 |
DrugBuyers
Administrator
Reged: 11/18/01
Posts: 1297
Loc: DrugBuyers.Com
|
|
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040202/story.html
Why We Pay So Much For Drugs
How the clamor for cheap Canadian imports is heating up the 2004 campaign and giving Washington a headache
By DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE
Posted Sunday, Jan. 25, 2004
Helen Clark of Kennebunk, Maine, is a smuggler of sorts. At 77, the retired registered nurse doesn't look the part. She still does volunteer workadministering flu shots, cutting toenails and organizing blood drivesat the Southern Maine Medical Center, where she worked for more than four decades, first in the maternity ward and later in the operating room.
Clark is a model of frugality as well. She and her husband Dorrance raised 10 children on modest salaries. When he developed lung cancer in 1991, she stopped working to care for him until he died. She has lived in the same house since she was 1 year old. She seldom buys anything for herself, reuses already reused sewing material and carefully budgets her food money. "You plan out what you can afford," she says.
What has turned Clark into a renegade bargain hunter is the price of her medications. Like many other elderly people, she takes multiple prescription drugs for several conditions, including high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol and glaucoma. To make the money stretch, she joins other seniors in her state on overnight bus trips to St. Stephen, N.B., just across the border from Calais, Maine. On average, name-brand prescription drugs in Canada cost an estimated 40% less than they do in the U.S. On a trip last November, Clark did even better than that, buying a six-month supply of medications for a little more than $1,000, a cache that she estimates would have cost about $3,000 in Maine for the same drugs. One of them is Lipitor, the expensive, heavily marketed cholesterol-lowering drug developed by Pfizer. "Lipitor is my biggest savings," Clark says. "For a six-month supply, it's $1,900 in the U.S. I paid $500 [in Canada]." At U.S. prices, she couldn't afford her total drug bill and would have to pick and choose which conditions to treat.
Yet what Clark and others are doing is technically illegal, since the U.S. forbids the import of prescription drugs by anyone other than the original U.S. manufacturer, and even then only when the drugs meet all the approval requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA contends it is looking out for consumer safety, but in fact a growing volume of prescription drugs sold in the U.S. is made overseas and brought in by domestic manufacturers. What's really being protected, critics say, is the pharmaceutical industry. It has a powerful partner in the FDA, which over the past year has conducted widely publicized seizures of prescription drugs shipped into the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and elsewhere that it maintains could be harmful to consumers. The most recent disclosure came last week, when the FDA revealed a blitz inspection of medicine being imported from Canada that turned up five packages of an asthma medication, Serevent, that had been recalled in Canada because of a manufacturing defect.
While there is no doubt that counterfeit and adulterated medicinessome potentially injurious, possibly even lethalare sold over the Internet by unscrupulous vendors, a TIME investigation suggests the FDA's actions against Canadian imports have been part of a concerted campaign to simultaneously discredit its counterpart agency in Canada, provoke fear among American consumers who buy their drugs there, blunt an exploding political movement among local and state governments to begin wholesale drug buys in Canada and ultimately preserve the inflated prices charged U.S. consumers and taxpayers.
--------------------
The best and fastest way to get help is at: https://drugbuyers.com/help
Please do not PM me about non working or lost usernames and passwords.
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
Finally! Exactly what I've been saying all along. Can we now see the connection between the rising costs of prescriptions to the rising cost of healthcare insurance? This is an issue that not only affects Senior Citizens, it affects all of us. Copays are rising, and with these "new breed" medications, there is no such thing as a generic, so we're supposed to pay full price for these new prescription medications out of our own pockets to offset the cost of the "research" that Big Pharma has put into these meds?
Come on, let's face the facts here. Most of these new meds are just different versions of old meds.
Clarinex? Almost the same chemical makeup of Claritin (which just so oh conveniently became available OTC). Do some research folks, a lot of these new meds aren't so new...they're just the same old meds that have been around long enough for the patent to wear off on them and remarketed under different names and slight differences in their chemical structures. I don't blame the Seniors one bit for making their bus trips. I hope they continue to do it until this country wakes up and checks its ego.
Eeyore
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
Stardog
Member
Reged: 08/28/04
Posts: 195
Loc: Where it all Begins
|
|
OH MY GOD!!!! One of the authors of the Time article, Jim Steele, is my ex-fiancee's father! I drank jug wine at his house and played Super Mario Kart with him! And almost married his daughter!
Do you realize who these authors are?! They've won 2 Pulitzer Prizes in journalism when they worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer, and then moved to Time magazine. There is no Pulitzer for magazines; instead, there's the Polk Award. Naturally, these guys have won a record number of Polk Awards and are editors-at-large at Time, meaning they can do WHATEVER they want to. Jim's also had a #1 Bestseller called "America: What Went Wrong?" that was mentioned by Bill Clinton in his last State of the Union Address. He's about the sweetest guy you'll ever meet! His mother died young, he grew up in a trailer, and here he is, still fighting against injustice!
Oh my god, this is making me cry. I wish his name wasn't posted; oh god, a man crying, it's so lame. He's a good man and he believes what he's writing, and he works very very hard to tick off Congress to get laws changed. He speaks for the rest of the US, the ones who've been screwed by the essential inequity of capitalism. I love the guy... god, I hate it when I start crying, I never stop. The empathy and understanding he had when I did the dumbest things (like getting caught in the shower with my ex-fiancee at their place when Jim and his wife came home early from a vacation), to listening deeply to what I said about my career as a neuroscientist. What an amazing person. Thank God he's turned his eye our way. I only wish I could tell him how much he means to me, since I never demonstrated it during the 4 years I knew him.
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
Stardog,
Interesting how you should mention that James Steele is your ex-fiancee's father. I'm sorry that reading his article brought up bittersweet memories for you. And no, there's nothing lame about a man crying!! Jeez, you were personally connected to this person at one time, it makes sense for seeing his name to evoke some kind of emotion in you.
I've never met the man in person, but my one sister has, which is strange in itself. I wasn't even aware until you pointed it out that he used to work for the Inquirer that he's the same Jim Steele that my sister knew. (She did some grunt work at the Inquirer for a short time many years ago). Or the fact that he was one of the authors of the article mentioned in this post. In my haste, I never even bothered to check the byline. Strange!!
He is a brilliant writer, and I actually wrote a commentary on an article he wrote in the Inquirer a few years back, so while I can't say that I knew the man, personally, I can say that I had an editorial published about one of his articles. And as for "America: What Went Wrong?" Nothing short of brilliant, IMO!! Small world, eh?
Once again, sorry if reading that brought up some bittersweet memories for you, but the fact that he's moved on to writing for Time Magazine is something to be proud about, at least. Philadelphia may have lost a great writer, but the world has gained him, in a sense, so that in itself is something to be said about how talented the man is as a writer.
Eeyore
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
fromabove
Enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/04
Posts: 219
|
|
Another point of view.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52310,00.html
If you haven't yet heard of Sen. John Edwards, the junior Democrat from North Carolina, you soon will.
Elected in 1998 over the stodgy conservative Lauch Faircloth, Edwards is a rising star, sporting boyish good looks, a populist message and a handsome Southern drawl.
People magazine named Edwards America's "sexiest politician," and a gushing Nicholas Lemann recently profiled him in the New Yorker. He's considered by some to be the Democrats' best hope for knocking off George W. Bush in 2004.
Edwards largely funded his own Senate campaign with a $20-50 million fortune he earned as a trial lawyer, winning huge medical malpractice and products liability claims. Some (including Al Gore's 2000 campaign staff) might consider Edward's career path a liability to his aspirations for higher office.
But Edwards doesn't.
Should he run for president, Edwards intends to wear the trial lawyer label conspicuously and proudly. On Meet the Press last Sunday, Edwards told host Tim Russert he built his considerable estate "representing people who were in very difficult places in their lives and trying to give them a shot. And I'm proud of what I did
"
Edwards might want to rethink his strategy.
The United States increasingly faces a health care crisis. Many doctors, faced with ever-mounting malpractice insurance premiums, have gone out of business. Others are retiring early. Some are moving to states that have enacted tort reform, while rural states without significant tort reform are losing doctors hand over fist. Their poorest citizens can't find medical help where they need it. Trial lawyers like John Edwards are a big reason why.
Huge awards in malpractice lawsuits over the years have caused many insurers to abandon medicine. Others have had to raise premiums to rates that effectively prevent doctors from staying solvent. Obstetricians the most likely to be sued have seen premiums increase from 20 to 400 percent in the last few years. Some have had their policies cancelled altogether. The trend has hit general surgeons and emergency room physicians too.
In Mississippi, where annual premiums for OB/GYNs can range from $40,000-$110,000 (far more than many doctors in the state make), physicians are fleeing in droves, leaving poor, rural women without doctors to deliver their babies. One medical school in Nevada had to close because no insurer in the state would grant it coverage. In parts of Florida, malpractice premiums for individual doctors can exceed $160,000.
In Edwards' home state of North Carolina, health care costs are also soaring. Consequently, awards in malpractice cases have grown too, as compensatory damages necessarily reflect current health care costs. Of course, higher damages mean higher insurance premiums, and higher insurance premiums in turn lead, once again, to higher health care costs.
It's a nasty cycle, and all the while, malpractice lawyers continue to siphon off generous contingency fees, sometimes as much as 30 percent.
Prominent Raleigh trial attorney Mark Holt told North Carolina Lawyers Weekly in a 2000 article that "
when you go against a medical provider, how much can be paid hinges directly on the amount of insurance coverage."
In 1997, a botched childbirth resulted in a state record $23.5 million award, setting off a runaway train of jury malpractice awards in North Carolina. John Edwards was the plaintiff's counsel. He broke his own record that same year with a $30 million award.
North Carolina avoided Mississippi's dearth-of-doctors fate by putting caps on punitive awards with a law that took effect in 1997. Mississippi has yet to enact any such tort reform, and continues to lose doctors.
Some doctors and hospitals have found a solution to insurance costs by requiring patients to sign waivers submitting any claims to private arbitrators. But trial lawyer lobbyists are trying to nix that remedy, too, and have begun to push Congress for anti-arbitration legislation.
This lobby is closely tied to Edwards. According to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, 86 percent of the $1.39 million raised by Edwards' recently formed political action committee came from fellow trial lawyers. Roll Call writes, "No other Congressional leader or potential presidential contender has such a heavy reliance on a single industry for their leadership PAC."
Additionally, Edwards was a chief co-sponsor of the "Patients Bill of Rights" legislation. The Edwards-sponsored version of the bill would have permitted patients to sue health care providers for punitive damages in federal court allowing lawyers to circumvent state court caps on punitive damages like those enacted in North Carolina. The Employment Policy Foundation estimated at the time that the Edwards bill would result in 56,000 new lawsuits per year, a $16 billion increase in health care costs, and nine million more Americans with no health care coverage at all.
Trial lawyers, of course, loved it.
Edwards' background wouldn't be so important to his presidential ambitions if he weren't so blatant about mischaracterizing it. He talks about "helping the helpless," but in fact, he built his fortune and paved his way to politics chasing doctors out of the medical profession. Lots of those "helpless" people he mentions live in low-income areas without access to the health care they need.
Radley Balko is a writer living in Arlington, Va., and publisher of The Agitator.com.
--------------------
The truth is out there...
|
fromabove
Enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/04
Posts: 219
|
|
Heres a story from the Washington post as well.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011234-1949r.htm
Edwards' malpractice suits leave bitter taste
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The American Medical Association lists North Carolina's current health care situation as a "crisis" and blames it on medical-malpractice lawsuits such as the ones that made Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards a millionaire many times over.
One of the most successful personal-injury lawyers in North Carolina history, Mr. Edwards won dozens of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals across the state that he now represents in the Senate. He won more than 50 cases with verdicts or settlements of $1 million or more, according to North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, and 31 of those were medical-malpractice suits.
During his 20 years of suing doctors and hospitals, he pioneered the art of blaming psychiatrists for patients who commit suicide and blaming doctors for delivering babies with cerebral palsy, according to doctors, fellow lawyers and legal observers who followed Mr. Edwards' career in North Carolina.
"The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care."
"And all of this for the little people?" he asked, a reference to Mr. Edwards' argument that he represented regular people against mighty foes such as prosperous doctors and big insurance companies. "How many little people do you know who will supply you with $60 million in legal fees over a couple of years?"
Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Edwards declined to comment beyond e-mailing his and John Kerry's "real plan for medical-malpractice reform."
The plan calls for one measure that Mr. Edwards previously had said is meaningless and does not impose caps on verdicts for economic damages or limits on attorneys' fees.
One of his most noted victories was a $23 million settlement he got from a 1995 case his last before joining the Senate in which he sued the doctor, gynecological clinic, anesthesiologist and hospital involved in the birth of Bailey Griffin, who had cerebral palsy and other medical problems.
Linking complications during childbirth to cerebral palsy became a specialty for Mr. Edwards. In the courtroom, he was known to dramatize the events at birth by speaking to jurors as if he were the unborn baby, begging for help, begging to be let out of the womb.
"He was very good at it," said Dr. John Schmitt, an obstetrician and gynecologist who used to practice in Mr. Edwards' hometown of Raleigh. "But the science behind a lot of his arguments was flawed."
In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a joint study that cast serious doubt on whether events at childbirth cause cerebral palsy. The "vast majority" of cerebral palsy cases originate long before childbirth, according to the study.
"Now, he would have a much harder time proving a lot of his cases," said Dr. Schmitt, who now practices at the University of Virginia Health System.
Another profitable area of litigation for Mr. Edwards was lawsuits against psychiatrists whose patients committed suicide.
In 1991, he won $2.2 million for the estate of a woman who hanged herself in a hospital after being removed from suicide watch. It was the first successful medical-malpractice case in Mr. Edwards' home of Wake County.
During jury selection, Mr. Edwards asked potential jurors whether they could hold a doctor responsible for the suicide of their patients.
"I got a lot of speeches from potential jurors who said they did not understand how that doctor could be responsible," Mr. Edwards recalled in an interview shortly after the trial. Those persons were excluded from the jury.
In the end, Mr. Edwards scored $1.5 million for "wrongful death" and $175,000 in "emotional distress" for the woman's children.
"One thing I was grappling with was how to explain to the jury the difference between loss of companionship and society the things under the wrongful-death statute and emotional pain and suffering, which superficially sound like the same thing," he said at the time. "What we did was to tell them the wrongful-death damages are for the loss of all the things that a mother does for the child. But the emotional pain and suffering damages represent the grieving. The pain is something you feel over the death of your mother."
In 1995, as Mr. Edwards neared the pinnacle of his success, Lawyers Weekly reported on the state's 50 biggest settlements of the year.
"Like last year, the medical malpractice category leads the new list, accounting for 16 cases or 32 percent three points better than last year," the magazine reported. "By and large, that upward trend had held since 1992, when only four [medical malpractice] cases made the survey."
Mr. Edwards was singled out.
"Another reason for this year's [medical malpractice] jump was a strong showing by the Raleigh firm of Edwards & Kirby," it reported. "Partner John Edwards was lead counsel in eight of the 16 medical malpractice cases in the top 50."
Later in that article, Mr. Edwards was interviewed about the $5 million he won from doctors who delivered Ethan L. Bedrick, who had cerebral palsy. Mr. Edwards credited the jury focus groups that he routinely used to help prepare his arguments.
"They gave me several bits and pieces of information to use when addressing the jury," Mr. Edwards was quoted saying. "You can use them to decide whether to get involved in a case or whether to accept a settlement offer, but our primary use is trial presentation."
The article went on to observe: "Focus groups can be put together for as little as $300, according to Edwards a small investment compared to the $5 million won in Bedrick."
It is not clear just how much Mr. Edwards made as a lawyer, but estimates based on a review of his lawsuit settlements and Senate records place his fortune at about $38 million.
Like many Democrats, Mr. Edwards has benefited from the generosity of fellow trial lawyers, who have given millions of dollars to Mr. Edwards' political campaigns and other political endeavors.
Part of the platform that Mr. Edwards is running on includes medical-malpractice reform. The Democrats' plan would go after insurance companies that increase doctors' premiums and ban lawyers and plaintiffs for 10 years if they file three frivolous lawsuits.
One tenet of their plan would "require that individuals making medical-malpractice claims first go before a qualified medical specialist to make sure a reasonable grievance exists."
However, Mr. Edwards said in a 1995 interview that such pre-screening is unnecessary.
"Pre-screening as a concept is very good, but it's already done by every experienced malpractice lawyer," he told North Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
As a result of these and other cases, insurance rates for doctors have skyrocketed putting some out of business and driving others away, especially from rural areas. And doctors who have lost cases to Mr. Edwards have been bankrupted.
Patients, meanwhile, are left with rising health care costs and fewer if any doctors in their area. It is increasingly a nationwide problem, physicians say.
Dr. VanDerVeer, the Charlotte neurosurgeon, recalled one recent night on duty when two patients arrived in an emergency room in Myrtle Beach, S.C., where the area's last neurosurgeons quit earlier this year.
"No one in Myrtle Beach would accept responsibility for these patients," he said. And because it was raining, the helicopters were grounded, so the patients were loaded into ambulances and driven the four hours to Charlotte.
Upon arrival, one patient had died, and the other learned that she merely had a minor concussion and a $6,000 bill for the ambulance ride.
"That's just one little slice of life here," Dr. VanDerVeer said. "It's a direct result of the medical-malpractice situation that John Edwards fomented."
Dr. Schmitt had spent 20 years delivering babies in Raleigh. Though he had no claims against him, his insurance tripled in one year. With no assurances that his rates would ever drop, or just stop rising, he left town.
For Mr. Edwards' part, he doesn't necessarily begrudge the doctors he sues.
In the book he wrote while campaigning for president, "Four Trials," Mr. Edwards referred to the doctors who he'd won millions from in two cases.
"In the E.G. Sawyer case and the Jennifer Campbell case, the defendants were not malevolent but were caring and competent doctors who worked in good hospitals and yet made grievous mistakes," he wrote. "They had erred in their judgment, but no one could despise them."
Doctors, however, take it all a bit more personally.
"We are currently being sued out of existence," Dr. VanDerVeer said. "People have to choose whether they want these lawyers to make gazillions of dollars in pain and suffering awards or whether they want health care."
--------------------
The truth is out there...
|
Stardog
Member
Reged: 08/28/04
Posts: 195
Loc: Where it all Begins
|
|
Ughh, please don't turn this into a political thread! Look, I can tell you firsthand that Jim is critical of both Dems and Republicans. Never once in the 4 years I was with his daughter did he demonstrate a political bias, okay? In fact, one of the reasons his daughter and I broke up is because she wasn't liberal enough for me, and I'm not exactly a bleeding heart. It's just how he sees things in this particular instance. He won his 2 Pulitzers for muckraking during the reign of the Dems in Congress, by the way.
And thanks for the compassionate words, Eeyore. She was and still is a very beautiful young woman, inside and out.
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
Stardog,
Don't mention it about the compassionate words, I don't see anything wrong with a person admitting to an emotional response that they get from reminders of past memories, in fact, that's what makes us all humans, so please don't ever feel the need to apologize for behaving like one...even if your username does contain the word "dog"  .
And as for not turning this into a political thread, I can't agree with you more. fromabove, what, did you follow me from the other thread to this one just to start the old tired debate up again? I told you before that I refuse to get into it further, and I'm standing my ground here. I thought that we had come to some sort of compromise on the medical malpractice suit debate, but if that's what this thread is going to turn into, then I want nothing more to do with it.
As for James Steele, from my experience with his writings, he was doing a series of articles about the state of childcare at the time, and I wrote an editorial response to one of the articles he had written about how childcare workers in general were overworked, underpaid and just generally underestimated in the importance of their role in Early Childhood Education. My editorial got published, which I was shocked about, to be honest, because the article I was responding to had nothing to do with childcare workers at all.
What he wrote about had more to do with subsidized programs and the tax dollars that were being spent on them and how it was effecting the economy. I figured that since no one had come forward as yet to speak from the childcare worker's point of view, that somebody needed to speak on our behalf, so I wrote the editorial and was completely caught off guard when I got a phone call from the editorial staff at the Inquirer asking if I would give my permission to publish the editorial I had written.
I agree with Stardog about Mr. Steele and his political views not so much being biased against either party, but he did point out a lot of valid points in his article about how the state of welfare in the city of Philadelphia and the reforms that were happening at the time and how it affected childcare by sucking up taxpayer dollars towards subsidy programs for former welfare mothers who were returning to work.
That's what I remember about the particular article I responded to, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that he was siding with the Dems on that issue, because at the time, the Democrats in this city were, for the most part, not happy campers about the subject of welfare reform in general.
But since I agreed not to turn this into a political debate, I'll just end this post by saying that I was very grateful at the time to get the chance to speak my mind about how the issue of childcare workers should have their own place in the debate about childcare programs, and I believe it eventually was addressed, just not by James Steele. And IMO, that article wasn't thorough enough in regards to just how important the profession is in general and the serious neglect that the average childcare worker experiences for the amount of work that they do. But that's a completely different issue entirely, and like I said, I don't want this to turn into a political debate. I'll save that speech for another time on another forum somewhere else.
Eeyore
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
dsmmcm
Old Hand
Reged: 11/08/03
Posts: 409
Loc: southwest US
|
|
The next thing you know, this thread will get wiped out by the mods because you will not let go of the political stuff. You are already responsible for one thread being deleted. I think the mods should delete YOU. You have an agenda that is not appropriate for DB. Go find yourself a political board. Or do you just like to try to kick around people who's primary interest is health, not politics? Are you too chicken to deal with real political experts on other boards?
D.
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
Agreed. Let's stick to the topic at hand from now on, folks, OK?
And now, we return you to: Why We Pay So Much For Drugs - Time Magazine....
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
Opie_Yates
Old Hand
Reged: 08/11/03
Posts: 485
|
|
Quote:
The next thing you know, this thread will get wiped out by the mods because you will not let go of the political stuff. You are already responsible for one thread being deleted. I think the mods should delete YOU. You have an agenda that is not appropriate for DB. Go find yourself a political board. Or do you just like to try to kick around people who's primary interest is health, not politics? Are you too chicken to deal with real political experts on other boards?
D.
Just because he's illustrating a point that perhaps greed and power mongering by the plaintiff's bar may be a contributing factor to soaring healthcare costs?
--------------------
I'm not a doctor, I just play one on a message forum!
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
OpieYates,
You make a valid point, but the topic of the thread started off with an article about the connection between the rising cost of medications and its role in the rising cost of healthcare. Sure, Stardog and myself are somewhat to blame for steering the topic off course by making some comments about one of the authors, I'll admit to my wrongdoings there. But fromabove has been on here ragging on John Edwards on several threads now, and in one particular thread, singled me out for some reason. I tried as hard as I could to stay objective about the topic at hand, but couldn't, because medical malpractice suits are something that hit too close to home for me, so I opted to just quit commenting in that thread.
Now...here they are again, going off on the same tired rant from before in a different thread in an entirely different topic. So, yes, it needed to be addressed. I am by no means trying to flame this person, in fact, I'm trying to do the exact opposite thing, as I am not usually confrontational or one to get involved with flame wars. I'm just on here trying to gather information just like anybody else, and to offer my support to any member who asks for it, since so many have done the same for me.
Stardog was right when he suggested that this poster not turn this into a political thread. There are other places on this board for that sort of thing. This topic is supposed to be about the rising costs of medication and the connection between the rising cost of healthcare. Going into a rant about John Edwards and the litigation's he was involved in as a lawyer has nothing to do with this topic at all. That's all we were trying to point out.
Now that we've gotten all of that cleared up, can we all at least try to be adults and stick to the topic?
Eeyore
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
Snowpatrol
Member
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 114
Loc: NW
|
|
Quote:
Going into a rant about John Edwards and the litigation's he was involved in as a lawyer has nothing to do with this topic at all. That's all we were trying to point out.
Now that we've gotten all of that cleared up, can we all at least try to be adults and stick to the topic?
While I agree that singling out Edwards is a bit of a stretch, it's still more on-point than "I used to date the author's first cousin's ex-fiance."
My research on the subject shows three major drivers for the high costs of prescription drugs: (1) the heavy bureaucratic burden (FDA) - and enormous expense - required of drug manufacturers wanting to sell in this country, (2) out-of-control mass torts (class action lawsuits), and (3) lack of competition and/or alternatives.
The average cost for bringing a new drug to market ranges from $500 million to $800 million and approximately seven years. Approximately 1 out of 25 drugs ultimately get FDA approval. Therefore, the drug companies are massively in the hole from day 1 and push hard to find a winner (e.g., Lipitor, Claritan, Viagra). The U.S. market is really the only major market where they can charge a price that allows for a positive return on their investment. Also, Patent protection laws allow a monopoloy on a particular drug for 17 years (standard length of time), which stifles competition.
As for the John Edwards connection, he and his ilk will always go after the deepest pockets. Given that there are no caps on punitive damages in a case, a runaway jury can impose enormous and arbitrary awards to plaintiffs. There is a whole industry out there whereby plaintiff sues, anticipates settlement, and defendant must play the odds and settle to avoid the runaway jury. It's a sophisticated form of legal blackmail - and it's slowly destroying our healthcare system. We are reaching crisis levels now in many states, and electing politicians who will do nothing to curb the excesses will ultimately prove to be disastrous IMHO.
Slowing down excessive jury awards (via damages caps or other means) is by far the easiest and fastest remedy to this huge and very serious problem.
Pay now or pay later....
|
Stardog
Member
Reged: 08/28/04
Posts: 195
Loc: Where it all Begins
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Going into a rant about John Edwards and the litigation's he was involved in as a lawyer has nothing to do with this topic at all. That's all we were trying to point out.
Now that we've gotten all of that cleared up, can we all at least try to be adults and stick to the topic?
While I agree that singling out Edwards is a bit of a stretch, it's still more on-point than "I used to date the author's first cousin's ex-fiance."
My research on the subject shows three major drivers for the high costs of prescription drugs: (1) the heavy bureaucratic burden (FDA) - and enormous expense - required of drug manufacturers wanting to sell in this country, (2) out-of-control mass torts (class action lawsuits), and (3) lack of competition and/or alternatives.
The average cost for bringing a new drug to market ranges from $500 million to $800 million and approximately seven years. Approximately 1 out of 25 drugs ultimately get FDA approval. Therefore, the drug companies are massively in the hole from day 1 and push hard to find a winner (e.g., Lipitor, Claritan, Viagra). The U.S. market is really the only major market where they can charge a price that allows for a positive return on their investment. Also, Patent protection laws allow a monopoloy on a particular drug for 17 years (standard length of time), which stifles competition.
As for the John Edwards connection, he and his ilk will always go after the deepest pockets. Given that there are no caps on punitive damages in a case, a runaway jury can impose enormous and arbitrary awards to plaintiffs. There is a whole industry out there whereby plaintiff sues, anticipates settlement, and defendant must play the odds and settle to avoid the runaway jury. It's a sophisticated form of legal blackmail - and it's slowly destroying our healthcare system. We are reaching crisis levels now in many states, and electing politicians who will do nothing to curb the excesses will ultimately prove to be disastrous IMHO.
Slowing down excessive jury awards (via damages caps or other means) is by far the easiest and fastest remedy to this huge and very serious problem.
Pay now or pay later....
It was the author's daughter herself, and it was very emotional. It's rare that one is confronted with a name from the past, and it affected me. I posted out of extreme emotion, not to get the ball rolling, and I don't appreciate you trying to make fun of me for it.
|
Snowpatrol
Member
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 114
Loc: NW
|
|
Quote:
It was the author's daughter herself, and it was very emotional. It's rare that one is confronted with a name from the past, and it affected me. I posted out of extreme emotion, not to get the ball rolling, and I don't appreciate you trying to make fun of me for it.
Deep breaths, my friend. I'm not making fun of you. I'm making a point (albeit with exaggeration) that the articles on plaintiff's lawyers and Edwards in particular were definitely relevant to the discussion on the high costs of drugs and healthcare in general.
I'm sure it was an ironic twist of fate for you, but you didn't see me or others berating you for getting totally off the topic. Right? I thought your posts in reply to the unusually enthusiastic "fromabove" were dismissive and a tad hypocritical.
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
True, SnowPatrol, but the whole point in my last post was to try to steer the topic back to what it was originally intended to be about.
I'm not here to debate over Edwards' ethics or the deep pockets that he's supposedly reaching into. I was here to comment on the connection between the rising cost of medication and its connection to our failing healthcare system. Yes, there is a connection between medical malpractice suits, I'm not going to deny that, but there are also other factors involved here, like Big Pharma, and the rising cost of medication due to "research" projects into "new" drugs, that IMO, really aren't so new.
Do the research, you'll find out that a lot of these supposed new medications that are suddenly becoming available (not to mention being pushed by the family practitioners who receive enormous kickbacks from the pharmaceutical companies as an incentive to prescribe their medications) are just the same basic formulas to old medications with slight variations on the chemical makeups of them marketed under new names.
Why do they do this? Because the patents have worn off, generics are available, and there is no money to be made off of generic medications for Big Pharma.
If you still have the luxury of having medical insurance and a prescripton plan, good luck finding a doctor who is willing to prescribe you a drug with an available generic. Your copay is only going to pay for so much of the medication, and the rest is up to you. This is why I don't blame Seniors for taking their bus trips to Canada and Mexico, and no amount of propaganda on the government's part is going to convince me that these medications are substandard to the American versions of them. Talk about deep pockets!! Blaming John Edwards for why the cost of medications in this country is ludicrous, but that's JMO.
Once again, you people have gotten me to the point to where I'm getting too emotionally involved in the debate, so it looks like my last hurrah here, as well.
Eeyore
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
Post deleted by Eeyore27
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
Snowpatrol
Member
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 114
Loc: NW
|
|
Quote:
Talk about deep pockets!! Blaming John Edwards for why the cost of medications in this country is ludicrous, but that's JMO.
I'm lucky enought to work for a company that pays 100% of the costs of prescription drugs as long as it's generic. I've never had a single doctor - and boy do I see a lot of them - make me take a brand name over a generic.
As for your quote above, I think it's just absolutely scary that you would have that opinion. Edwards is but one of thousands of plaintiff's attorneys. Do the math. One attorney (Edwards) has amassed a fortune in a relatively short career (estimated to have an estate worth over $50 million). Say, very conservatively, there are 200 successful medical malpractice attorneys who have faired as well. That's $10 BILLION in personal wealth from this line of extortion. Also keep in mind that they usually only get 30-40% of the judgment/settlement. That adds another $25 BILLION or so for the class or plaintiffs. Are you getting the point?
|
Snowpatrol
Member
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 114
Loc: NW
|
|
Quote:
Are you personally connected to Bush/Cheney? Then why bother with all of your Edwards bashing when it has nothing to do with the rising cost of medication?
No. In fact, I'm only connected to "reality." To say that politics has NOTHING to do with the rising costs of drugs and healthcare is absurd. It doesn't matter to me if it's Edwards or a different lawyer. The peril is just the same. I take that back. It does matter to me that it's Edwards, because if he were elected, then it's HIGHLY LIKELY that he would continue to support the Trial Lawyers Assocation of America, who heavily contribute to these rising costs.
Case in point: It now costs a good (never been sued) OBGYN $90,000 per year for malpractice INSURANCE. It has gone up at least $20K per year every year since '99. The exact same thing is happening to "Big Pharma". DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THESE COMPANIES JUST PASS THE COSTS ALONG TO YOU, THE CONSUMER?!
Wake up, dude!
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
 What the heck do you think that I live in, DisneyWorld???
Here's my reality. I'm among the ranks of the unemployed (highest unemployment rate since Hoover was president, BTW, and HEY, wasn't that during the DEPRESSION???), uninsured, and I don't have the luxury of having my medical insurance paid for 100%. Good for flippin you!! I'd do a backflip for ya, but then I'd probably paralyze myself due to a permanent back injury that I have, which subsequently played a major role in why I'm not employed right now. I've been trying for MONTHS to find suitable employment, but since the job market is so BKOTB at the moment, I can't find a stinking job. Welcome to MY reality, DUDE.
By the way, I'm a woman, not a Dude. I know all to well what it's like to have a hard time to find an OBGYN these days, so you don't need to preach that to me. That's all I have to say. I'm done in this post. Go bash somebody else now, since it seems to make you feel so much better about your flippin reality.
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
Stardog
Member
Reged: 08/28/04
Posts: 195
Loc: Where it all Begins
|
|
Hi Eeyore,
Thank you so much for writing what I'm sure a lot of people want to write to this guy. I'm especially grateful because he decided to get personal with me, and you defended me. I wrote that it was emotional for me and that I did NOT write to get the ball rolling, i.e. to discuss politics. Then I got called hypocritical for saying something to fromabove, who I've had a cordial communication with in the past week or so. So I don't know what that even means.
This kind of person can drive you crazy. I have snowpatrol listed under the "ignore this user" option that comes up when you click on his/her alias. I checked out the very first thing he/she said by using the "quote" option, which displays their last post, of course. It got me ticked off and I wrote back that one time. Otherwise, I'm blissfully unaware of this person's rants; I strongly recommend that you do the same and ignore them by blocking his/her posts.
Thanks again, Eeyore. I can't believe anyone thought that I was trying to divert a discussion or just veer off topic for no reason. At first my comment about the personal relationship was not addressed by other posters because it DIDN'T have to do with the topic, showing that people recognized it for what it was, and continued onward. But one person thought it would further our collective human intellect to take a pot-shot at a person who made a statement about being in love.
|
Opie_Yates
Old Hand
Reged: 08/11/03
Posts: 485
|
|
Snowpatrol: Unfortunately, on this board, if you present a salient point that runs counter to the "party line", you will be accused of being "personally connected with Bush/Cheney" and a Dem hater, even though your post may be by and large politcally neutral. You make some excellent points, and as far as I am concerned, should be looked at as part of the solution to rising health care costs.
I am in no way opposed to individuals and families being compensated for being butchered by bad doctors, but like you said; it's turned into an industry of extortion and blackmail, with good doctors and all of us patients ending up as the true victims.
--------------------
I'm not a doctor, I just play one on a message forum!
|
zengaboyFB
Newbie
Reged: 01/07/04
Posts: 29
Loc: NYC, LA, Bucks Co. PA
|
|
FYI:
The reason prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada is that the Canadian Government uses their size to negotiate prices with the drug companies. Just as Wal-Mart does with its suppliers: it uses its size to get the cheapest possible price, then passes the savings to the consumer.
In the US, Medicare is Satutorily forbidden to negotiate with drug companies to use its bulk buying power to get the cheapest possible prices. The drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development. As well, each year the drug companies spend about as much on marketing as all the medical malpractice settlements combined.
If we had a little bit of common sense with regards to managment of medicare Granny would not have to break the law in order to eat.
|
rockystuart
Enthusiast
Reged: 03/11/04
Posts: 232
Loc: San Fran Bay Area, Calif
|
|
I agree about the drugs (buy in bulk to save money) and I'm on medicare which has NO DRUG BENIFITS. Maybe teh disabled(lie me) should joing up with AARP(largest group of medicare subscribers) and start a BUYING CLUB. If they saw that ALL THESE PEOPLE were just aS WILLING AS ME TO BUY FROM CANADA, INDIA, sa, AND THE FAR EAST AS ME then maybe it would help.
I don't agree about the political satements *(i.e unpopular opinions have and effect here- but I don't let my politics show. Bush/cheany are much too liberal for me and I'm a register Libertarian from Berkeley, CA(or the people republic of Berkeley , if you preferr. It's funny how both the fringe right and fringe left just want the same thing. And end to government by regulation carried out by unnamed, unelected breaucraps(can that one slide Melody?) and for the gov't to get off our backs, decriminalize victumless crimes.
But I'm really just here to cut my $350/mo drug(OK OK medication) bill down more.
And what aBOUT TRUTH IN ADVERTIZING; eVER SEE A BIG NEON SIGN THAT SAYS 'drugs" AND GO INTO THE STORE AND ASK FOR SOME. sORRy Capslock error 02
|
Eeyore27
Old Hand
Reged: 07/05/04
Posts: 401
Loc: Where Misery loves Company U...
|
|
Quote:
This kind of person can drive you crazy. I have snowpatrol listed under the "ignore this user" option that comes up when you click on his/her alias. I checked out the very first thing he/she said by using the "quote" option, which displays their last post, of course. It got me ticked off and I wrote back that one time. Otherwise, I'm blissfully unaware of this person's rants; I strongly recommend that you do the same and ignore them by blocking his/her posts.
Stardog,
Thanks for the suggestion, I'm about to do exactly what you did and put these people on "ignore." I would like to think that most people on the board know that I'm usually the last person to get involved in flame wars and resort to mean spirited comments, but since these 2 particular members seem to be following me into different threads, bringing up their same old tired debates to feed their political agendas, then I have no choice but to do that. I'm also going to delete all of the posts that I wrote last night, or at the very least, edit them, because I really don't like the side of my personality that their posts have brought out in me. That is not how I am. Like I said, I'm just here trying to gather some info, support other members and to get some feedback from other posters when I need it. I don't have the time or the energy to waste on people who get their kicks by starting trouble here on such a great board.
Thanks, & take care,
Eeyore
--------------------
~ R.I.P. Darrell Abbott 12/08/04
|
fromabove
Enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/04
Posts: 219
|
|
Quote:
What the heck do you think that I live in, DisneyWorld???
Here's my reality. I'm among the ranks of the unemployed (highest unemployment rate since Hoover was president, BTW, and HEY, wasn't that during the DEPRESSION???), uninsured, and I don't have the luxury of having my medical insurance paid for 100%. Good for flippin you!! I'd do a backflip for ya, but then I'd probably paralyze myself due to a permanent back injury that I have, which subsequently played a major role in why I'm not employed right now. I've been trying for MONTHS to find suitable employment, but since the job market is so BKOTB at the moment, I can't find a stinking job. Welcome to MY reality, DUDE.
By the way, I'm a woman, not a Dude. I know all to well what it's like to have a hard time to find an OBGYN these days, so you don't need to preach that to me. That's all I have to say. I'm done in this post. Go bash somebody else now, since it seems to make you feel so much better about your flippin reality.
I am sorry Eeyore that you are unemployed, I know how that feels. I also know how it feels to not have health insurance, because I don't have any either.
You do need to get one fact straight of which you clearly do not have a clue about. Some one must of spoon fed you some B.S. some where, (maybe C.B.S.?) so you better watch where you get your facts. Our current unemployment rate is around 5.6% which is lower than it was in 1993, then it was 6.5% which is far worse. Do you remember who was president then? Ask Monica, she knows.
You can see for your self here if you really want the truth:
http://www.ded.mo.gov/business/researchandplanning/indicators/unemp/index.shtml
Have a great day!! 
--------------------
The truth is out there...
|
Lablady2
Old Hand
Reged: 05/05/04
Posts: 473
Loc: New York City
|
|
If anyone is REALLY interested in why we pay such horrific prices in this country for drugs - just PM me - I worked for a major pharmaceutical firm for 12 years before switching to education and could write volumes about what goes on to drive the cost of Rx drugs sky high in this country.
|
fromabove
Enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/04
Posts: 219
|
|
Quote:
The next thing you know, this thread will get wiped out by the mods because you will not let go of the political stuff. You are already responsible for one thread being deleted. I think the mods should delete YOU. You have an agenda that is not appropriate for DB. Go find yourself a political board. Or do you just like to try to kick around people who's primary interest is health, not politics? Are you too chicken to deal with real political experts on other boards?
D.
All I did is post some news articles that allow people to see another point of view. If you don't want to be openminded then thats your problem. Other people just may have a different opinion than you do. Does that mean they should be flamed by angry people like you? This is a free country and this thread is to discuss the rising cost of medicine. So don't blame me for what the moderators do. I have the right to my own opinion on this subject just as you do. I am not trying to supress your opinion, yet you sure want to superess mine. You can close your eyes to the obvious if you choose too, but I cant. I am willing to listen to others opinions on this subject and am only expecting the same courtesy, which I show you and others.
BTW what is it with you people and the name-calling? Cant you get your point across without anger, hatred or calling people names? The moderators will delete this if you keep calling people names, thats called Flaming.
All I can do is laugh! All you can do is get angry, why cant you hold a civil conversation with people who have a different opinion than yours? That is something that I can do.
--------------------
The truth is out there...
|
fromabove
Enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/04
Posts: 219
|
|
Quote:
FYI:
The reason prescription drugs are cheaper in Canada is that the Canadian Government uses their size to negotiate prices with the drug companies. Just as Wal-Mart does with its suppliers: it uses its size to get the cheapest possible price, then passes the savings to the consumer.
In the US, Medicare is Satutorily forbidden to negotiate with drug companies to use its bulk buying power to get the cheapest possible prices. The drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development. As well, each year the drug companies spend about as much on marketing as all the medical malpractice settlements combined.
If we had a little bit of common sense with regards to managment of medicare Granny would not have to break the law in order to eat.
You are correct Zenga, Not only do they by in bulk but most drug manufactures will sell their products to other countries far cheaper than they do to U.S. citizens. The U.S. citizens are in turn charged more to subsidize the other socialist countries. This also happens in the automobile industry as well. At least in Canada anyhow. You can save about 20% on a new automobile if you bought it in Canada rather than here. They are willing to make less profit from them only to charge us more.
--------------------
The truth is out there...
|
fromabove
Enthusiast
Reged: 08/20/04
Posts: 219
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
This kind of person can drive you crazy. I have snowpatrol listed under the "ignore this user" option that comes up when you click on his/her alias. I checked out the very first thing he/she said by using the "quote" option, which displays their last post, of course. It got me ticked off and I wrote back that one time. Otherwise, I'm blissfully unaware of this person's rants; I strongly recommend that you do the same and ignore them by blocking his/her posts.
Stardog,
Thanks for the suggestion, I'm about to do exactly what you did and put these people on "ignore." I would like to think that most people on the board know that I'm usually the last person to get involved in flame wars and resort to mean spirited comments, but since these 2 particular members seem to be following me into different threads, bringing up their same old tired debates to feed their political agendas, then I have no choice but to do that. I'm also going to delete all of the posts that I wrote last night, or at the very least, edit them, because I really don't like the side of my personality that their posts have brought out in me. That is not how I am. Like I said, I'm just here trying to gather some info, support other members and to get some feedback from other posters when I need it. I don't have the time or the energy to waste on people who get their kicks by starting trouble here on such a great board.
Thanks, & take care,
Eeyore
Come on now Eyeore, or should I say Ms. Eyeore? I know that you are not a bad person. (and I am truly being sincere). Blaming others for bringing out a certain side of your personality? This is only something that you can control. Thats why I don't let other peoples opinions (and thats all that they are) bother me. Let it roll off your back, I like talking to you & I enjoy hearing yours as well as other peoples opinions. If it weren't for civil dissucion then how can any of us better ourselves?
Have a great day!
--------------------
The truth is out there...
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
