Senate approves allowing Canadian drugs

July 11, 2006

Measure will have a tough time clearing full Congress, White House

The Associated Press

July 11, 2006

WASHINGTON - The Senate opened the way Tuesday to let Americans import prescription drugs into the United States from Canada, seeking to ease a regulatory ban on cheaper medicine crossing the border.

The proposal, which was approved 68-32, would create a Canadian loophole on a Food and Drug Administration ban on importing prescription medicine into the United States. It was offered as part of a $31.7 billion Homeland Security Department spending blueprint for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

The department's Customs and Border Protection bureau began aggressively seizing Tamiflu, Viagra and other incoming prescription medications at borders in November. Prescription drugs - even those manufactured in the United States - are generally sold at cheaper prices in Canada.

"We should demand that (Customs and Border Protection) focus on the true priority that we face on the war on terror," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., of efforts to secure U.S. borders. "Stripping small amounts of prescription drugs from the hands of seniors .... that should not be a priority."

Vitter's plan, which was embraced by Democrats, specifically would prohibit Customs and Border Protection from stopping people with doctors' prescriptions for FDA-approved drugs from bringing the medicine into this country from Canada.

Safety concerns

But Republican leaders vociferously opposed the plan for fear, they said, the drugs could be unsafe for consumers - or even present a terror risk.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said the proposal was an attempt to push the FDA into reversing itself while "creating a massive hole on our capacity to secure our borders and protect ourselves."

"If I were a creative terrorist, I would say to myself, 'Hey, listen, all I've got to do is produce a can here that says 'Lipitor' on it, make it look like the original Lipitor bottle, which isn't too hard to do, fill it with anthrax," Gregg said.

Lipitor is a cholesterol-lowering drug.

Aides warned that the drug import plan was likely to be stripped out of the legislation - as it has been in past years - whenever it got to a conference of House and Senate lawmakers who will negotiate the final version. The administration also has opposed efforts to loosen the restrictions.

House measures pending

Two House spending bills this year - to fund the Homeland Security and Agriculture departments in 2007 - include the drug importation plan, said Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

The House has approved efforts to import drugs in six spending bills over the last seven years, Brost said, but the idea has survived a conference committee only once. That year, 2000, the plan was eventually dropped because it was written in a way that couldn't be carried out, Brost said.

While importing drugs into the United States is illegal, the FDA generally has not stopped small amounts purchased for personal use. Still, the FDA says it cannot guarantee the safety of imported drugs.

Enhanced enforcement

Customs and Border Protection began seizing controlled substances in September 2004, and expanded that operation last November to include non-controlled substances. The Bush administration has opposed efforts to loosen the restrictions.

As of March, Customs officials had seized nearly 13,000 packages of drugs coming into the country, although the medications' origins were not known, according to data provided by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

"This is going to ensure that Americans, especially the frail, elderly, or those with debilitating conditions, are going to be able to at least have a chance of affording the medications that they need," Nelson said.

July 11, 2006

O good maybe I can get my drugs cheaper!

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Safety concerns

But Republican leaders vociferously opposed the plan for fear, they said, the drugs could be unsafe for consumers - or even present a terror risk.

ROFLOL

How many of us believe the banning of importing medications Canadian's use every day is part of the war on terror?

How many of us believe it is part of protecting the profits of GWB's buddies?

GWB is in charge - let the looting continue

/Bevin

July 12, 2006

I think it is a little shallow to blame President Bush for everything that isn't right. The pharmicutical companies have a tremendous amount of power in the US. President Clinton pledged to pass universal healthcare when he had both a Democrat House and Senate. Yet it didn't happen. Why? Was George W. Bush already at work to help out his buddies? Or do these companies have an incredible amount of political power?

I am all for free trade. I favor free trade for drugs, cars, jeans, appliances and soda pop. I think it unfair that pharmicutical companies only get seven years or so of copyright protection for their product while Walt Disney gets 70 years for theirs - but that is somewhat of a different issue.

As a side note, I buy all our drugs in Mexico and have been quite happy with them.

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

bevin said:

ROFLOL

How many of us believe the banning of importing medications Canadian's use every day is part of the war on terror?

How many of us believe it is part of protecting the profits of GWB's buddies?

GWB is in charge - let the looting continue

/Bevin

I often wonder if these types of remarks are based on knowledge or hate.

At this point many seniors could lower their drug costs dramatically if they took advantage of the presciption plan Medicare D. Unfortuntely many recite by rote their own "ideas" and don't bother with the details spreading distrust and fear of signing up. Facts simply get in the way.

Many seniors are of the opinion that Medicare D saves them little or nothing so why bother. This comes from those repeating nonesense without any facts. Many seniors are still paying out of pocket or going without because of the false information.

Prior to Jerry being placed on Lovastatin we had not completed Medicare part D as yet for prescriptions. When he was placed on the drug I thought how bad can one prescription be. So instead of waiting for insurance paperwork to be filed. Well, how bad was 326.00 for 90 days.

I said no and that I would wait for medicare part D.

Then I really began to want to reach out and touch someone. The druggist told me to wait and she would see what she could work out as long as I didn't have any prescription coverage. Finally she agreed to break the prscription into monthly fills and would give it to me at their cost. Sounded great BUT.....

Their cost was 150.00 for the prescription. I took one month at 50.00 till we could get paperwork thru for Medicare D. I had thought that markup was obscene but glad she was willing to give it to me at their cost. BIG JOKE and it was on me. Perhaps she is a friend of President Bush as well

Next refill with the prescription plan, our co-pay was 22.50 for three months which I thought was great. Then I noticed what the insurance paid. They paid only pennies less than we did.

Called my insurance agent and she shared with me a few facts. She provided me with the information provided to all insurance companies at the time this was passed into law.

Maybe it might mean that the all past presidents were protecting their friends as it seems this is not recent. If true,according to the information and the breakdown of the total cost of all drugs we in the US get stuck again. If only half of this report is true, those so proud of their socialized medicine forgot a little tidbit of information.

What I paid along with the insurance reflects the true cost of the drug. Because of Medicare part D, drug companies and druggists cannot charge more than what third world countries and those on socialized medicne pay. According to the information my agent shared with me that was standard and necessary for agents to have when this went into effect is americans pick up 85% of the cost of prescription drugs for the other countries and welfare receipients as they cannot be charged anymore than medicare patients and illegal immigrants here. Therefore, the markup we pay is to cover the cost, research, profit and liability for the drug companies and druggist to recoup what they lose. While I don't believe the drug companies are in danger of going broke, the private cit

citizens pay and pay and pay.

Particularirly hard hit by the loss of revenue is states like Arizona, Calif and Texas. Increase in prescription costs has to cover their lower scale as well. This holds hands with the insurance companies that are paying the higher cost for their insured. My insurance company would have had to pay out 296.00 for this presciption as I am in the group that is looked at "can afford to pay" because of the insurance. Now the insurance companies are beginning to fight their rising drug coverage costs by refusing to pay for a three month supply. Instead of the 30.00 co-pay I would have paid for this 326.00 prescription, it would now be only a month at a time. It would then cost me 90.00 in co-pay.

What a nice gesture on the part of the US to have it's citizens willing to pick up such a big portion of the tab.

Our agent also has three clients that have moved to France, Germany and canada. They have maintained their insurance thru her because of the difference in rate of care they receive. Canada receives the least financial benefit for their drug cost of any. Because of the no-advertising law for drugs, they have reduced 30% of the cost, but their cost is still aided by what we "are willing" to pay here.

The party that now resides in Canada is not far across the border. For anything serious, he and his family come back to the states to be treated.

More and more the rising costs will be on those under 65. It will have to break somewhere and the thought that all of these countries will begin to pay more of their share is like me wishing for a vacation on the moon. In fact I think that would be a far better chance.

While many complain that Medicare D only pays to a certain amount and then the patient picks up the rest until it hits the next level, information is left out of that as while, quite deliberately I think.

Paying 326.00 for a prescription will get you to that level a whole lot sooner than the pittance we pay now by comparison.

At 22.00 every three months it will take sometime to reach that level.

So while you are ROTFL, pause and ask yourself why those that oppose Bush on this single out seniors for their objections.

What possible reason would they go to the expense of going to Canada when they can pay the same price here. Unless of course they are singled out because it creates more pity for the senior citizen

We pay a very small premium. 30.00 I believe. Sign up is sure a lot easier than a trip to Canada.

Maybe if we did not see the need to provide for the citizens of other countries, we could do a little better for our own.

I took this information to the druggist who confirmed the information. So I tend to believe it. Of course it is possible you believe our drugs were cheap before Bush became president and started protecting his friends.

There is plenty of free help available in most towns for helping seniors understand and pick the plan according to their drug expenses. Very simple once an agent or trained personal plugs your figures in.

July 12, 2006

Shane,

For this article to focus on the poor seniors having their drugs confiscated at the border is nothing more than a "Let's tug at the heartstrings" routine.

If people actually repeated facts about the Plan D in effect there is little reason to go to Canada.

To many seniors have listened to the hype and utter nonesense others repeat out of hate or their own agenda.

We recently visited with an elderly friend that pays all her prescription expenses out of pocket.

WHY?? Because she has listened to those that chatter and know nothing about it.

She like bevin thinks somehow it is a big plot by Bush to help his friends. Spending several hundred dollars a month because of ignorance.

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

She like bevin thinks somehow it is a big plot by Bush to help his friends

The Bush plan is deliberately so complex as to be confusing. There is no need for seniors to have to choose between so many plans, or to put up with the plans restrictions.

The Bush administration should simply have gone into the normal free market buy-from-the-lowest-bidder mechanism for all of the meds needed for people whose meds are subsidised by the govt.

Yes, I agree Clinton, Bush Senior, and every other administration for the last 30 years should have done the same.

The funding of health care in the US is a mess.

/Bevin

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The department's Customs and Border Protection bureau began aggressively seizing Tamiflu, Viagra and other incoming prescription medications at borders in November.

I think we can all understand that importing Viagra is a very real threat to homeland security...

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

bevin said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

She like bevin thinks somehow it is a big plot by Bush to help his friends

The Bush plan is deliberately so complex as to be confusing. There is no need for seniors to have to choose between so many plans, or to put up with the plans restrictions.

The Bush administration should simply have gone into the normal free market buy-from-the-lowest-bidder mechanism for all of the meds needed for people whose meds are subsidised by the govt.

Yes, I agree Clinton, Bush Senior, and every other administration for the last 30 years should have done the same.

The funding of health care in the US is a mess.

/Bevin

Your choice of words is always such that intent to do harm by Bush thru legislation is assumed and taken for fact.

Do you know this to be true? Bush deliberately made this plan so complex as to be confusing.

Most of the confusion results from "those" that know all and repeat what they don't know as fact.

The plan itself can appear confusing and did until we contacted our agent and obtained the "actual" information. Not relying on those that really don't care about the facts.

I believe the plan has three tiers. Using your personal information as to your drug costs tells you which plan is most suited to your needs.

Being we are now getting my husband's meds at actual or very close to actual cost of the drug itself, What free market did you have in mind? Which free market will give them to us cheaper than the cost of the drug itself??

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Stan Jensen said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The department's Customs and Border Protection bureau began aggressively seizing Tamiflu, Viagra and other incoming prescription medications at borders in November.

I think we can all understand that importing Viagra is a very real threat to homeland security...

Yup, quite sure Viagra is the real reason behind this.

Some might think it is the importing of drugs altogether that is the focus. That would be foolish when we can chose one of three mentioned and make it seem ridiculous based on the type of drug.

Maybe what we really need to do is to stop subsidizing other contries that should be well able to pay their own way.

That might be a step in lowering our costs so your border is not a concern.

July 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

What free market did you have in mind? Which free market will give them to us cheaper than the cost of the drug itself??

Normally a large buyer (such as the Govt) will negotiate with the seller (e.g. Merck) to get the price of the med down.

The cost of the med is a function of both the development and the manufacturing costs. The seller won't sell at a loss, clearly.

The US govt is not doing this, the Canadian govt is. That is why the exact same pill from the exact same production line is cheaper in Canada.

/Bevin

July 14, 2006

Many doctors put a cap on how many medicare patients they take in for these medicare patients actually cost more than the money the government will pay for their care. I am told by my family members who are nurses that the medicare pays about 80 percent of the actual cost of the patient.

So it is the younger patients that can afford to pay that get the higher bills to support the medicare and uninsured patients.

Yes americans shoulder the bulk of the bill so that the medicare companies can make profits.

When a world wide pandemic breaks out such as Aids did 25 years ago the world looks to the american drug companies to find a cure. Although no cure has been found they have found a cocktail of drugs that arrest the progress of the virus so that a person can live out his or her life without the aids virus breaking out into fullblown aids. A stalemate so to speak. It is expensive though. Several tens of thousands of dollars per patient per year. It is the american people who burden the bulk of this bill. Most third world countries cannot afford the drugs so what happens. Their people die. Brazil copied the drugs and made generic forms of the drugs so that the poor can afford it. American drug companies screamed foul and aaid that was in violation of patent laws but Brazil countered that when peoples lives are at stake then forget the patent laws. Their courts upheld that view so the generic Brazilian aids drugs are now on the market in Brazil. Many americans do there to get their aids drugs.

Many americans go to Mexico for the cheaper generic drugs as well as to Canada.

There is always a way to get cheaper perscription drugs.

July 14, 2006

The cost to most younger patients that pay the higher bills are reflected in their insurance premiums. There is no free lunch, no matter where you live. I am a little curious as to what you mean by medicare companies making a profit. What medicare company? Medicare premiums are deducted automatically from your SS check every month by the federal government. Unless the federal government then dispurses these premiums to private insurance companies, there is no medicare company.

A little over a year ago I had emergency major surgery. Because I was in danger of dying I had many, many tests as this came on suddenly and no one knew quite what the extent of the problem was. My drug bill was very high I thought, but not knowing what the actual cost was didn't think much beyond that. I was also billed 13,000.00 for supplies. When I objected to the bill and asked what the mysterious supplies were, no one had an answer. They were not itemized. When I went thru the list of supplies I had used I came up with five things I could be billed for. I did not let it go till I finally was given an answer I believe to be true. A hospital bills those with insurance in excess of actual care and supplies used. Supplies are the main target as it is a pretty generic statement. My response was, someone needs to pay for services rendered to the welfare,poor,those that do ot have insurance, either by choice or because of finances and illegal immigrants. This is one way to recoup some of that. This of course gets passed on without end in rising insurance costs.

How many actually ever sit down and run the figures of what your employer paid or government paid medical care costs you?

When my husband came close to the time for signing up for medicare we were surprised at the figures for government run medical care. While I don't object to paying a premium for medicare without the word mandatory we really had little choice in the matter. We had a policy we were happy with and the cost was not that bad. The closer we came to that time the more notification we were receiving on the need to make these decisions quickly. At first I had thought to retain our current poicy on him. Then my insurance company notified us that as of his 65th birthday he would need to be switched to a supplemental policy or he would be dropped. In hindsight of course it made perfect sense. Why be responsible for the total of my husbands medical care when they could be responsible for only 20%? Our savings for the insurance company for paying 20% instead of the 100%- deductable. We jumped from 188.00 a month to 281.00 including medicare and prescription D premiums. His health insurance for the previous policy had been 188.00 I did not happen to think that was a saving. We also were informed that altho we could not be forced onto medicare, if we did not signup at 65, when we did opt for medicare the monthly rate would be higher and always remain so. With my husbands health history we also had to be very careful that a insurance company would accept him. Seniors are given a window of grace where they cannot be turned down if they sign up at 65.

Being self-employed we have always paid our own insurance and I have often wondered at those that think this is being provided for them. Our self employed insurance costs have rarely exceeded that of our friends that have employer paid insurance. One of our friends works for Ford . They have two daughters, both college age. Their total out of pocket expense, taken before they ever see their check is 8,000.00 per year. When asked why they don't opt out and pay it directly the answer is... This way the employer has to pay some of the expense. Just so they have the satisfaction of someone else paying something, they feel they are getting a buy. Not the way I do my math. I have never been able to understand the logic that says because you are an employer you OWE your employers any type of subsidized medical care. They are not responsible for my family. An employer owes decent working conditions, fair hiring practises,and the agreed upon wage.

So far all of our friends that have their health care suppossedly provided for them are either neck and neck with our expenses or actaully pay more.

A co-worker of mine is paying 6500.per year. out of their check for a family of four. Same deductable as mine. I asked her the same, why not opt out and pay your own. Just had never thought about it. It was provided by the employer. She has since run the figures and done some checking and when the year is up will be opting out of this "subsidized" plan.

For every free lunch or government provided "free service" someone picks up the tab. When the government does so it is not from that mysterious money tree out behind the White House. This is one time "We the people are the government" is 100% correct. We pay for that free lunch. And a mighty expensive lunch it is

July 14, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

bevin said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

What free market did you have in mind? Which free market will give them to us cheaper than the cost of the drug itself??

Normally a large buyer (such as the Govt) will negotiate with the seller (e.g. Merck) to get the price of the med down.

The cost of the med is a function of both the development and the manufacturing costs. The seller won't sell at a loss, clearly.

The US govt is not doing this, the Canadian govt is. That is why the exact same pill from the exact same production line is cheaper in Canada.

/Bevin

While I can't prove or disprove what you say, it does have some similarity to what was in the info packet my insurance agent shared with me.

My question would be if the US negotiated the price of drugs down to what Canada or other countries do, and if it is even close to true only 15% of the total cost of drugs is paid by all other countries and the US joins them in paying this pittance of cost, who do you have in mind willing to pick up the enormous tab for the rest?? Or do you think all socialized countries will suddenly step up to the plate and say..."Here,Let us pay our share. Somehow I just can't picture this.

Who would pay the billions for researh?? Who would pick of the astronomical liability costs, then of course there is the investors that want a return on their money. Money of course vital to the research itself. Then the CEO's etc. I don't believe that many of the CEO's, researchers and such are in danger of going hungry tonight, but these are all expenses someone will pay. Unless of course we are all able to negotiate for the pittance the other countries pay by comparison to the US. Then any research will be far more seriously underfunded.

Anytime government gets in there and handles what should be private enterprise they will do it at far more cost than the private sector and and do it far less efficiently.

Over the past 12 years I became acquainted with distant Canadian relatives doing geneaolgy research.

One I was able to meet with as she was bringing her husband to the Mayo clinic for diagnostic tests. I couldn't understand with "free" medical care why she would be making the trip.

Her husband was showing signs of what she feared may be colon cancer. A strong family history of such made her more anxious.

When I questioned her on it, she laughed at my definition of "free" for starters. The free she explained cost her a little over 5,000.00 a year in taxes she normally would not have to pay. Her free gift of medical care , which remember had cost her 5,000.00 was only a minor problem. My insurance paid for by my husband and myself was not as costly as her "free insurance".

Her husband's necessary scheduled tests were set for 17 weeks later. They had continued their medical care thru the greedy American company her husband worked for right across the Canadian border. Paying for double insurance. Canadian health care was only used for minor medical problems.

A DR in the US immediately referred her husband to the Mayo clinic as initial testing showed what could be a very serious life threatening problem, more advanced than originally thought, complicated by other factors they had not been aware of.

The tests were scheduled and completed in two days. Diagnosis followed witin hours and the following day the man was in surgery.

Now if I have a choice to make between this utopian concept of "free medical care" and being responsible for my own, there is no contest.

I do not want a government telling me what DR I can see,and I cannot pay for treatment myself if able, or Sorry, you have to wait X number of weeks for these "free tests"

There is also something wrong in my book about expecting anyone to spend years and countless thousands of dollars to become a DR only to have me as a patient thru a "benevolent government" tell him he cannot accept pay to save my life, but rather accept what the government decides to give him to put me on a waiting list.

Socialized medicine is not free as far as I can see. Government does not grow money in the back yard of their capital buildings.

Any generosity of any government is generous with money they have taken from one group and given to another. A little re-distribution of wealth.

It is not free, someone pays.

Maybe the playing field should be leveled a bit. Maybe those that receive benefit from the enormous cost we pay in the US should put their money where their mouth is. Step up to the plate and say we will pay a little more of our share.

Not holding my breath

July 14, 2006

Something that always bothered me when I worked in a hospital was that patients were charged for medications that the hospital pharmacy or ER had received as FREE samples from pharmaceutical reps. Maybe that's the way things are done, but seemed like fraud to me. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

July 14, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

A little re-distribution of wealth. It is not free, someone pays.

I agree 100%.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Maybe the playing field should be leveled a bit. Maybe those that receive benefit from the enormous cost we pay in the US should put their money where their mouth is. Step up to the plate and say we will pay a little more of our share.

Here is what I think.

(a) It is stupidity incarnate to pay millions of dollars to keep alive a very premature baby or a very old person. If human life is what you value, there are lots of much cheaper ways of saving one. Society should NOT pay for such foolishness. If you want to buy insurance that covers that, buy it yourself.

( It is also stupidity to try to shift the costs by billing insurance companies extra for insured people. That just encourages people not to have insurance. It is also stupidity to pass the costs to employers - that forces their costs up compared to overseas competitors.

So, we need a per-individual federal tax to provide coverage for everyone. The exact coverage will depend on the age of the person, but not on their location. If your area costs more to live in, and to get medical help in, buy your own additional coverage. No-one is making you live there.

Now let us reduce the costs in the system.

The drug companies are largely spending their research $$$ on drugs that make money, not on drugs that people actually need. This is why the R&D argument is wrong - they are misspending it. The govt should NOT be paying them large amounts of money to develop hair-growing drugs (Rogaine), nor to make minor tweaks to find a drug that is almost as good as the competitors but has worse side-effects (Vioxx).

The hospital costs are dominated by legal issues, and by poor processes. Let us cap mal-practise claims to actual damage caused, and get rid of the lawyers commissions on the claims.

Lower the coverage, lower the cost of providing the treatment, and - voila - the system is sensible and affordable. I have yet to meet a US health care professional who thinks that the system today makes sense.

/Bevin

July 14, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

rudywoofs said:

Something that always bothered me when I worked in a hospital was that patients were charged for medications that the hospital pharmacy or ER had received as FREE samples from pharmaceutical reps. Maybe that's the way things are done, but seemed like fraud to me. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I would assume it goes back to recouping what others don't pay for services. There is a cause and effect to most things.

To me it could be considered fraud when I was charged 13,000.00 for supplies I never received or used. Much more than being charged for something I could actually used, no matter how they came by it.

Most people hear the word free or government service or provision and never give a thought to somewhere, someone had to pay for their "free lunch"

July 14, 2006

But most people seem to be in favor of re-distribution of wealth. You cannot support socialized medicine without being in favor of it. I ofetn wonder if those in favor would be such strong supporters of having someone dictate to them. After years and years of schooling and the unbelieveably high cost, to say nothing of the long hours and hard work, how long would they support a law that says government will now tell you that you cannot accept private pay and you will be happy with what we give you. Not long I suspect.

]

1.Here is what I think.

(a) It is stupidity incarnate to pay millions of dollars to keep alive a very premature baby or a very old person. If human life is what you value, there are lots of much cheaper ways of saving one. Society should NOT pay for such foolishness. If you want to buy insurance that covers that, buy it yourself.

I will be forever grateful for a Dr that did not share your viewpoint. As uncaring and rotten as this country is depicted, my son would have received the same care even if we had not had insurance. He was not given any hope just prior to his birth and the following 24 hours. In addition it was felt almost without a doubt he would be brain damaged due to lack of oxygen at birth.

When he was born I asked if he was alive, the Dr said barely a heartbeat and he will not make it. Thank God for a dedicated man. He worked tirelessly using every bit of medical knowledge he possessed to keep this bit of stupidity alive. Believing in his heart he would not suceed.

My son is now 42. He was a tiny 16.5 inches at birth. He is now a healthy, productive, intelligent man. In today's economy his care would easily have reached the million dollar mark. Had I had to make a choice, pay his medical bills for life or let him die without an all out attempt to save his life, it would have been well worth it.

Maybe the elderly in your opinion are without value and are not productive enough to care for, however again I am grateful to a dedicated Dr and nursing staff that did not think like you. My mother at 76 had a massive stroke. Her chance of survival was slim to none. Even less were her chances of walking and talking again.

The staff pulled out all the stops for her, not knowing or caring if she was covered by insurance. Again a staff that worked around the clock doing everything in their power. This woman that you would let die if she lacked insurance fought juust as hard. When she finally regained conscienceness, the DR told her she would never walk again. Her speech still was badly slurred, but she managed to tell him that all tho she may never be the same, she was going to walk good enough when she left to kick him in the south end.

She was true to her word. She walked unaided, spoke clearly and lived independently for six more years. She may not have been worth much economically to people that think as you do, but she was invaluable to dozens of family members. She gave us much in those six years.

Altho my husband is probably not what you meant as elderly in your statement, he is another that causes me to be eternally grateful for a dedicated medical staff that sees value in human life. HIs last stroke was diagnosed as catastropic. There was not a minute wasted in treating him, even tho they were not sure it would be sucessful. If it were not, he would be one of those to0 young men in a nursing home today.

He has in addition to myself, four sons, four DIL's and eleven grandchildren that value what he gives and are very grateful that the medical staff did not try to determine his value to soceity

July 14, 2006

1. It is also stupidity to try to shift the costs by billing insurance companies extra for insured people. That just encourages people not to have insurance. It is also stupidity to pass the costs to employers - that forces their costs up compared to overseas competitors.

Why?? We keep paying and many keep taking. Mention poor,uninsured in the same breath as not thinking it fair that others pay and pay for them, you have a firestorm on your hands.

I am not oppossed to provisions on a temporary basis for those that find themselves in a crisis. I am oppossed to providing for them from cradle to grave because some are willing to work and many are not. From a humanitarian perspective we need to take care of those mentally and physically handicapped whenever and for however long it is needed.

Strangely enough tho, I see many that are mentally handicapped that struggle to work and are so proud when they can. Then I remember the mothers I observed on welfare sitting on the bench outside their apt. at 8:00 am. Toddlers in soggy diapers, bottle of milk in one hand a cookie in the other. Mom, beer in one hand, cigarette in the other. Something is a little wrong with that picture to me.

How would you propose to go about enacting per-individual federal tax to provide coverage. Many that are the source of the drain and receive the most benefit of the so-called freebie's do not pay federal tax as it is. Try taxing their welfare benefits if you want to hear a howl. Not going to happen.

July 14, 2006

Your post is not clear to me. Are you saying society should be spending millions to keep your immediate family alive and (in the case of your mother) literally kicking :-)

...even though those $$$ are being extracted from the pockets of others by force, and

...even though those $$$ would have keep a many more people alive if they were spent on, say, inner city kids.

Or are you simply saying "you bought the insurance, you got what you paid for"?

I know I sound callous, but it is precisely this mind-set of redistributing wealth from other people to me that has led to the enormous deficits we are facing.

If you want those millions spent, under my proposal above, you would buy insurance and not depend on the tax payer.

/Bevin

July 14, 2006

1. The drug companies are largely spending their research $$$ on drugs that make money, not on drugs that people actually need. This is why the R&D argument is wrong - they are misspending it. The govt should NOT be paying them large amounts of money to develop hair-growing drugs (Rogaine), nor to make minor tweaks to find a drug that is almost as good as the competitors but has worse side-effects (Vioxx).

Do you have proof or even a reasonable assumption based on any kind of fact that drug companies are largely spending the research dollar on Rogaine and other non essentials?? When I had my surgery I seemed to have acess to all the drugs I needed, Research was involved in each and every one.

2.The hospital costs are dominated by legal issues, and by poor processes. Let us cap mal-practise claims to actual damage caused, and get rid of the lawyers commissions on the claims.

I am sure the legal liability is extremely high, but again do you have anything to base the statement on that the expense of this dominates rather than being part of a very costly business.

I am not a huge fan of many attornys, but I did learn a few things that changed my mind on some issues the past five years.

That lawyers commission again like DR's covers a wide spectrum of services. At first glance it looks outrageous, but without being able to work on a contingency basis with lawyers taking a third,many, many would be left to the mercy of the very ones doing them harm

I am not going into detail as it is an old strory, but when an attorney has to front the expenses for evaluations that can and did run 1400.00 a pop and there were many and went on for five years,many depositions,many hours of research requiring additional personal, hours preparing for appeals and then at times beginning all over again it does not seem quite so unreasonable.

3. I have yet to meet a US health care professional who thinks that the system today makes sense.

I agree, but they are caught on the same treadmill as those they treat.

July 15, 2006

I am a little curious about something you said.

I am not attempting to be rude but I have often wondered what brought you to the US.

I have never that I can recall seen you make one positive statement about this country. It seems about everything we do, believe, or pass into law you view as being based in stupidity.

Then you make this statement.....

(If your area costs more to live in, and to get medical help in, buy your own additional coverage. No-one is making you live there.)

Have you been forced somehow to take up residence in a country you obviously have no respect for or share in their values?

Are you somehow forced to remain here?

Personally I don't care if you do and it is not meant as a somewhat subtle hint to leave. But I am curious. I can't imagine living anywhere that I would think of the country, people and values as utterly stupid.

It doesn't do it to say it is not the people you find stupid, it is the stupid people that elect the stupid officials that pass the stupid laws

July 15, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I have never that I can recall seen you make one positive statement about this country. It seems about everything we do, believe, or pass into law you view as being based in stupidity.

I am one of those people that comment on the things that are wrong, but tend to be quiet on the things that are right. A bad habit.

My job is in software engineering. My wife and I moved to the USA in the early 1980's because we could get out of a big Australian city and live in a peaceful little town in semi-rural New Hampshire. We calculated at the time that the increase in spendable income would be more than enough to fly the kids and us back to NZ/Australia every other year to visit the families. We really enjoy living here. The health system really is messed up, but it doesn't directly affect us, because we are at the high end of the income scale.

Until GWB, I have been relatively happy with the USA govt. GB senior and Iraq/Kuwait was mismanaged early on, but the later part was done really well. GWB has been a real disaster for the country, but not personally for us.

In terms of places to live, I think we are better off in the USA because we are relatively wealthy - so we live here. If we were poor, I think we would be better off in NZ or Australia.

I note that GWB's approval rating is hovering around 35-40%, and the polls this morning were commenting that 51% of Americans want the Democrats in power, and only 40% want the Republicans. The American voters are, apparently, beginning to get disillusioned.

/Bevin

July 15, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am sure the legal liability is extremely high, but again do you have anything to base the statement on that the expense of this dominates rather than being part of a very costly business.

NZ did a big study on this about 20 years ago.

They figured at the time that more than 50% of the money involved in a legal case did not end up in the pockets of the injured!

The outcome was they got rid of most personal-injury law suits, and replaced it with the "Accident Compensation Commission" which basically settles claims without the overheads of a full legal system, and without the concept of punitive damages or outrageous payouts for emotional loss etc.

I am, as a side-line, an EMT. I ride ambulances and have spent more than 250 hours working in ER's. A LOT of what is done is unnecessary medically, is done purely to avoid law suits. The ER doctors would comment on this a lot.

/Bevin

July 15, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

NZ did a big study on this about 20 years ago.

They figured at the time that more than 50% of the money involved in a legal case did not end up in the pockets of the injured!

The outcome was they got rid of most personal-injury law suits, and replaced it with the "Accident Compensation Commission" which basically settles claims without the overheads of a full legal system, and without the concept of punitive damages or outrageous payouts for emotional loss etc.

I am, as a side-line, an EMT. I ride ambulances and have spent more than 250 hours working in ER's. A LOT of what is done is unnecessary medically, is done purely to avoid law suits. The ER doctors would comment on this a lot.

/Bevin

I didn't intend to deny the cost of a legal dispute. I was questioning if this is the dominant cost.

However if you are saying that 50% ends up in the pocket of the attorney, not true. At least not 50% as profit.

I don't lose sleep over the poor attorney living on a paupers wage, but I do expect to pay for services renedered.

The cost of a lengthy legal battle is enormous. Anyone going into thinking to become rich at someone else's expense has a rude awakening. The attorney may bear the brunt of a lot of this initially, but why would anyone think it would not be added to the bill?

I am sure they do much to avoid lawsuits, any rational person would. Most uncalled for and lunatic awards don't come from the attorney, the judge, or GWB or any other politician. They come from citizens like you and I. Many times it seems because of a dislike and envy of someone or some corperation that is rich and powerful.

Just pay attention to what is said many times here.

A person of power or wealth that committs a crime or is even suspected of a crime is treated with scorn and contempt. Nothing about "we have all sinned"

Just a little envy and greed in the hearts of others perhaps?

Sign In

Senate approves allowing Canadian drugs

Recommended Posts

Amelia

Parade Orange

bevin

Dr. Shane

bonnie

bonnie

bevin

Stan

bonnie

bonnie

bevin

CyberGuy

bonnie

bonnie

rudywoofs (Pam)

bevin

bonnie

bonnie

bonnie

bevin

bonnie

bonnie

bevin

bevin

bonnie

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity