licensed in both the U.S. and Canada.

[Spider]

Oh **** , Canada's healthcare is in ruin ..........Oh please say it isnt so , anything but that ...... I dont know if I can take the emotional stress of Canadas health care is out of control ......... How in the **** will I get up tomorrow morning to go to work knowing Canadas healthcare is a wreck ? .....

[broncocalijohn]

I think Bob is letting you know that what some want here, will have the same results. My Mom's family is from Canada and I had heard the stories of waiting for help. It doesnt surprise me on the story. We will have the same problems in programs like Social Security. A good solution would be for the old farts (not you Old Dude) to start fighting the war in Iraq w/o compensation. We need to weed them out. :nyahdevil

[kappys]

I think Bob is letting you know that what some want here, will have the same results. My Mom's family is from Canada and I had heard the stories of waiting for help. It doesnt surprise me on the story. We will have the same problems in programs like Social Security. A good solution would be for the old farts (not you Old Dude) to start fighting the war in Iraq w/o compensation. We need to weed them out. :nyahdevil

Its all just a question of how much you're willing to spend on healthcare and what you plan on rationing.

[TexanBob]

Its all just a question of how much you're willing to spend on healthcare and what you plan on rationing.

That's part of the problem. The first time you tell Americans that government-run health care will include rationing with no choice to opt out of the system, you'll find opinion of it will turn dramatically. Right now, they just see a freebie from the government teat with no realization that there will be consequences, particularly if you smoke, drink or are overweight.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's part of the problem. The first time you tell Americans that government-run health care will include rationing with no choice to opt out of the system, you'll find opinion of it will turn dramatically. Right now, they just see a freebie from the government teat with no realization that there will be consequences, particularly if you smoke, drink or are overweight.

Is that what Rush said?

[kappys]

That's part of the problem. The first time you tell Americans that government-run health care will include rationing with no choice to opt out of the system, you'll find opinion of it will turn dramatically. Right now, they just see a freebie from the government teat with no realization that there will be consequences, particularly if you smoke, drink or are overweight.

Health care is rationed right now by insurance companies. I'm not particularly against government rationing, it would at least be more open and potentially more fair. Let me assure you though that rationing is alive in well in the era of insurance driven pre-authorizations and denial of payment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Right-Wing Health Care Mythology <hr style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Once among the most frightening and effective epithets in American political culture, “socialized medicine” seems to have lost its juju. These days, that phrase sounds awfully dated, like a song on a gramophone or a mother-in-law joke or a John Birch Society rant against fluoridated water.

Yet despite their antique quality, the old buzzwords still appear regularly in columns, press releases and speeches. Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and the rest of the Republican presidential pack run around squawking about socialism whenever anyone proposes to reform the broken health care system.

Syndicated columnist Robert Novak warns that the federally financed, state-run Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is essentially a socialist conspiracy. So does President Bush, who has threatened to veto a modest increase in that program’s funding because he doesn’t want to “federalize health care.”

Although the red threat can still trigger an autonomic reaction among the party’s true believers, the rest of the country simply no longer twitches to that high-pitched, far-right whistle. Most polls not only show enormous majorities favoring the extension of health coverage to every child regardless of ability to pay, but substantial support for a radical change in how we pay and administer health insurance—including the possibility of a single-payer system overseen by government.

Why doesn’t the traditional propaganda work any more? Perhaps the demise of the Soviet Union and the withering of Communism in Communist China have had a delayed effect on public attitudes in this country. Both the Russians and the Chinese have turned more capitalist than the West, abandoning their former systems without substituting modern democratic protections, leading to predictably bad consequences. As unbridled capitalists, the ex-Communists are more of a threat to the health of their own societies than to us.

Most Americans may also have noticed that corporate bureaucracy and corruption, which both figure largely in the present health care system, are not preferable to government bureaucracy. The same doctors who used to wail about the dangers of Medicare have learned how unpleasant it is to deal with dozens of insurance companies, each of which is creating different rules to cut costs and deny care as often as possible. So have their patients.

This corporate model is more expensive and less efficient than the government plans that provide care in every other industrialized nation.

And most Americans may have learned by now that such systems prevail in Western countries that aren’t normally categorized as “socialist,” including the United Kingdom, Japan, Spain, Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. All these nations manage to provide their citizens with high living standards, industrial and technological innovation, and broad political and economic freedom, even after 50 years of national health insurance in some form.

Meanwhile, the credibility of conservatives has diminished steadily.

These days they seem to have trouble achieving clarity on the meaning of their favorite clichés. For instance, the president hates federalized health care, but sponsors a Medicare prescription drug program that wastes hundreds of billions on drug companies and private insurers.

Right-wing definitions no longer seem so clear, either. When the government awards a billion dollars in sweetheart mercenary contracts to a wealthy Republican family in Michigan, that’s “private enterprise.” But when the government helps a struggling middle-class family in Maryland to send its children to the doctor, that’s creeping socialism.

The declining relevance of conservative ideology is again encouraging the politics of personal destruction. That must be why right-wing voices on the Internet, talk radio and the Fox News Channel have launched a nasty attack on the family of Graeme Frost, a 12-year-old Maryland boy who appeared in a Democratic radio commercial endorsing the SCHIP program. He and his younger sister, both victims of a terrible car accident that left the little girl with permanent brain damage, have both needed federal assistance because their parents were unable to afford private insurance.

Certain conservative bloggers and pundits, seeking to prove that the Frost family is too affluent to qualify for SCHIP assistance, have started to harass them, their neighbors and their co-workers. They have spread myths and lies about the family, their house, and the schools that their children attend. And they have made repeated telephone calls to the Frost home, demanding answers to questions about their personal finances.

It doesn’t seem to occur to any of these strict Christian moralists that the Frosts have enough trouble trying to care for their disabled daughter, or that the state of Maryland, under the SCHIP regulations, has determined that the Frost children are fully eligible for the help they obviously need.

Let us not hear again from these creeps about “family values” or “compassionate conservatism.”

Such is the devolution of conservatism in our time—from a philosophy concerned with overweening state authority to a movement that bullies children in the name of freedom.

http://www.observer.com/2007/right-w...care-mythology (http://www.observer.com/2007/right-wing-health-care-mythology)

[cutthemdown]

Oh **** , Canada's healthcare is in ruin ..........Oh please say it isnt so , anything but that ...... I dont know if I can take the emotional stress of Canadas health care is out of control ......... How in the **** will I get up tomorrow morning to go to work knowing Canadas healthcare is a wreck ? .....

He's pointing out that people who use Canada as an example don't know how bad it is there. Socialized medicine is not the answer for a country as large as America or Canada.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Socialized medicine" is a right-wing straw man.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1992180&postcount=8

[cutthemdown]

"Socialized medicine" is a right-wing straw man.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1992180&postcount=8

Whatever you want to call it we are better off leaving it in the private sector. IMO we have too many people in this country to make govt run health care work.

[Taco John]

I just want to opt out. I have no problems with these fanciful social schemes so long as you let me opt out if I desire. Let me out of social security. Let me out of government mandated health care. Just let me opt out and be free.

[TexanBob]

Whatever you want to call it we are better off leaving it in the private sector. IMO we have too many people in this country to make govt run health care work.

The U.S. also appears to be Canada's safety net for their own failures. The ones who can afford it, flee to America to have their surgeries done. So, what if the U.S. adopts a Canadian-style health care plan? Do we both flee to Mexico to have our surgeries done?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Whatever you want to call it we are better off leaving it in the private sector.

"Better off?"

Is that how you would describe the current state of our health care system?

[TexanBob]

Health care is rationed right now by insurance companies. I'm not particularly against government rationing, it would at least be more open and potentially more fair. Let me assure you though that rationing is alive in well in the era of insurance driven pre-authorizations and denial of payment.

Yes, you are right about that. However, you at least have the right to go outside your network to have the work done if you believe it's necessary without having to leave the county. In some models, like Britain's and Hillary Clinton's, you'd have to leave the country, not just seek another doctor or hospital.

There's also competition among insurers. Some employers give you choices as to who/how you'll be covered. In government-run health care, you have only one insurer and if they tell you 'no', you're reduced to being a fugitive.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not particularly against government rationing, it would at least be more open and potentially more fair.

Ding ding ding!

If the people running the show start trying to gouge you or pick your pocket then at least you have the option of voting them out.

[sisterhellfyre]

I just want to opt out. I have no problems with these fanciful social schemes so long as you let me opt out if I desire. Let me out of social security. Let me out of government mandated health care. Just let me opt out and be free.

There's a fairly simple solution to this whole mess, and it seems like one that would make both sides of the political aisle happy.

We already have a government-run single-payer healthcare system in place: Medicare. Right now it's eligibility is limited to certain groups (over 65, disabled, etc). Expand Medicare eligibility to all Americans: anyone who wants to sign up for it can get Part A and Part B coverage.

I'm considered disabled because I'm on kidney dialysis, even tho I have continued working. My Medicare premium runs about $75 per month, payable every three months. That's not an extreme amount, and probably within the reach of most budgets. The Medicare premium becomes even more manageable if the new law allows people to opt out of their private employer-based health insurance programs. $75 per month -- or even double or triple that amount -- is a minor expense compared to the amounts being gouged out of us now by the health insurance companies.

This idea offers a benefit to the beleaguered major manufacturing industries, which are all but crippled right now by the cost of providing health care.

The private health insurers would be forced to scramble to match the lower cost alternative offered by Medicare. It may take a little while, even several years, but we'd probably see new alternatives offered by the private insurers for lower cost, more services, and more responsive customer service.

The Medicare bureaucracy is far and away more cost-efficient than the private health insurers. Medicare is essentially a giant health insurance corporation that happens to be solely owned by the government. About 3% of the revenue paid in premiums goes to administrative overhead. That is a far lower figure than any of the private insurers can claim.

Medicare is subject to fraud at times, as is any other health insurance system, but that's a matter for investigation and law enforcement rather than a flaw in the system itself.

There are a couple things I'd want to see done as part of the expansion plan for Medicare:

* Come up with new ID cards for the system that incorporate some fraud prevention measures. The Medicare card in my wallet would be extremely easy to duplicate on any home computer with a printer.

* Address the problems with the Part D prescription plan. That thing is an abomination and a nightmare. At the very least, the Medicare plan administrators MUST be allowed to negotiate with the drug companies for better prescription prices based on volume.

* I suppose it would probably be necessary to have some sort of safety net in place for those who can't afford even the lowest rate of premium. There must be a means test for those who want the safety net to pay their way.

* The option of whether to use the expanded Medicare or private insurance should be left to individual decision. There should not be any sort of government order or requirement that we must be covered. If someone (most likely young and male) wants to gamble with his health and life that he never gets sick, never has accidents and doesn't need insurance, that should be his to choose. On the other hand, he also shouldn't come crying for help with his hand out when accident or illness strike. That's simply the price of his freedom to choose.

Granted in proposing this idea I don't know what portion of the money paid out by Medicare comes from revenues paid in, from general government revenue, or what. If someone digs out those details and the numbers don't work, I don't have a whole bunch of ego invested in this as "My Plan to Save The World."

It's also not addressing the general libertarian wish for "smaller government at all costs." I don't know that we're realistically going to go in that direction any time soon, however good it may ultimately be for us to do exactly that. There seems to be some kind of growing ground swell that the crippling cost, inefficiencies and inequities of the privately based health insurance system must be addressed. This seems to be a reasonably efficient way to go about it, with some definite benefits, the least intrusive new laws, and the least swelling of the already bloated DC bureaucracies.

Last, it's just a few thoughts strung together late at night on the way to bed. :-)

Regards,
m.

[sisterhellfyre]

The U.S. also appears to be Canada's safety net for their own failures. The ones who can afford it, flee to America to have their surgeries done. So, what if the U.S. adopts a Canadian-style health care plan? Do we both flee to Mexico to have our surgeries done?

Hey, it's a lot cheaper. Have you seen the prices for dental work at clinics just across the Rio Grande from El Paso? I briefly considered flying down there to have some work done, but I'm going to stick closer to home.

Regards,
m.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The U.S. also appears to be Canada's safety net for their own failures. The ones who can afford it, flee to America to have their surgeries done. So, what if the U.S. adopts a Canadian-style health care plan? Do we both flee to Mexico to have our surgeries done?Hundreds of thousands of Americans do that can't afford American health and dental care.

Here's a little ditty, Spending for healthcare in this country last year added up to $2.3 TRILLION or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). Costs continue to rise around 10% or more every year which are unsustainable. The huge costs of American healthcare also are impacting American companies and corporations to the point that many are unable to compete with domestic and foreign companies and are being put out of business.

[broncocalijohn]

Right-Wing Health Care Mythology <hr style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message -->
Although the red threat can still trigger an autonomic reaction among the party’s true believers, the rest of the country simply no longer twitches to that high-pitched, far-right whistle. Most polls not only show enormous majorities favoring the extension of health coverage to every child regardless of ability to pay, but substantial support for a radical change in how we pay and administer health insurance—including the possibility of a single-payer system overseen by government.

http://www.observer.com/2007/right-w...care-mythology (http://www.observer.com/2007/right-wing-health-care-mythology)

Ask those same people if they want to cover illegal aliens including their children and I bet you get a different answer. Problem is that too many people see things as free when it never is. Watch your wages in taxes go up to pay for these programs. Liberals want to change to current system as they see it isnt working but dont ever touch their babies like Education that isnt working. Status quo depending on what side of the fence you are on. Canada is 10% the population of us. With the illegal aliens putting a bigger gap between the middle class to upper class and themselves, it cannot be compared to Canada but made worse. This is my opinion and not from facts but i cannot believe that they have a low income families like the influx we have here.

[broncocalijohn]

I just want to opt out. I have no problems with these fanciful social schemes so long as you let me opt out if I desire. Let me out of social security. Let me out of government mandated health care. Just let me opt out and be free.

What do you think this is, America?

[Hotrod]

"Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor."

What a great gift our socialist party wants to give us :nono:

I wonder if Obama or Billary will ever have to wait for a dr's appointment

[elsid13]

Let be honest, this health care issue is drain on the economy, with the cost of health insurance rising faster then inflation and acting as anchor on small/mid size businesses.

Is a public managed system better definitely not, but at the same time the current system is failing your fellow American. At best we need to seek a happy medium that will lessen this burden

[Hotrod]

Let be honest, this health care issue is drain on the economy, with the cost of health insurance rising faster then inflation and acting as anchor on small/mid size businesses.

Is a public managed system better definitely not, but at the same time the current system is failing your fellow American. At best we need to seek a happy medium that will lessen this burden

I belive we can follow the example set in many other countrys. I believe the Russians substituted Vodka for medical care and many southern islands use pot and crack. Its worth looking into IMHO

[Spider]

He's pointing out that people who use Canada as an example don't know how bad it is there. Socialized medicine is not the answer for a country as large as America or Canada.

No **** ....... But what about France System ? Italy ......... notice how they dont get mentioned ....... What is it with you ****s thinking we have to use Canadas System ?

[Tombstone RJ]

There's a fairly simple solution to this whole mess, and it seems like one that would make both sides of the political aisle happy.

We already have a government-run single-payer healthcare system in place: Medicare. Right now it's eligibility is limited to certain groups (over 65, disabled, etc). Expand Medicare eligibility to all Americans: anyone who wants to sign up for it can get Part A and Part B coverage.

I'm considered disabled because I'm on kidney dialysis, even tho I have continued working. My Medicare premium runs about $75 per month, payable every three months. That's not an extreme amount, and probably within the reach of most budgets. The Medicare premium becomes even more manageable if the new law allows people to opt out of their private employer-based health insurance programs. $75 per month -- or even double or triple that amount -- is a minor expense compared to the amounts being gouged out of us now by the health insurance companies.

This idea offers a benefit to the beleaguered major manufacturing industries, which are all but crippled right now by the cost of providing health care.

The private health insurers would be forced to scramble to match the lower cost alternative offered by Medicare. It may take a little while, even several years, but we'd probably see new alternatives offered by the private insurers for lower cost, more services, and more responsive customer service.

The Medicare bureaucracy is far and away more cost-efficient than the private health insurers. Medicare is essentially a giant health insurance corporation that happens to be solely owned by the government. About 3% of the revenue paid in premiums goes to administrative overhead. That is a far lower figure than any of the private insurers can claim.

Medicare is subject to fraud at times, as is any other health insurance system, but that's a matter for investigation and law enforcement rather than a flaw in the system itself.

There are a couple things I'd want to see done as part of the expansion plan for Medicare:

* Come up with new ID cards for the system that incorporate some fraud prevention measures. The Medicare card in my wallet would be extremely easy to duplicate on any home computer with a printer.

* Address the problems with the Part D prescription plan. That thing is an abomination and a nightmare. At the very least, the Medicare plan administrators MUST be allowed to negotiate with the drug companies for better prescription prices based on volume.

* I suppose it would probably be necessary to have some sort of safety net in place for those who can't afford even the lowest rate of premium. There must be a means test for those who want the safety net to pay their way.

* The option of whether to use the expanded Medicare or private insurance should be left to individual decision. There should not be any sort of government order or requirement that we must be covered. If someone (most likely young and male) wants to gamble with his health and life that he never gets sick, never has accidents and doesn't need insurance, that should be his to choose. On the other hand, he also shouldn't come crying for help with his hand out when accident or illness strike. That's simply the price of his freedom to choose.

Granted in proposing this idea I don't know what portion of the money paid out by Medicare comes from revenues paid in, from general government revenue, or what. If someone digs out those details and the numbers don't work, I don't have a whole bunch of ego invested in this as "My Plan to Save The World."

It's also not addressing the general libertarian wish for "smaller government at all costs." I don't know that we're realistically going to go in that direction any time soon, however good it may ultimately be for us to do exactly that. There seems to be some kind of growing ground swell that the crippling cost, inefficiencies and inequities of the privately based health insurance system must be addressed. This seems to be a reasonably efficient way to go about it, with some definite benefits, the least intrusive new laws, and the least swelling of the already bloated DC bureaucracies.

Last, it's just a few thoughts strung together late at night on the way to bed. :-)

Regards,
m.

Wow sis, that actually sounds like a decent idea. If a person has the right to choose not to use it, then that person can either 1. have an employer provided plan 2. have a privately funded plan kinda like (a self employed person might opt for this) or 3. have no coverage at all, if one opts out.

Your right, it does create more governement, and that is a concern. But, I'm not necessarily against more government if it does not infringe upon my personal rights, or my pocket book too much.

[Tombstone RJ]

No **** ....... But what about France System ? Italy ......... notice how they dont get mentioned ....... What is it with you ****s thinking we have to use Canadas System ?

Chill spide. It seems like every post you type you are cussing and yelling. Damn, I don't want you to have a heart attack on they hwy...

[Spider]

Chill spide. It seems like every post you type you are cussing and yelling. Damn, I don't want you to have a heart attack on they hwy... I am short on patience with stupidity .......using 1 example and then condeming the entire idea ..... you look at everything , both good and bad of several systems , then see if you can work something here ....... We have done things there way , look were we are ...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ask those same people if they want to cover illegal aliens including their children and I bet you get a different answer. Problem is that too many people see things as free when it never is. Watch your wages in taxes go up to pay for these programs.
They already have and will continue to as I pointed out (over 16% of GDP every year) since we already provide "free" healthcare to millions of people. This is the main reason the current system is completely unsustainable, that and corporations paying for millions and millions more of Americans through employment.

[TexanBob]

I am short on patience with stupidity

OMG! How can you live with yourself?? Hilarious!

[Spider]

OMG! How can you live with yourself?? Hilarious!

did you come up with that by yourself ?

[DBruleU]

OMG! How can you live with yourself?? Hilarious!

LOL

I'd hate to see him deal with kids if that's the case.

[Breaker]

"Better off?"

Is that how you would describe the current state of our health care system?

As opposed to the government running it? Yep they are just known for fiscal responsibility aren't they.

[cutthemdown]

"Better off?"

Is that how you would describe the current state of our health care system?

I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm saying the govt running it wouldn't make it better.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As opposed to the government running it? Yep they are just known for fiscal responsibility aren't they.

It depends - if you're talking about Bush and the GOP, then you have a valid point.

In any event, we've tried it your way for the past 7 1/2 years and the results have been abysmal.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not saying it's perfect, I'm saying the govt running it wouldn't make it better.

To say it's "not perfect" is a colossal understatement.

Under Bush, America's health care system has become little more than a gouge-fest for big pharma and the insurance industry (just like Bush's energy 'policy' has been nothing but a giant reverse Robin Hood swindle to benefit Big Oil while picking the pockets of American consumers.)

And you're trying to argue that no government oversight is needed?

Unreal. :crazy:

[baja]

The problem is it is not health care it is disease maintenance.

Health care starts with the individual. Doctors are not in the health business they are in the disease business, that's where the money is.

Take responsibility for your own health no one else will or can

[Hotrod]

The problem is it is not health care it is disease maintenance.

Health care starts with the individual. Doctors are not in the health business they are in the disease business, that's where the money is.

Take responsibility for your own health no one else will or can

Baja I love ya man but your starting to scare me. I picture you holding a sign in downtown NY that reads "repent for the end is near" Ha!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Socialized medicine is the worst option possible...for patients and for doctors.

You think beaurocracies are inefficient? Wait until your health is dependent on a beaurocracy.

[epicSocialism4tw]

To say it's "not perfect" is a colossal understatement.

Under Bush, America's health care system has become little more than a gouge-fest for big pharma and the insurance industry (just like Bush's energy 'policy' has been nothing but a giant reverse Robin Hood swindle to benefit Big Oil while picking the pockets of American consumers.)

And you're trying to argue that no government oversight is needed?

Unreal. :crazy:

You're not telling the truth. #1, no need to propagandize against Bush here...this is unrelated.

#2, "Big Pharma" has contributed more than you realize to the underserved. Did you know that people below the poverty line can get just about every medicine out there free of charge?

Also, "Big Pharma" has collaborated with Wal Mart to provide a significant number of common medicines for 4 bucks a month.

[bcbronc]

"De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care."

this is related to geography as much as anything else. Why fly a patient from Vancouver to Toronto for a procedure when an hour flight south to Seattle would get the same procedure?

the argument of "where" the patient receives treatment is always better than arguing "if" the patient will recieve it. I don't care if my doctor sends me to Seattle for a procedure or to Toronto, as long as I get the procedure. If I can stay close to home rather than fly across the continent, that's a bonus.

as for the De Vires case, I don't know anything about it so I can't comment specifically, but instinctively I doubt that 40lb tumors are all that common, so I feel there must be more to this. but regardless, having had my mom recently go through the system with a cancer scare, I can personally attest to the fact that the Canadian system prioritizes anything that is time sensitive. sure, we might have to wait longer than an average american to get an MRI or have a hip replaced, but that's going to happen when you give all citizens access to the same basic level of health protection (rather than just those who can afford it).

I'm not claiming the Canadian system is perfect, because its not. but its a far cry from "lying in ruins". the bottom line, I'll trade having to wait 6-9 months to get a non-life threatening procedure done (like a hip replaced) for knowing that if I have a child who needs medicine or treatment beyond my means to pay, he or she will still get the treatment they need.

[Spider]

"De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care."

this is related to geography as much as anything else. Why fly a patient from Vancouver to Toronto for a procedure when an hour flight south to Seattle would get the same procedure?

the argument of "where" the patient receives treatment is always better than arguing "if" the patient will recieve it. I don't care if my doctor sends me to Seattle for a procedure or to Toronto, as long as I get the procedure. If I can stay close to home rather than fly across the continent, that's a bonus.

as for the De Vires case, I don't know anything about it so I can't comment specifically, but instinctively I doubt that 40lb tumors are all that common, so I feel there must be more to this. but regardless, having had my mom recently go through the system with a cancer scare, I can personally attest to the fact that the Canadian system prioritizes anything that is time sensitive. sure, we might have to wait longer than an average american to get an MRI or have a hip replaced, but that's going to happen when you give all citizens access to the same basic level of health protection (rather than just those who can afford it).

I'm not claiming the Canadian system is perfect, because its not. but its a far cry from "lying in ruins". the bottom line, I'll trade having to wait 6-9 months to get a non-life threatening procedure done (like a hip replaced) for knowing that if I have a child who needs medicine or treatment beyond my means to pay, he or she will still get the treatment they need.
Dude , you have to humor th ****ing rednecks here ...... I wonder if they get all worked up over the thought of changing underware also

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're not telling the truth. #1, no need to propagandize against Bush here...this is unrelated.

Oh jeez - there you go not understanding the meaning of the word "propaganda" again.

What part of what I said about Bush's record on health care was not true?

#2, "Big Pharma" has contributed more than you realize to the underserved. Did you know that people below the poverty line can get just about every medicine out there free of charge?

Also, "Big Pharma" has collaborated with Wal Mart to provide a significant number of common medicines for 4 bucks a month.

Meanwhile:

Bush boasted that "29 million people have signed up for this program." But, what Bush failed to note is that 74 percent of those 29 million already had prescription drug coverage via Medicaid, a Medicare advantage plan, or an employer/union plan.

Beneficiaries Overcharged, Turned Away From Pharmacies Under New Drug Benefit. "Since the drug coverage took effect on Jan. 1, many low-income beneficiaries have been overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications because the pharmacies could not confirm their enrollment. The problems have been so widespread that more than 20 states have stepped in to pay drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program." [New York Times, 1/18/06]

Pharmacists and Seniors Struggle With New Prescription Drug Plan. "The new benefit has led to more paperwork, numerous phone calls to hard-to-reach plan managers and inconsistent information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the private drug companies. 'It's not the wholesaler or the retailer that's winning,' said [pharmacy owner Tom] Bartholomew. 'The insurance companies and the drug companies are in bed with each other.'" [Aberdeen American News, 3/12/06]

Medicare Plan Bewildering, Serves as "Bonanza" for Drug and Insurance Industries. "With its bewildering and useless 'choices' of dozens of plans and vendors, its additional costs to more than six million low-income elderly Medicaid patients, its 'doughnut hole' of huge out-of-pocket expenses, and windfall profits to the drug and insurance industries. The fragmentation, inefficiency, and burden to the elderly are the predictable consequence of Bush's treatment of his program as a bonanza for the drug and insurance industries." [The American Prospect, March, 2006]

Bush's Medicare Plan Will Cost Almost Double What He First Claimed. "The federal government plans to spend more than $700 billion during the next 10 years to provide drug coverage under Medicare as part of a landmark bill signed by President Bush in December 2003." Originally, Bush's prescription drug plan was to have cost $400 billion over 10 years. [Chicago Tribune, 2/26/06; Washington Post, 1/29/04]

[epicSocialism4tw]

Oh jeez - there you go not understanding the meaning of the word "propaganda" again.

What part of what I said about Bush's record on health care was not true?



Meanwhile:

Bush boasted that "29 million people have signed up for this program." But, what Bush failed to note is that 74 percent of those 29 million already had prescription drug coverage via Medicaid, a Medicare advantage plan, or an employer/union plan.

Beneficiaries Overcharged, Turned Away From Pharmacies Under New Drug Benefit. "Since the drug coverage took effect on Jan. 1, many low-income beneficiaries have been overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications because the pharmacies could not confirm their enrollment. The problems have been so widespread that more than 20 states have stepped in to pay drug claims that should have been paid by the federal Medicare program." [New York Times, 1/18/06]

Pharmacists and Seniors Struggle With New Prescription Drug Plan. "The new benefit has led to more paperwork, numerous phone calls to hard-to-reach plan managers and inconsistent information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the private drug companies. 'It's not the wholesaler or the retailer that's winning,' said [pharmacy owner Tom] Bartholomew. 'The insurance companies and the drug companies are in bed with each other.'" [Aberdeen American News, 3/12/06]

Medicare Plan Bewildering, Serves as "Bonanza" for Drug and Insurance Industries. "With its bewildering and useless 'choices' of dozens of plans and vendors, its additional costs to more than six million low-income elderly Medicaid patients, its 'doughnut hole' of huge out-of-pocket expenses, and windfall profits to the drug and insurance industries. The fragmentation, inefficiency, and burden to the elderly are the predictable consequence of Bush's treatment of his program as a bonanza for the drug and insurance industries." [The American Prospect, March, 2006]

Bush's Medicare Plan Will Cost Almost Double What He First Claimed. "The federal government plans to spend more than $700 billion during the next 10 years to provide drug coverage under Medicare as part of a landmark bill signed by President Bush in December 2003." Originally, Bush's prescription drug plan was to have cost $400 billion over 10 years. [Chicago Tribune, 2/26/06; Washington Post, 1/29/04]


Yeah...its extremely difficult to get an antibiotic at WalMart. You have to show up, present an Rx, and give the pharmacist 4 dollars for the entire RX.

Its completely non-discriminatory. Those drugs are always priced at 4 bucks.

I know that big corporations are scary, evil monsters to some of you, but do a little research before you go full-steam ahead with the propaganda.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I know that big corporations are scary, evil monsters to some of you, but do a little research before you go full-steam ahead with the propaganda.

So what is "propaganda" about the points I made in my last post?

Which of them is not true?

You can't just label all inconvenient facts "propaganda" and expect to be taken seriously.

[epicSocialism4tw]

So what is "propaganda" about the points I made in my last post?

Which of them is not true?

You can't just label all inconvenient facts "propaganda" and expect to be taken seriously.

Sorry man, but you cant expect to be taken seriously when you propose that some nebulus "big pharma" colludes with George Bush to take advantage of underserved americans when, in fact, big pharma has led the way in making sure that everyone can get the medicine they need.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sorry man, but you cant expect to be taken seriously when you propose that some nebulus "big pharma" colludes with George Bush to take advantage of underserved americans when, in fact, big pharma has led the way in making sure that everyone can get the medicine they need.

"Colludes" was your word - not mine.

Call it whatever you want - the net effect is the same: Bush's prescription drug plan has been little more than a give away for big drug companies and the insurance industry.

I cited legit sources - you have yet to do the same.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Health Coverage: Why Are People Uninsured? (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/02/health_coverage_is_it_affordab.html)
Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making Us Sick? (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/04/unnatural_causes_is_inequality.html)
68 Percent of Americans Favor Mandatory Health Coverage (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/01/68_percent_of_americans_favor.html)
Most Americans Agree (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/12/its_time_to_face_it_and_fix_it.html): We Need Universal Health Care
Choosing Death or Debt (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/12/a_world_according_to_bush_beau.html): Is This Our Health Care System?
Wrong, Again (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/12/wrong_again_bush_denies_health.html): Bush Denies Health Care for 10 Million Kids.
81% Support Expanding SCHIP (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/81_support_expanding_schip_inc.html), Including Republicans
SCHIP Specifically Designed For Middle Class (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/schip_was_specifically_designe.html)
Some important facts on SCHIP (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/recently_congress_passed_and_t.html)
Our Sacred Obligation To Protect Our Nation's Young (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/sacred_obligation_to_protect_o.html)
Bush is wrong on policy and ideology for health care (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/bush_is_wrong_on_policy_and_id.html)
SCHIP Support Needed (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/schip_support_needed_1.html)
The Time Has Come for Bold Change (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/universal_coverage_the_time_ha.html)
Those children are our children because they are his (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/those_children_are_our_childre.html)
Using his power to keep doctors away from kids (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/bush_to_use_his_power_to_keep.html)
Cost of Health Care for Unprotected Children (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/41_days_of_fighting_10_million.html)
John Edwards' critical insight about national health insurance (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/john_edwards_critical_insight.html)
Bush may require uninsured children to suffer (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/bush_may_require_4_million_uni.html)
One American City Leads the Way (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/one_american_city_leads_the_wa.html)
Everybody In! Nobody Out! (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/uninsured.html)
Dying in America (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/whenever_anyone_begins_serious.html): Lack of Access to Medical Care
We'll Just Take Your Arm (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/well_just_take_your_arm.html)
Who cares that we could save both money and lives? (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/09/single_payer_saves_money_time.html)
Children, Families and Health Care (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/08/children_families_and_health_c.html)
Bush Opposes Health Care for 3 Million Children (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/bush_opposes_health_care_for_3.html)
Primary Concerns (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/dont_know_about_you_but.html)
Are You Kidding Me, Mr. President? (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/are_you_kidding_me_mr_presiden.html)
27% of Americans Have One (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/27_of_us_have_medical_homes.html)
Using My Voice (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/06/using_my_voice_speaking_for_th.html): Speaking for Those That Can't
Texas Proud! (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/06/texas_proud.html)
Matters of Life and Death, Literally (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/04/real_world_cost_containment_ca.html)
No Halfway Measure Can Be Considered Acceptable (http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/02/no_halfway_measure_can_be_cons.html)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fact Sheet on Bush Health Care Record of Failure


FOUR YEARS OF NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ON HEALTH CARE:

BUSH BROKE THE LAW TO MISLEAD AMERICANS ON MEDICARE

Bush Administration Broke the Law to Cover Up Cost of Medicare Bill: The General Accounting Office found that the Bush administration and Thomas Scully broke the law in covering up the true cost of the Medicare bill. "The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, must repay seven months of his salary to the government, federal investigators said today." (New York Times, 9/7/04)

MEDICARE SCHEME TENS OF BILLIONS MORE THAN WE WERE TOLD: The Office of Management and Budget and the Medicare actuaries have provided new estimates that greatly increase the cost of the new Medicare drug bill. "The document provides a detailed breakdown of an extra $176 billion in Medicare spending projected for the next 10 years. The chart, provided to The Washington Post late last week, identifies $42 billion of that increase as related to MMA, the initials of the Medicare Modernization Act, the new prescription drug law." (Washington Post, 9/19/04)

OMITTED NUMBERS FROM MEDICARE: Bush Withheld Information on the Effect of Medicare on Social Security. Every year the Bush Administration has included a chart in its annual Medicare Trustees report on how much of the Social Security benefits Medicare will consume. However, the information was not included in the 2004 report. As Rep. Stark said: "it doesnt look good to lie to grandma so the Bush administration has withheld information and come up with creative ways to mask the damage they have done to Medicare." (USA Today, 9/14/04)

DELETES KEY INFORMATION ON HEALTH DISPARITIES: Bush Removed the Words "Disparity" and "Inequality" From a Report on Racial Health Disparities. Rather than release a Congressional mandated report on racial health disparities with its original findings, the Bush administration edited out key findings. In the draft report, four of the seven key findings used the word disparities or inequality -- The key findings of the final report delete the words disparities and inequality." (Miami Herald, 2/26/04)

CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH ON HIS OWN PLAN: The Hard Data on Bushs Health Care Plan "Fall Short of the Claims." George W. Bush claims that his health care plan will cover 10 million people can not be backed up by the hard facts. "But when the Bush-Cheney team was asked to provide documentation, the hard data fell far short of the claims, a gap supported by several independent analyses." (Washington Post, 8/22/04)

WHO BENEFITS FROM HIGHER COSTS? PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND HMOS
Insurance Industry Has Contributed over $13.5 Million to the Bush Campaigns and RNC, Provided At Least 10 Major Bush Fundraisers. According to Public Citizen and the Center for Responsive Politics, Bush's campaigns and the Republican National Committee have received $13,754,444 from insurance companies in the last two presidential elections. At least 10 of Bush's major "pioneer & ranger" fundraisers connected to the insurance industry have raised at least $1.2 million in contributions for his campaigns. (2000 data from Public Citizen, Bush's Campaign Ads, March 2004; 2004 data from Center for Responsive Politics, Custom data request, Contributions made through 6/30/04; whitehouseforsale.org; tpj.org)

Drug Companies Have Contributed over $7 Million to the Bush Campaigns and Affiliated Entities, Provided At Least 24 Major Bush Fundraisers. According to Public Citizen, drug companies have contributed $7,106,532 from the pharmaceutical industry in the last two presidential elections. At least 24 of Bush's major pioneer and ranger fundraisers connected to the pharmaceutical industry have collected at least $3.4 million for his two campaigns. (2000 data from Public Citizen, Bush's Campaign Ads, March 2004; 2004 data from Center for Responsive Politics, Custom data request, Contributions made through 6/30/04; whitehouseforsale.org; tpj.org)

http://chimpeach.info/HealthCare.html

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Sorry man, but you cant expect to be taken seriously when you propose that some nebulus "big pharma" colludes with George Bush to take advantage of underserved americans when, in fact, big pharma has led the way in making sure that everyone can get the medicine they need.You are the board joke, you know this, right?

[kappys]

The problem is it is not health care it is disease maintenance.

Health care starts with the individual. Doctors are not in the health business they are in the disease business, that's where the money is.

Take responsibility for your own health no one else will or can

He's absolutely right on this one. You must be your own health care advocate. Doctor's are no longer patient advocates, they are now bound contractually to serve insurance/HMO interests.

[Spider]

Take responsibility for your own health no one else will or can

so someone born with a disease is pretty much ****ed ?
how about a mental handicap ?

[baja]

Sorry man, but you cant expect to be taken seriously when you propose that some nebulus "big pharma" colludes with George Bush to take advantage of underserved americans when, in fact, big pharma has led the way in making sure that everyone can get the medicine they need.

Explore this site llama

http://www.naturalnews.com/021789.html

[kappys]

so someone born with a disease is pretty much ****ed ?
how about a mental handicap ?

Yes and yes in the current system.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so someone born with a disease is pretty much ****ed ?
how about a mental handicap ?

I thought maybe it meant I was supposed to run out and buy my own X-ray and MRI machines and set up a lab in my garage where I could do my own blood work, etc.

;)

[Spider]

Yes and yes in the current system.

well I guess the only answer is to abort the less healthy / Problem people before they are born .......

[Spider]

I thought maybe it meant I was supposed to run out and buy my own X-ray and MRI machines and set up a lab in my garage where I could do my own blood work, etc.

;)

LOL , I will try and write an IOU for a mri Machine

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Colludes" was your word - not mine.

Call it whatever you want - the net effect is the same: Bush's prescription drug plan has been little more than a give away for big drug companies and the insurance industry.

I cited legit sources - you have yet to do the same.

I deal with "big pharma" everyday. They have the best Rx programs out there. Unfortunately, many doctors dont want to take the time (very little time) to fill out a couple of forms and mail them in or make a phone call.

If you want a link ("proof" for the uneducated), then go look up PAP or prescription assistance programs for any major drug company. AstraZeneca created the concept and every company has copied it or some version of it. Virtually every medicine that has been available for 5 years or more is on a program from its manufacturer. Most chronic illnesses like diabetes can be treated in full through PAPs.

Here is a very small sample off the top of my head of companies who offer PAPs: Eli Lilly, Forest, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Alcon, Boehringer Ingleheim, Glaxo Smith-Klein, etc.

If you fall below the federal poverty guidelines (and in some cases if you have mitigating circumstances, even those above it) you are eligible for FREE meds through these companies.

The idea that "big pharma" are some kind of monster is an ill-informed and silly one.

[epicSocialism4tw]

He's absolutely right on this one. You must be your own health care advocate. Doctor's are no longer patient advocates, they are now bound contractually to serve insurance/HMO interests.

Yes and no.

Good docs still exist.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I deal with "big pharma" everyday. They have the best Rx programs out there. Unfortunately, many doctors dont want to take the time (very little time) to fill out a couple of forms and mail them in or make a phone call.

If you want a link ("proof" for the uneducated), then go look up PAP or prescription assistance programs for any major drug company. AstraZeneca created the concept and every company has copied it or some version of it. Virtually every medicine that has been available for 5 years or more is on a program from its manufacturer. Most chronic illnesses like diabetes can be treated in full through PAPs.

Here is a very small sample off the top of my head of companies who offer PAPs: Eli Lilly, Forest, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Alcon, Boehringer Ingleheim, Glaxo Smith-Klein, etc.

If you fall below the federal poverty guidelines (and in some cases if you have mitigating circumstances, even those above it) you are eligible for FREE meds through these companies.

The idea that "big pharma" are some kind of monster is an ill-informed and silly one.

None of these token gestures change the fact that Big Pharma is responsible for driving up the price of prescriptions throughout the 50 states by sucessfully lobbying Congress for a ban on allowing the government to negotiate lower prices for Medicare recipients (not to mention the longtime U.S. ban on allowing Americans to import their prescription drugs from Canada, where they often are half the price of what they cost here.)

Nothing you say here changes the fact that as of 2006, 47 million U.S. residents had no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing (that's 47 million people who face bankruptcy if they get sick - or who might avoid seeking treatment altogether) while a few big health care players (read: Big Pharma and the insurance industry) are making enormous profits - at the expense of working families.

Americans spent $252 billion on prescription medication in 2005. Drug prices are rising at three times the rate of inflation with no end in sight. It's no secret that medicine costs more in the United States than in Europe or Canada. A quick search of online pharmacies in Canada dramatically illustrates price differences. Candrugstore.com posts comparison prices with Walgreens in the United States and finds that prices for drugs in Walgreens are more than twice the price of the same drug sold on Candrugstore.com.

The pharmaceutical industry maintains some of the highest profit margins of any industry in the United States. From 1995 to 2002, it was the nation's most profitable industry. In 2003 and 2004 it ranked third. In 2005 it ranked fifth, with profits of 16 percent compared to a 6 percent average for all Fortune 500 firms. Six months after January 1, 2006, when the Medicare drug program went into effect, pharmaceutical industry profits increased by over $8 billion - a 27 percent increase. Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical company, had the biggest increase in profits—by $2.7 billion, a 73 percent increase. Merck’s profits have increased by almost $1 billion (44 percent); Sanofi-Aventis’ profits by more than $1.3 billion; AstraZeneca’s by more than $750 million.

The drug market in the United States is one of the most profitable. There are more than 47 million people without health insurance, and they are charged extremely high prices for prescription medication - and there are no price controls. The term "price gouging" doesn’t even begin to describe what has happened for decades to people when they go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription. The preferred groups to gouge have been the chronically ill and elderly because they take more medications. Before the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, millions of seniors couldn't afford to buy supplemental policies to cover drug costs, and paid out-of-pocket prices.

References:

David Sirota, “The big squeeze,” Sirotablog, September 1, 2004, http://davidsirota.com/index.php/the-big-squeeze/.

http://www.candrugstore.com/affordability.asp, click on affordability. These are all brand name drugs. Patients tend to take these medications for years to treat chronic health conditions. Generics are cheaper on both sides of the border. These prices were posted in May 2007.

“Prescription drug trends,” Kaiser Family Foundation, June 2006: http://www.kff.org/rxdrugs/upload/3057-05.pdf

“Pharmaceutical industry profits increase by over $8 billion after Medicare drug plan goes into effect,” September 2006:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060919115623-70677.pdf

11 Marcia Angell, MD, The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It (New York: Random House, 2005), 216.

12 Robert Pear, “Drug industry is on defensive as power shifts, New York Times, November 24, 2006, http://nytimes.com/2006/11/

24/washington/24drug.html.

Reports released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman’s (D-CA) office show: 1) the private Medicare drug plans have not been able to negotiate low prices for brand-name drugs, and 2) drug manufacturers raised prices rapidly after the program began.

Dean Baker, “The origins of the doughnut hole: Excess profits on prescription drugs,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, issue brief, August 2006, http://www.cepr.net. Families USA wrote an excellent and comprehensive report on Medicare Part D, complete with charts that illustrate how much the top prescribed drugs to seniors cost under the program. “No bargain: Medicare drug plans deliver high prices,” a report by Families USA, January 2007, No. 07-101.

Peter Rost, MD, The Whistleblower: Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman (New York: Soft Skull Press, 2006). His book is an exposé of the business practices of Pfizer that led to the author becoming a whistleblower. It’s also a fascinating read about the corporate culture of one giant drug company.

Angell, 37, and Katherine Greider, The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Rips Off American Consumers (New York: Public Affairs, 2003), 45.

Public Citizen, Rx R&D Myth: “The Case Against the Drug Industry’s R&D ‘Scare Card.’” Available at http://www/citzen.org/

“Americans value the health benefits of prescription drugs, but say drug makers put profits first, new survey shows,” Kaiser Family Foundation, February 2005.

Robert Weissman, “Victory and betrayal, the Evergreen patent system, pharmaceutical company tactics to extend patent protections,” Multinational Monitor, June 2002, Volume 23. Number 6, http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02june/june02corp3.html.

Craig Aaron and Taylor Lincoln, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch, “The other drug war 2003: Drug companies deploy an army of 675 lobbyists to protect profits,” http://www.citizen.org/documents/other_drug_war2003.pdf.

[kappys]

Yes and no.

Good docs still exist.

Of course they do. In fact most are in my opinion. The problem lies with the institutional structure of medicine which has been shifted away from patient oriented care towards corporate/insurance driven care.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Of course they do. In fact most are in my opinion. The problem lies with the institutional structure of medicine which has been shifted away from patient oriented care towards corporate/insurance driven care.

You can thank ambulance chasers for that.

[orinjkrush]

I just want to opt out. I have no problems with these fanciful social schemes so long as you let me opt out if I desire. Let me out of social security. Let me out of government mandated health care. Just let me opt out and be free.

i'd also like to opt out of taxes, especially school taxes.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The pharmaceutical industry maintains some of the highest profit margins of any industry in the United States. From 1995 to 2002, it was the nation's most profitable industry. In 2003 and 2004 it ranked third. In 2005 it ranked fifth, with profits of 16 percent compared to a 6 percent average for all Fortune 500 firms. Six months after January 1, 2006, when the Medicare drug program went into effect, pharmaceutical industry profits increased by over $8 billion - a 27 percent increase. Pfizer, the largest pharmaceutical company, had the biggest increase in profits—by $2.7 billion, a 73 percent increase. Merck’s profits have increased by almost $1 billion (44 percent); Sanofi-Aventis’ profits by more than $1.3 billion; AstraZeneca’s by more than $750 million.

The drug market in the United States is one of the most profitable. There are more than 47 million people without health insurance, and they are charged extremely high prices for prescription medication - and there are no price controls. The term "price gouging" doesn’t even begin to describe what has happened for decades to people when they go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription. The preferred groups to gouge have been the chronically ill and elderly because they take more medications. Before the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, millions of seniors couldn't afford to buy supplemental policies to cover drug costs, and paid out-of-pocket prices.


I love it when the uneducated reference articles written by idiot journalists to prove their erroneous and misguided premises.

Nearly every drug company has a PAP program for most drugs. It would behoove you to call one of those programs and ask them who qualifies for assistance. You would be surprised.

These companies do make money, but do they not deserve it? Are they not doing the research needed? DO THEY NOT CREATE AND DISTRIBUTE A PRODUCT THAT SAVES AND IMPROVES QUALITY OF LIFE?

That doesnt deserve money?

[Beantown Bronco]

well I guess the only answer is to abort the less healthy / Problem people before they are born .......

The population of the OMane would instantly be reduced by about 75%.

[baja]

I love it when the uneducated reference articles written by idiot journalists to prove their erroneous and misguided premises.

Nearly every drug company has a PAP program for most drugs. It would behoove you to call one of those programs and ask them who qualifies for assistance. You would be surprised.

These companies do make money, but do they not deserve it? Are they not doing the research needed? DO THEY NOT CREATE AND DISTRIBUTE A PRODUCT THAT SAVES AND IMPROVES QUALITY OF LIFE?

That doesnt deserve money?

Drug side effects and miss prescribed drugs are the number 4 killer in the USA

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I love it when the uneducated reference articles written by idiot journalists to prove their erroneous and misguided premises.

Now you're just being untruthful.

Some of the references I gave cited the government's own stats.

Nearly every drug company has a PAP program for most drugs. It would behoove you to call one of those programs and ask them who qualifies for assistance. You would be surprised.

That's all well and good, but it still doesn't address the situation of the majority of working Americans and seniors who don't live below the poverty line and who are getting gouged by the drug companies in the same manner as they are getting fleeced by the oil companies.

These companies do make money, but do they not deserve it? Are they not doing the research needed? DO THEY NOT CREATE AND DISTRIBUTE A PRODUCT THAT SAVES AND IMPROVES QUALITY OF LIFE?

That doesnt deserve money?

This is the same specious argument right-wingers make in defense of oil companies and their enormous profits at the expense of working Americans and the U.S. economy.

Do they have a right to make a profit? Yes.

Do they have a right to an unregulated "free" market that allows them to gouge consumers with no restrictions? No.

You are simply supporting a wealth transfer scheme that bankrupts the American middle class and funnels their money into the coffers of giant corporations.

Your supply-side, "free" market ideology reduces economics to a game of Monopoly or king of the mountain.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Pro-Business" Isn't Always What You Think - Take Health Reform, For Example

People who think they know "what business wants" may need to think again -- especially when it comes to social issues like health reform. Case in point: A recent study of New York small business owners shows that more than half believe small businesses have an obligation to provide health coverage. What's more, 51% think they should be required to provide it.
But do they distrust government solutions, preferring to let "the market" solve everything? Apparently not: 72% support the option of joining state-run insurance pools, and a stunning 85% think government should act as a "watchdog" over health insurance companies.
Why? Partly because they know our broken health system stifles innovation. And partly because they know that many American businesses struggle with runaway health costs, or with workers who can't get treatment for their medical problems. That means they can't compete on a level playing field, domestically or internationally. And without a level playing field, the free market can't operate.
Roll over, Newt Gingrich, and tell Ayn Rand the news: Sometimes capitalism can be improved when government and free enterprise work as partners. These entrepreneurs understand that.
Small Business Majority (http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/) cosponsored the New York survey, whose findings are consistent with an earlier survey the group conducted in California. The California study's key findings (http://www.smallbusinessforhealthcare.org/2007_california_healthcare_survey_report.php)inclu ded the following:

80% of those who expressed an opinion felt that employers should pay something to provide healthcare ...
75% ranked the availability of affordable healthcare as extremely or very important.
57% regard health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government ...
55% were in favor of paying into a statewide pool that would enable their employees to obtain coverage at favorable rates... "There is a range of political opinion among small business owners," John Arensmeyer told me. Arensmeyer, the Founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, added: "They tend to be an independent-minded group. But they're in favor of what works. They see health care as both a moral obligation on their part, and as a problem to be solved."
The entrepreneurs polled in this study represent the second-most trusted institution in the United States, according to a Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108142/Confidence-Congress-Lowest-Ever-Any-US-Institution.aspx). Small business is more trusted than organized religion, police, or even doctors. (Congress is at the very bottom - below even HMOs. Man, that's gotta hurt ...)
Arensmeyer explained why innovation's being stifled by our broken health system. "Somewhere there's an engineer at a computer firm with a better idea about something," he said. "She can't go out and start her new company, though, because she and the people she'd like to recruit all need their health coverage. How can we compete in a global economy this way? It's crazy."
Arensmeyer says SBM supports principles of health reform, rather than getting locked into specific models. ""We believe in shared responsibility," he said. "Everybody needs to be a part of the system for it to work. But it needs to be affordable."
I mentioned my past concerns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/california-health-reform-_b_77980.html) with what I felt was an over-reliance on individual mandates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/health-mandates-why-pau_b_74915.html)in the Clinton/Edwards plans, which could have resulted in onerous burdens for lower-middle-class working families. "In order for a system of shared responsibility to work," Arensmeyer answered, "it's got to be affordable for individuals. We think the (now defunct) California bill did as good a job at that as we've seen anywhere."
"The Clinton and Edwards plans didn't reach the point of specificity," he added. "The devil's in the details." That's a position I can support, having had the same concerns early on about Massachusetts health reform. (Massachusetts eventually had to concede that 20% of uninsured residents would remain without coverage under their plan.)
Says Arensmeyer, "The Massachusetts experiences reinforces those basic principles: affordability and universality."
Old paradigms of "left" and "right" are breaking down in social policy. The public's becoming aware that the "business world" is comprised of different groups with differing and often competing interests.
People picture different things when they hear "small business," because the entrepreneurial world is diverse. But these encouraging surveys suggest that a wide range of small-business owners, from small-town Main Streets to the Silicon Valley, want comprehensive health reform - with government playing a key role.

RJ Eskow blogs:

A Night Light (http://nightlight.typepad.com/)
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog (http://www.sentineleffect.com/)
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow)
(http://www.orangemane.com/BB/)

[Drek]

Canada is using a 40 year old system that has been vastly improved upon by many European nations. When we implement nationwide health care we can do the same.

Also, despite being "in crisis" they still spend less per citizen than we do and on average are healthier than we are. So if their system is in crisis then how do you describe ours? Money sucking, corporately controlled, grossly burdensome on over half the nation ****fest?

[Tombstone RJ]

"Pro-Business" Isn't Always What You Think - Take Health Reform, For Example

People who think they know "what business wants" may need to think again -- especially when it comes to social issues like health reform. Case in point: A recent study of New York small business owners shows that more than half believe small businesses have an obligation to provide health coverage. What's more, 51% think they should be required to provide it.
But do they distrust government solutions, preferring to let "the market" solve everything? Apparently not: 72% support the option of joining state-run insurance pools, and a stunning 85% think government should act as a "watchdog" over health insurance companies.
Why? Partly because they know our broken health system stifles innovation. And partly because they know that many American businesses struggle with runaway health costs, or with workers who can't get treatment for their medical problems. That means they can't compete on a level playing field, domestically or internationally. And without a level playing field, the free market can't operate.
Roll over, Newt Gingrich, and tell Ayn Rand the news: Sometimes capitalism can be improved when government and free enterprise work as partners. These entrepreneurs understand that.
Small Business Majority (http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/) cosponsored the New York survey, whose findings are consistent with an earlier survey the group conducted in California. The California study's key findings (http://www.smallbusinessforhealthcare.org/2007_california_healthcare_survey_report.php)inclu ded the following:

80% of those who expressed an opinion felt that employers should pay something to provide healthcare ...
75% ranked the availability of affordable healthcare as extremely or very important.
57% regard health care financing as a shared responsibility among individuals, employers and government ...
55% were in favor of paying into a statewide pool that would enable their employees to obtain coverage at favorable rates... "There is a range of political opinion among small business owners," John Arensmeyer told me. Arensmeyer, the Founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, added: "They tend to be an independent-minded group. But they're in favor of what works. They see health care as both a moral obligation on their part, and as a problem to be solved."
The entrepreneurs polled in this study represent the second-most trusted institution in the United States, according to a Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108142/Confidence-Congress-Lowest-Ever-Any-US-Institution.aspx). Small business is more trusted than organized religion, police, or even doctors. (Congress is at the very bottom - below even HMOs. Man, that's gotta hurt ...)
Arensmeyer explained why innovation's being stifled by our broken health system. "Somewhere there's an engineer at a computer firm with a better idea about something," he said. "She can't go out and start her new company, though, because she and the people she'd like to recruit all need their health coverage. How can we compete in a global economy this way? It's crazy."
Arensmeyer says SBM supports principles of health reform, rather than getting locked into specific models. ""We believe in shared responsibility," he said. "Everybody needs to be a part of the system for it to work. But it needs to be affordable."
I mentioned my past concerns (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/california-health-reform-_b_77980.html) with what I felt was an over-reliance on individual mandates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/health-mandates-why-pau_b_74915.html)in the Clinton/Edwards plans, which could have resulted in onerous burdens for lower-middle-class working families. "In order for a system of shared responsibility to work," Arensmeyer answered, "it's got to be affordable for individuals. We think the (now defunct) California bill did as good a job at that as we've seen anywhere."
"The Clinton and Edwards plans didn't reach the point of specificity," he added. "The devil's in the details." That's a position I can support, having had the same concerns early on about Massachusetts health reform. (Massachusetts eventually had to concede that 20% of uninsured residents would remain without coverage under their plan.)
Says Arensmeyer, "The Massachusetts experiences reinforces those basic principles: affordability and universality."
Old paradigms of "left" and "right" are breaking down in social policy. The public's becoming aware that the "business world" is comprised of different groups with differing and often competing interests.
People picture different things when they hear "small business," because the entrepreneurial world is diverse. But these encouraging surveys suggest that a wide range of small-business owners, from small-town Main Streets to the Silicon Valley, want comprehensive health reform - with government playing a key role.

RJ Eskow blogs:

A Night Light (http://nightlight.typepad.com/)
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog (http://www.sentineleffect.com/)
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow)
(http://www.orangemane.com/BB/)

LA, I can appreciate your position on alot of things, your a Democrat who is really in support of Obama, and you are tired of the same old crap from Washington, fine.

However, I have a problem with you citing a California survey. I mean, it's California and that doesn't mean it represents small business owners throughout the US.

Californian, for as liberal as it is, also has alot of problems. Alot of problems.

[enjolras]

LA, I can appreciate your position on alot of things, your a Democrat who is really in support of Obama, and you are tired of the same old crap from Washington, fine.

However, I have a problem with you citing a California survey. I mean, it's California and that doesn't mean it represents small business owners throughout the US.

Californian, for as liberal as it is, also has alot of problems. Alot of problems.

1 out of every 8 Americans is a Californian. The state is also not nearly as liberal as you make it out to be. Sure Berkley is as liberal as it gets, but a large portion of the state is staunchly Republican. They have a Republican governator for a reason.

I'm definitely a free market guy, but when it comes to health care I waffle. To me the biggest issue is with the patent system. We need to greatly reduce the patent terms for these drugs or come up with some kind of fair forced licensing scheme. Look at the price of Claritin directly before and after the patent expired. I know they need to recoup their R&D costs, but in most cases they go FAR FAR beyond that. I agree with LABF, we need to a better job of balancing profit with availability and affordability. Part of that is creating a more competitive environment, instead of giving drug companies a legal monopoly over chemical compounds used to treat diseases. Can you imagine if someone held a patent on penicillin today?

Its particularly acute with things like Cancer. My mom ran up nearly $100,000 in drugs alone during a 3 year battle with ovarian cancer. She had anti-nausea pills that where something like $90 a piece. The margin on that had to be huge for the drug company, and they charged it because they can. It was the only thing maintaining any semblance of a quality of life for her.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LA, I can appreciate your position on alot of things, your(sic) a Democrat who is really in support of Obama....

Wrong.

Where did I say I supported Obama?

I just got done saying that I don't plan to vote for either party's candidate this November.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

1 out of every 8 Americans is a Californian. The state is also not nearly as liberal as you make it out to be. Sure Berkley is as liberal as it gets, but a large portion of the state is staunchly Republican. They have a Republican governator for a reason.

I'm definitely a free market guy, but when it comes to health care I waffle. To me the biggest issue is with the patent system. We need to greatly reduce the patent terms for these drugs or come up with some kind of fair forced licensing scheme. Look at the price of Claritin directly before and after the patent expired. I know they need to recoup their R&D costs, but in most cases they go FAR FAR beyond that. I agree with LABF, we need to a better job of balancing profit with availability and affordability. Part of that is creating a more competitive environment, instead of giving drug companies a legal monopoly over chemical compounds used to treat diseases. Can you imagine if someone held a patent on penicillin today?

Its particularly acute with things like Cancer. My mom ran up nearly $100,000 in drugs alone during a 3 year battle with ovarian cancer. She had anti-nausea pills that where something like $90 a piece. The margin on that had to be huge for the drug company, and they charged it because they can. It was the only thing maintaining any semblance of a quality of life for her.

QFT.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[W*GS]

I just got done saying that I don't plan to vote for either party's candidate this November.

You're gonna vote for Brian Moore, assuming he gets on your state's ballot.

If you had any balls, that is.

[Tombstone RJ]

Wrong.

Where did I say I supported Obama?

I just got done saying that I don't plan to vote for either party's candidate this November.

Wow, my bad. I just thought you were gonna vote for Obama because of all your posts showing support for Obama.

[Tombstone RJ]

1 out of every 8 Americans is a Californian. The state is also not nearly as liberal as you make it out to be. Sure Berkley is as liberal as it gets, but a large portion of the state is staunchly Republican. They have a Republican governator for a reason.

I'm definitely a free market guy, but when it comes to health care I waffle. To me the biggest issue is with the patent system. We need to greatly reduce the patent terms for these drugs or come up with some kind of fair forced licensing scheme. Look at the price of Claritin directly before and after the patent expired. I know they need to recoup their R&D costs, but in most cases they go FAR FAR beyond that. I agree with LABF, we need to a better job of balancing profit with availability and affordability. Part of that is creating a more competitive environment, instead of giving drug companies a legal monopoly over chemical compounds used to treat diseases. Can you imagine if someone held a patent on penicillin today?

Its particularly acute with things like Cancer. My mom ran up nearly $100,000 in drugs alone during a 3 year battle with ovarian cancer. She had anti-nausea pills that where something like $90 a piece. The margin on that had to be huge for the drug company, and they charged it because they can. It was the only thing maintaining any semblance of a quality of life for her.

So one out of eight Americans is a Californian, so what. Just because there are alot of Republicans that doesn't mean anything to me. California has a schit load of problems, one being illegal immagration. That's just an example.

As for the rest of you post, great. I'm all for cheaper prescriptions, but I'm not for socialized health care. There has to be a better way to bring costs down without sacrificing choices.

[Spider]

So one out of eight Americans is a Californian, so what. Just because there are alot of Republicans that doesn't mean anything to me. California has a schit load of problems, one being illegal immagration. That's just an example.

As for the rest of you post, great. I'm all for cheaper prescriptions, but I'm not for socialized health care. There has to be a better way to bring costs down without sacrificing choices.

Cali may have alot of problems , but it is one of the very few if not the only one state that could support itself without a single import .. Texas could for awhile but not as long