Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I was looking through a list of John Kerry campaign promises, and one of them is to improve our health care system by allowing prescription drugs to be imported from Canada. Is this really going to help anything? It seems to me, that if we are buying all of our drugs from Canada, then the prices in Canada will just go up.

I think that drugs are just plain expensive. In the past, most medicines where enzyme based. They tried to control, replace, or encourage certain enzymes in the body to fix things. Now, the drug companies are working on drugs that deal with genes. The problem is almost none of these gene-therapy drugs have panned out. They are pouring billions and billions of dollars into these gene-therapy drugs, but they haven't been able to recoup any of that money with a successful drug. So in an effort to fund the gene therapy research, they have to raise the prices of the drugs they do have. And that really doesn't work because most drugs no longer have a patent, so people can buy generics. So since they aren't making any money from gene-therapy drugs, and most of the other types of drugs have to compete with generics, the few drugs they are left with cost an arm and a leg. They can't just go back and focus on making more enzymatic drugs either, because they have almost completely done that. There are medicines that work with almost every enzyme in the body.

Drug prices aren't the only problem, though. Insurance and doctor's fees are super expensive, too. I think the best way to fix this might be to fix the malpractice situation. There are states where malpractice insurance costs so much, that there aren't nearly enough doctors to help everyone. They have to pay so much for insurance, that if they didn't pass these high costs on to everyone else, they would all have to file for bankruptcy. To fix that, there needs to be a way to penalize bogus legal claims against doctors, and also some kind of a cap on malpractice awards. I think this would fix most of the problems as far as everything non-pharmaceutical goes.

So I guess what I think is that the only way to help US health care is to help Doctors be able to afford to practice by limiting malpractice costs, and perhaps to help subsidize pharmaceutical companies research costs.

But what do you guys think? What should be done to fix this problem?

The way I understand the problem is this.

A new drug comes out and the company patents it. Therefore, no one in the US can make a generic version of it (without the original company's consent). If you are able to go to Canada this isn't the case.

I know some of the medication I currently take is outragously expensive (for me at least). The way my insurance works is if there is a generic brand drug I only pay 5 bucks a month (no matter what the drug is). However, if a generic brand drug isn't on the market, I pay 25% of the cost. In the case of the medication I am taking, the difference was about 85 bucks a month (90 for a month's supply of non-generic).

SoOOOOoooo...

If that is true, and Kerry is serious about it, I would be really interested.

_________________

The thing is, racerx, drugs aren't expensive to manufacture. They're not all cheap, but compared to the manufacturing cost, the sale prices of prescription drugs are outrageous. The reason they're so expensive is two-fold. The first reason is that R&D is very expensive. It takes a lot of reasearch, a lot of testing, and a lot of time to bring a new drug to the market. The second reason, and I believe this is the chief reason, is what Stu says. Companies in the U.S. can patent drugs, barring other companies from manufacturing them. If it's a drug that will significantly improve the quality of people's lives and has no good alternatives, then people will buy it no matter the cost. So the drug companies hike up the prices to an interstellar level, because they can.

_________________

If income to the drug companies (via drug sales) is so crimped, I think that will have a negative impact on the introduction of new drugs to the market. Perhaps if R&D were subsidized, then drug costs wouldn't have to recoup the huge losses they are incurring from failing expiremental drugs. That could help the prices come down.

I understand now why there are cheap drugs in Canada, but I think this would hurt people in the long run because of the lack of new drugs being introduced.

Where's StrongCanada when we need him? The reason Canadian drugs are cheaper is because the Canadian taxes subsidize medical costs. If our government starts buying drugs from Canada, the U.S. Government will essentially be endorsing stealing from the Canadian citizenry.

The problem, as I see it, is as has been mentioned: litigation lawyers. They prey upon people who are already victims to victimize more people. Anti-litigation laws are just as bad, as a friend of mine hit by a drunk driver in Colorado (where there are litigation limits) can't even get a settlement equal to her lost wages and cost of medical procedures from the injury! The solution is for people to be moral. But until people will start being ethical on their own, I'll settle for public executions of bad people. I'm exaggerating, please don't think I'm actually bloodthirsty.

_________________

Her. Where's StrongCanada when we need her.

Sorry, I rely on visual cues better than I remember details like "actress" from a profile page. For those of you trying to determine my gender, my avatars are all male and one of them that cycles through is actually a photo of me.

_________________

I think everyone has the right to be healed. No one should be turned away from medical care because they don't have money. Men, women and children not having access to a doctor is just shy of barbaric.

This is a new society we are creating, and it should be better than the old one.

Every argument against the nationalized health care plan -- mostly economical -- is but a symptom of an imperfect system.

Economics do not trump human rights, at least they didn't the last time I checked the Constitution of the US.

Unless the Republicans changed the Constitution -- which is possible.

Ooooh, sorry, cheap shot.

That would be wonderful if it were true. However, try as you might to legislate it, there are many incurables out there. Lawyers can't heal people, doctors can't even always do it. You're almost certainly too young to remember what impact Sputnik had on American mathematics, but let me assure you: lawyers can't make Americans better at math either. Mathematicians and teachers have to do that. The metaphor is thus: you can't legislate health, and only a monster would punish someone for failing to do what they can never do (cross thread reference there). So your concept of a healing as a "right" simply isn't true.

You may come back zinging me, saying I misinterpret you, and that you really meant "everyone should have a right to all the health care they need, within reason." And I will zing you right back with the fact (you may not know) that what you ask is actually already law. If I go into a hospital emergency room with a real need, they can not by law refuse to treat me on financial grounds and if I can prove I have no money and no coverage, they cancel the bill. Well, actually, each State covers their own.

So, the fact of the matter is, right now in the 50 United States, everyone DOES have a right to the health care they need.


Agreed. And as someone who has often gone to doctors without any money and been treated just as well as the richest patient, I can say that we in America already have everything you think you're fighting for.

Now, what people DON'T all have is health insurance, and preventative medicine, and their choice of any doctor, and so on. Actually, as someone who's had a really bad health insurance plan, many people WITH health insurance don't have those other things!


Nice rhetoric, but the society other people around you experience is the one you create. I suggest you actually get a job in an insurance agency, climb the ladder to be the CEO, and fix the problems. If you do that and I'm still alive, I'll subscribe to your insurance policy.


And your argument for a national health plan -- mostly economical -- is but a symptom of an (existing) imperfect system. A perfect insurance system OR a perfect socialized plan is fine with me! But I have never seen a successful socialist revolution anywhere in history, whereas I've seen a few capitalist ones that work OK for a while.


Well, they did for slavery. They also do for abortion. Both are an economic advantage for one by violating the human rights of another. So I agree with you that economics should never trump human rights.

Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? I know someone extremely poor who is dying of cancer and can't get the care he needs because of economic issues. Will you give him money? If your answer is "no," then I have to say that making the government force you to do it against your will is a bit ingenuine. If your thought is that your taxes should not go up, and others should pay for this fella's care, then you're not only ingenuine, you're also a practicioner of class envy. If you say "yes" to my man, then there's no need for the government to force anyone to pay anything. The goodness in your heart sovles the problem of economics!

So, my vegetable-hewing friend, which trumps in your personal life? Economics or Human Rights?

Side note: don't feel guilty about your decision. Be honest. This is a friendly philosophical discussion with political consequences that will change our nation forever! Your thought process is very important! Guilt is not.

_________________

Here I am! Over here! *Waves arms* (PS - Buz it's ok you thought I was a dude...I've been called worse!)

I was going to comment on this thread a long time ago, but my perspective is extremely biased...I grew up with Medicare; I knew that if I got sick, all I had to do was call up the doctor and go - no worries! I never got extremely sick...in fact, other than my dad being diagnosed with diabetes about 19 years ago, no one in my immediate family has gotten very sick. However, when I lived in Canada, I always heard about how hospitals (in Canada) are overcrowded, doctors overworked, and waiting lists for surgery endless. (That's the thing with "socialized medicine", as my parents love to say - you could be on a waiting list until you die!)

Yet, the American healthcare system seems to have similar problems....so I guess what I'm saying is that as long as you don't get REALLY sick - Medicare is an EXCELLENT idea...

Like I said, because of my biased perspective, I'm unsure of where I sit on this issue. (Shock, shock! I know none of you were expecting that!)

So, instead, I'ma go wash my long blonde curly hair, put on a skirt, fix my makeup and step into some killer stilletos...(now if there was any doubt of my gender ....unless I was a drag queen! )

_________________

Hey SC:

Keep talking that way, and you'll have all the guys over here drooling on their computer screens.

(Not the drag queen part).

_________________

She already has. (Sorry SC)

Fortunately socialized healthcare is unconstitutional, the reason waits in
ERs across America are so long, is that so many doctors have quit practice because of sky rocketing medical malpractice insurence cost...

Really?


Really?

I'm not trying to be pugilistic, I simply have never heard either of those things before, and I follow health care trends as closely as a non-professional can.

We have socialized healthcare in the good ol' U.S. of A., it's called Medicare. Oh, and Medicaid too. Oh, and the State laws about hospitals that I cited above.

And doctors in E.R. don't have to pay their own malpractice insurance; the hospital does. The doctors who are quitting from insurance prices are the ones in private and small practices, e.g. OBGYNs and Pediatricians. You know, the ones people see regulary and trust.

The rub is that you and I agree on the end, but not the reasons. Here's some good reason ammo if some teacher who's been ordered to vote Kerry by her union tries to tell you Kerry's health plan is good.

I am against the Kerry promises since we already have health care for every American on some level. The only thing Kerry would do is have the government take over the things that are currently done in the private sector. I don't think I trust Kerry (or any government in history) with my health. A wise man once said, "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much" etc. etc. etc.

So, how does the government here handle roads? Well, when the summer starts, they put a few machines on each 15-mile stretch that's supposed to get worked on through the season, and it takes the whole summer and well into the fall to get the job done since all over the state is being done at once, effectively shutting down about 10% of the highways all summer, not to mention the local roads that have been blocked off over 2 years.

The right (and I say that dogmatically) way to do it would be to put all of the men and machines on one 15-mile stretch of road, be done in 1 or 2 weeks, then do the next. That way, they all still get fixed, and the traffic impact is about 0.5% at any one time.

Oh, and add to that the fact that 6 months after the local roads are finished, the sewer project starts, tearing up the brand-new road for the underground work and putting a half-[censored] blacktop job over the job when done; ruining all the work and wasting all the money spent and inconvenience on the neighborhoods.

So, this is the government I'm going to trust with my heart transplant? Or my daughter's baby when she goes into labor? Absolutely not. O my government, O great senator, be faithful with the money and responsibility I grant you, and I shall trust you with more.

But don't say, "though we've done lousy at everything we do, give us the most important thing and we promise we won't screw that up."

So, anyone got records on what Kerry's done in his subcommitte in Senate? How about other things he's been trusted to do? I haven't seen any. If there was something big, wouldn't he (or someone) have made a big deal out of it? All I see from him and his supporters is dissatisfaction with Bush, or promises for him to do something that he's never done before.

Speaking of giving responsibility to someone who's earned it, when Bush invaded Iraq to depose Hussein, 66% of Americans supported it. I'd say he's done what was entrusted to him there. I haven't agreed with everything the guy's done, but for what I hired him to do, he's done to my satisfaction: lowering taxes and chasing at bad rulers of enemies.

One final note: if you don't like the Bush tax cut, surprise! You can still pay the full amount! You don't have to pay the lower amount! I'm looking for more documentation on it, but I know you can send the IRS money as a donation to the federal government. So don't complain about the tax cut if you don't already do this, period.

_________________

Off-topic:



Aww, thanks!



Don't be sorry, it's funny, and I'm quite flattered!

On-topic:

Ummm....like I said before; I'm kinda biased....and since I've been living in the US, I haven't gotten really sick *knocks on wood*, and I'm not quite old enough to be kicked off my mom's insurance...I have insurance for 2 more years, so hopefully, I don't come down with some horrible disease!

Bush or Kerry, Bush or Kerry...honestly, there are things I like about both of them (and things I DON'T like)...man, I need to do more research before I vote in November!

_________________

I hope nobody comes down with any horrible disease, health insurance or not!


That's the phrase I wish everyone would say! Too many people just watch campaign commercials, talk shows, and their high-school friends. I always do about 2 hours of research before any election I vote in.

If you (the rhetorical "you," not you SC in particular) don't know how to do research, decide what values matter to you the most, not the biggest things in our society's dialog at any one moment. Find what candidates share those convictions, and what they've done about those issues (you can safely ignore campaign rhetoric). If more than one candidate meets your criteria, then decide what value is second-most important to you, and so forth. Since I'm pro-life, that really narrows it down quick, and then from the candidates that remain, I can select defence, economic, and personality issues.

Though my apparent disagreement with Kerry health promises probably makes me look like a Bush supporter, note that I didn't vote for Bush last election. I actually voted for ambassador Keyes in the presidential election (I had to write him in). Bush was not pro-life enough, and Keyes agreed with my economic point of view. Since elcted, Bush passed an act banning partial-birth abortion and lowered taxes. So, based on his actions (not his rhetoric), I guess he's got my vote this time around.

If your ethics guide you to a different candidate, then I encourage you to act on that. However, don't let any pundit or commercial make you vote against your values! Many people were encouraged to vote against their ethics and the result was one of the most forgettable presidents since Chester Aurthur. Remember the "Clinton Health Plan?" Yeah, there was supposed to be a Clinton health plan. One of the biggest promises of the 1992 presidential campaign. I'm guessing John just put his name on it and will do just as much as Bill.

_________________

Sorry to dig up such an old topic, but I read an article in the New Yorker about the prices of prescription drugs, and it puts as much or more blame on doctors, insurers, and uneducated people than the drug manufacturers themselves. Check it out.

http://newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?041025crat_atlarge

I thought it brought up a number of good points, but it didn't put enough blame (I think) on the massive advertising campaigns used by the manufacturers to keep people misinformed.

Though I don't have time for a full review, I did have this one experience to contribute.

One point it made was that insurance companies shouldn't pay more for the high-octane version than for the generic alternative, that patients should. I know someone who (due to an allergy in one of the inactive ingredients) can't take the generic one, but needs the high-priced full-bore newest and best. But her insurance company has taken the New Yorker's stance, and makes her personally pay the difference of several dozen (perhaps low triple digits) every month, even though the perscribing physician has documented the need for the expensive drug and the inadequacy of the generic. The insuance company states that it's policies on generics versus high costs are not open to review and continues to deny the claim for the rest of the cost.

_________________