The moral, financial dilemma at the heart of health care

The key word in all this is “profit”. When healthcare is for profit, Doctors and hospitals and drug companies will deliver as little as possible and charge as much as they possibly can for their products and services in order to maximize profits. Predatory Capitalism cares about nothing except money. It’s just that stark and just that simple.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay I will have to stay your stance on this along with Tuckers somewhat confuses me. Both of you are the first ones to scream about illegals getting rights and they deserve a chance to have a good life here in American, then you turn around and hidden within the lines one would think you just rather have sick people die, versus tax payer money being spent on them to extend life. So if you have a love one, to whom is stricken and you can extend their life would you not do so? What happens if a cure is found in that time period?

• Link
• Report this comment

Everybody wants people to be responsible for their decisions. Prostate cancer can be treated fairly effectively if caught early with simple tests. People that don’t go to the doctor then end up finding the cancer at a late stage. Then it requires very expensive treatment. It may be rationing but if you don’t go to the doctor and then show up later with end stage cancer, do you deserve the expensive treatments?

• Link
• Report this comment

I feel a chart coming on.

Take two aspirin and call me in the morning.

B-dum-bump.

• Link
• Report this comment

I realize one’s health is in a totally different category, but this financial dilemma of what we can and cannot afford is something we face every day. Here’s a few I’ve faced in the past:

* Do I pay more for the “safer” cars for my 16 year old or do I find an affordable, gas efficient smaller cars? I paid more for a bigger car with lower MPG so her safety would be greater in the event of an accident.

* Do I spend money to send my children to private schools or make the best out of the local public schools? We decided to stay with the public school, which in our area is actually pretty good. The mix of extracurricular activities is somewhat limited, but the scholastics are solid.

* My son would have been a much better basketball player had we put him with an AAU team. Top notch instruction, year round basketball, playing in front of recruiters, etc. He may have even been good enough for a scholarship (we’ll never know), but the annual cost, travel expenses (2-night weekend hotel stays out of state were common), equipment, restaurants, etc, and consuming most of his time contributed to us believing he shouldn’t do it. So I guess we didn’t give our child the “best” of what was available, but we made a solid choice.

As I said, these examples don’t equate to life extending options, but I’ve accepted the fact that money plays an important part in the “quality” of life issues. Too bad others don’t do the same.

In the example you presented, Jay, I wouldn’t spend $500K for 6 additional months of life even if the money was readily available and considered just a drop in the bucket in my portfolio.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal

June 28th, 2011
9:09 am

I feel the same way. And good morn sir!

• Link
• Report this comment

yeah, what Normal said. But if someone can afford it, then by all means, they should do it. But it would be extremely selfish(and I completly understand) for an individual or an individual’s family to force taxpayers to foot the bill. God bless anyone facing this decision.

• Link
• Report this comment

“One of the shockers for me in my Mr. G’s treatment for prostate cancer was the Doctor telling us that if men live long enough most all of them will eventually have prostate cancer.”

Not just that but from what doctors told me, 75% of men will die WITH prostate cancer — not of the disease itself, but will have it along with whatever does kill them. In terms of prostate cancer, the treatment is worse than the disease (in my cases, in my opinion).

Anywho, as carl wrote — as long as there is profit to be made from the sick, we will have huge costs associated with it, and as long as some people see healthcare as a privilege instead of a right associated with being a citizen of this country, things will not change — until, of course, a majority of people are not privileged enough.

• Link
• Report this comment

Leg Lamp: We decided to stay with the public school, which in our area is actually pretty good

PLEEEEEASE let some of your fellow cons know the public education WORKS, then, and does not need to be cut or defunded or abolished.

• Link
• Report this comment

My son would have been a much better basketball player had we put him with an AAU team…… So I guess we didn’t give our child the “best” of what was available, but we made a solid choice.

Feeding your kid into the sports-shredder is only “best” for .00000004% of our population. Even if they hit the jackpot of skills they can turn out like LeBron James. So don’t second-guess your decision.

• Link
• Report this comment

As to Jay’s specific question about mechanism: probably use the same one that insurance companies use to determine if they will offer a certain benefit in their health packages… or the same one that corporations use to determine if they will fix a faulty product that’s killing 1 in 10,000,000 people by accident. Oh, wait, that would be “rationing” if the government does it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay- I would love to see your reaction to the fact that the World Health Organization in Geneva (WHO) placed the US at no. 35 in overal Quality of healthcare due to our lopsided and misguided financing of healthcare.Do some simple research on other countries that have universal healthcare or competitive mandatory HMOs like Israel that are ahead of us on the list and you will begin to understand why. Your buddy Kyle went beserk when I published this statistic on his blog calling the authors a bunch of left wing nuts We pay doctors an exorbitant amount of money because of the love -hate dance with insurers and few medical professionals really care about quality care unless paid at top private rates by those who can afford it. Saint Ronnie tried to shove universal care under the rug with an absurd unfunded and socialist mandate called EMTALA requiring all hospitals to treat any living person who crawled into an emergency room regardless of payment. Michelle Obama found a a loophole in this for UNiversity of Chicago Hospital as their attorney by directing the poor to neighborhood clinics which increased under Bush. No one discusses any of these facts because health care is so politicized and we have a broken national health care policy. That is why WHO puts us at no. 35.. Your reaction???????????????

• Link
• Report this comment

I watched my friend die an indescribably horribly painful death after three years of chemo with an unimaginable price tag. Those QUACKS knew they couldn’t save someone when it was already all in the bones, but they make their living saying, “okay, let’s try one more thing” and then pumping toxic sludge into veins while uttering false glimmers. I’m still so angry I can barely speak of it. They did NOT ease her passage as they should have. They made it much worse than it had to be. Why? Money. I hate them. I hate them all.

• Link
• Report this comment

“That is why WHO puts us at no. 35.. Your reaction???????????????”

I don’t know Jay’s opinion…but MY opinion is that once we have universal healthcare a lot of that will be addressed as part of the process. It won’t be neccessary to “find a way” any more.

• Link
• Report this comment

carlosgvv nails it. When healthcare is subject to a regime of a profit-driven market logic, that prefigures everything else. And frankly, that system is so powerful in this country that I don’t see it changing without some sort of social movement that tends towards the revolutionary.

But as usual, technological advance comes along here as a destabilizing element in what would otherwise appear to be an unstoppable system. It acts both as something that promises boundless profits for the profiteers at the top yet also, in the Utopian promise of extended life and safety from calamity it seems to promise, threatens to destabilize the actuarial realities of the precarious precarious insurance system. Thus it amounts to Utopian crack in the foundation insofar as hope is held out to all the people and not just the most fortunate, and this even though we are still some ways away from the most radical breakthroughs that might someday come in medical technology, e.g. a long-term treatment for the most serious types of cancer, etc.

But a serious economic calamity could certainly change all this in a hurry.

• Link
• Report this comment

Y’all did hear of the recent Supreme Court desision that if you take a generic drug and it harms you, you cannot sue the manufacturer. You can only sue if you are harmed by a Brand Named drug. One wonders why…

• Link
• Report this comment

haha, Jay’s using the NYT as a resource again. The National Enquirer would be more reliable.

• Link
• Report this comment

Excellent point Jay. There are two issues here that need to be addressed.
1. A single payer system will not lower cost unless someone makes hard choices. It can be seen that Medicare is unwilling to deny any expense for someone. As long as that occurs the system will become less and less financial viable
2. Our current delivers invest more in care which is focused on greatest revenue not what pays off on extending people life’s.

It doesn’t appear to me that either the left or right is willing to address the problems of our current system.

• Link
• Report this comment

Ramble: “haha, Jay’s using the NYT as a resource again”

I agree in part. But when you have a right-leaning corporate media structure as we do, you have to do what you can.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay
June 28th, 2011
9:21 am

True, Jay. We’ll never know until we’re faced with it.

The mechanism? I don’t know if I totally understand your question, but to me it’s a quality of life issue. Would my last 6 months be consumed with pain, constant visits to doctors office, in and out of the hospital for treatment, while withering away? I’m not really afraid of death. I’m actually more afraid (if that’s the proper term) of the dying process.

My father would always laugh and say he didn’t want to live one day longer than the time he would be able to put on his pants by himself. Fortunately for him, he went out on his own terms.

For what it’s worth, I had an uncle pass away earlier this year. He chose to cling to life for as long as he could. During his last 9 months of life he spent 8 months and 1 week in hospitals, rehab, etc, and he was in constant pain. That was his choice, but I don’t think it would be mine. After his death one of my cousins said if nothing else, my uncle hanging on that long prepared her mother to accept sleeping in a bed by herself. I hurt for my aunt, but I thought “how sad”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Moderate line: “It doesn’t appear to me that either the left or right is willing to address the problems of our current system.”

Not true. If you count Obama and the Democratic-led congress at the time the Affordable Healthcare Act passed to be “left” (highly debatable, but can be assumed for this discussion), then that bill most certainly does represent a serious attempt to address the problems of the current system, however problematically.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another question that should be asked is why are drugs so expensive? The answer lies within the FDA, since they create all of the red tape the pharmaceutical companies must go through and thus drive the cost of drugs higher and higher.

• Link
• Report this comment

thomas @ 9:38,

I’m not saying either. I’m saying what they did to my friend was wrong. I cannot even get my fingers to type the details of her last days. Where were they in the middle of the night while the nurse was saying, “sorry we can’t give her any morpheme because her blood pressure is too low?” They were enjoying the holidays with their families, unconcerned with what the “new drugs” had done to her. I hate them. I hate them all.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m a cancer survivor and I’ve counseled cancer patients. That by no means makes me an expert as it relates to Jay’s questions, however, I know a little bit as to how those stricken with cancer think. As Jay points out this new prostate cancer drug only provides a few more months of life. This is true with most commonly used chemo therapy drugs. At some point for patients undergoing medicinal cancer treatments quality of life that’s left to live becomes more important than continued short term survival. Patients need to work with their doctors and their families. Working with their doctors means asking the tough questions. Doctor is this drug therapy curative or is it only going to prolong my life a few more months? Doctor what are the side affects and what effect will it have on me and on my family care givers? Doctor I know you don’t like this question but on average, how much time do have with or without therapy? Ultimately the decision must be made by the patient in consultation with the doctor and the patients family based on what’s best objectively for the patient and his or her family.. From the scientific perspective if there is an insufficient number of patients taking the newer medications it isn’t possible to improve these medications or determine their effectiveness over the long term. Doctors sometime take that scientific view because they want to learn a drug’s effectiveness for treating future patients, so often they may not provide the patient with all the information as to what they should expect during the course of their treatment. Patients and their families need to ask the hard questions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is that an acceptable use of taxpayer money and health-insurance premiums?

no.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yeah, because who wants to have all that testing done on their drugs anyway?”

Well it’s hard to have it both ways right? So don’t complain that the big pharma companies are ripping everyone off, when the system they exist in creates a false market.

One of the biggest changes they can make is to get rid of the 20 year patent on new drugs, which is ridiculous.

• Link
• Report this comment

We’re all dying. Disease and sickness speed up the process and are symptoms, but to date, nonone(private enterprise or the federal government) has found a cure for aging(though ponce de leon looked for it). It’s simply immoral to ask that my neighbors(taxpayers) foot the bill for simply delaying the inevitable. The mechanism is simple healthcare providers give the patient the price for treatment, and the patient either pays it or doesn’t. Either way the patient is going to die.

• Link
• Report this comment

Joe Mama,

I am truly sorry to hear that.

• Link
• Report this comment

So don’t complain that the big pharma companies are ripping everyone off, when the system they exist in creates a false market.

I don’t complain about “Big Pharma”. I’ve worked with the industry and know what they go through to get drugs to market and then to track them after. It’s a lot of hurdles, but those hurdles help force the companies to do their best work. Competition isn’t going to do it, just because there would be too many bad operators willing to pump-and-dump their company to make some short-term profits.

One of the biggest changes they can make is to get rid of the 20 year patent on new drugs, which is ridiculous.

It’s 12 years from the date the drug is approved by the FDA. That’s the period of exclusivity. Was in the HCR bill. Feel better now?

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam
June 28th, 2011
9:23 am

It’s an “exposure” issue we faced. The public school offered very little extra curricular activities outside of the basic. Boys have baseball, football, basketball, wrestling, track, cross country and golf. And there are very, very few clubs in which to be involved. At the private school our son would have had choices that included sports like volleyball, lacrosse, tennis, swimming, gymnastics, and rubgy to name a few. Activities/clubs would have included your choice of three foreign languages, rifle, an incredible music program, a more extensive math program, photography…..the list was endless. So what was best? We actually had the finances for the private school, but felt the overall “high school experience” would be better served in our public school. So, did we prevent our child from having the “best” education? Maybe, maybe not – depends on how you look at things.

Take it one step further. Let’s assume for a minute that my son could have been accepted at Harvard or another elite institution. If we didn’t have the money, would we have “deprived” our child by sending him to Georgia, Georgia Tech, et al? I don’t think so.

Money factors into EVERY phase of our lives, medical/health included. We are just not entitled to the best of everything. It may not seem “fair”, but it’s reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

You have to die sometime from something.

I don’t really agree with Jay’s framing the argument with the “live or die” subtext. We have always had end-of-life and cost-vs-value issues in health care as with other insurable events. The imputed actuarial data in the chart shows the costs and insurance needs.

This is a matter of how much insurance you want, you can afford, and/or should be required. The real issue is how are health care cost kept in check. For certain, the US current system is broken and needs a radical make-over.

• Link
• Report this comment

So did the most famous champion of universal healthcare (the manslaughterer also known as Ted Kennedy) deserve all that expensive healthcare from Duke Univ for his advanced brain cancer to extend his miserable life for a mere 12 months????

Typical liberal, do as I say, not as I do….

• Link
• Report this comment

quasi?

• Link
• Report this comment

Just sayin..
June 28th, 2011
10:11 am

Kind of tough on ol’ Teddy boy, aren’t we? Rather than using such a derogatory name, why not say “he was an excellent swimmer”.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m going through this with my mother. She’s nearly 91 and has had a return of cancer. She has a mass in her liver and a mass in her stomach cavity next to the pancreas. At her age there are not many options. The Doctors say chemo might prolong her life a short time, but…She also has Alzheimer’s and we are afraid of what could happen there too.

Some in my family don’t want to tell Mom because of the Alzheimer’s, but I feel she need s to know and while she has most of her senses make her own decision. The chemo will hurt my family and me but it’s Mom. I’ve been wrestling with this for a couple of weeks now.

Sorry if I’m whiny…

• Link
• Report this comment

To all the lefty fools who say that the drug companies are charging too much or that the drugs cost too much: go develop a drug yourself and sell it for less. Easy fix.

None of the government-educated, government-employed, Democrat-voting filth in this country has ANY clue as to what cost goes into:

- the development of the drug itself
- making up for money lost on other drugs which didn’t pan out
- making it through the government regulatory hurdles
- paying for the potential cost of all the ambulance-chasing legal leeches who will sue to make money for themselves

You don’t like the way the drug companies are operating? Start your own or shut the hell up.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Democrat-voting filth”

There’s your sign…..this time in neon.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal

My thoughts and prayers are with your Mom and you.

• Link
• Report this comment

One of the problems is that our technological capabilities have surpassed our ability to pay for them. Check the article linked below, detailing part of the manufacturing process for a drug that helps prevent organ transplant rejection. There 780 steps in the manufacturing process alone.

Just because we have the ability to save a life with and organ transplant doesn’t mean that we have the resources to do it for everyone. The “Big Pharma” and evil profit rhetoric is already circulating, but it isn’t really part of the problem either. We can send men to the moon, but we can’t send everyone there, just because they think they have the right to demand it. The health care problem is similar when you make it an “everybody” problem and remove the personal element where compassion and our duty to those close to us comes into play.

The solutions and choices won’t be easy, but for me, it comes down to having the freedom to make those choices myself, according to my wishes and abilities. Putting a bureaucracy in charge is a dangerous thing to do.

http://www.automationworld.com/perspective-8737

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal — “Some in my family don’t want to tell Mom because of the Alzheimer’s, but I feel she need s to know and while she has most of her senses make her own decision. The chemo will hurt my family and me but it’s Mom. I’ve been wrestling with this for a couple of weeks now.”

If you haven’t already done so, get a POA, a health care POA and any end-of-life instructions down on paper ASAP. There are plenty of good attorneys who can help expedite the POAs for you.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Maybe more time needs to be spent in the labs to create a more generic form of the drug. This may assist with the competitive pricing”

Generic drugs are already “created” – by the original developer. All that happens when a drug is “generic” is that the original patent owner no longer has exclusive rights to market it, and other drug factories can then copy it. It is exactly the same as the brand name drug, it just doesn’t carry that brand name.

• Link
• Report this comment

DEA — “None of the government-educated, government-employed, Democrat-voting filth in this country has ANY clue as to what cost goes into:”

I know that a fat pile of profits, bonuses and salaries go into it.

“You don’t like the way the drug companies are operating? Start your own or shut the hell up.”

No.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, it sounds to me that the Govt made the decision for us when they approved the drug.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So are the generic brands as expensive?”

No, because the generic drug maker doesn’t have the cachet of the brand name, and also has not had to do the R&D or the advertising

• Link
• Report this comment

What is so bad about LeBron James?

Nothing. It’s amazing how some people expect more from a player than they do from their own dang politicians isn’t it? I’m amazed and dumbfounded all the time how people can have poutrage over something an ATHLETE has done, (mostly to himself) and shrug over what a SENATOR can do, ( to everyone).

Aquagirl: Thomas, he’s living proof money can’t buy class. A tool with lots of money and fame is still a tool.

He’s a man. What do you expect? Blagovech, Gingrich, Abrahamoff, Cheney, etc. can all fall into that “tool” category; and they most definitely don’t have any class; yet they’re not denigrated for their decisions as much as a a professional athlete, actor, actress, etc. is. Our culture is lacking something……..

• Link
• Report this comment

“Jay, it sounds to me that the Govt made the decision for us when they approved the drug”

They approve the drug, not the price

• Link
• Report this comment

They approve the drug, not the price

And, in fact, our corporatists in the government have decided they can’t negotiate the price.

• Link
• Report this comment

as far as the topic at hand – I agree with Carlos – when profit is the goal, the pharma companies will focus all their efforts on TREATING illnesses rather than CURING them – nothing like a life-time (or, at the very least, long-term prescription to bring those $$$s in)

… and, like it or not, this is why there are “death panels” at every level – in insurance companies, hospitals and at the government level to draw a line over what should be treated and how.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA

“Jay, it sounds to me that the Govt made the decision for us when they approved the drug”

” They approve the drug, not the price ”

That is true, everyone can get the price down by not using it, the choice is yours.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree that these sort of end of life care decisions need to be thought about, and the balance between what is right for the old people, and what is fair for the rest of us is difficult.

And Obama showed his cowardly ways by trying to hide that these things needed to be discussed. He could have responded to the death panels controversy by talking about how decisions do have to be made and that death panels are not the right thing to call it, but that sort of thing does need to be considered. Instead he let the media attack Palin for him, and ridiculed her himself.

And now you want to have a responsible non-partisan discussion about it. Too bad you weren’t this honest when Palin tried to talk about it. Then you just wanted to make partisan attacks.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK, I would think it was harder at 27.

• Link
• Report this comment

Many are deriding the profit motive in health care. Why do you think most all of the new drugs and procedures are coming from the U.S.? I submit that it’s because of the profit motive. The countries with govt health care sit back and ride on the health care innovations/discoveries/drugs etc from the U.S. that are a direct result of the profit motive. Remove the profit motive and watch it all dry up.

• Link
• Report this comment

DEA

Maybe you can explain to all us “lefty fools” why drugs cost so much more in America than in other industrialized Western countries.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not to be too sanguine here, but a good part of “the problem” has to do with the fact that our scientific advancement in the treating of “fatal” conditions has outpaced our social ability to adjust. What a scant generation ago would have been a death sentence diagnosis is today something that can be interdicted with a series of treatments and then brought under control through medications with an extension of both quality and quantity of life expectancy. Others not so much so.

As is the human condition, we look for a miracle. The medical and pharmaceutical professions have, to a great extent, replaced the priest and shaman in the miracle worker business, cheerfully adopting the term “miracle drug,” and, however much it may apply to this, that or the other treatment, to the popular ear it comes across that there is a miracle for whatever ails you and if there’s not, there soon will be. Just hang on.

Professional ethics and really good manners prohibit the care giver from being truthfully honest. They don’t want to say bluntly and forthrightly, “you’re on your way out, Pombo. It’s not going to be pretty and you’re going to suffer. There’s not a lot we can do. Get your paperwork together and enjoy what little time you’ve got left. And I’ll write you a perscription for…”

It helps if you have the medical professionals in the family or as close friends you can trust. When the boys’ mama was dying, I was privy to a few of her and Unmentionable’s conversations. Sure, they were both wanting a miracle, but there wasn’t one and it was up to him to tell her, point blank and no candy-covering. Later, when it was his brother, it was different. His own condition was such that there was some hope of prolonging the inevitable, to a degree “a miracle.” But in the end, he had to tell him, “time to go R. The best you can hope for is a few more weeks and it won’t be fun..here’s what you can expect…”

• Link
• Report this comment

I have been treated for prostate cancer. It was caught fairly early and it has been over five years since treatment. Should it return, I would opt out of any of the extra treatments. Especially when the cost is compared to the benefit.

Also, I’m not sure what the doctors are saying when they say the quality of life is acceptable. My younger sister recently passed away from colon cancer. The side effects from her treatment were not, in my opinion, acceptable.

I have every intention of refusing further treatment should my cancer reoccur. I will opt for paliative care.

• Link
• Report this comment

carl,

you answer lies in Douglas’s 10:46 post

Southern ATL,

yes the pharm compaines own the patent, but the gov mandates they have one for 20 years (12 years in the HCR bill)..and yes the price their own drugs, but the gov is responible for creating this environment

but thats how it goes, doesn’t it? the gov creates a problem, and then gov creates a solution to that problem

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I’m all for getting as cheap as I can with the healthcare of other people. If they’re sick and it costs alot to treat, let them go make their Maker. If Heaven’s as nice as they say they ought to thank me for letting them get there faster.

Now if it’s me, the sky’s the limit. My life is worth alot more than anybody else’s. So let it all hang out. Bring in every Dr. and every expensive medicine you got.

That’s the Conservative point of view and it’s the right point of view. It’s why we hate Obamacare. Heck with everybody else. I might could say a prayer for them at church on Sunday, but stay out of my wallet. If they get sick it’s because they made Bad Choices and they need to take Personal Responsibility.

Have a good day everybody.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Instead he let the media attack Palin for him, and ridiculed her himself.”

BS – what he did was point out the hypocrisy of the same people who were leading the FearMongeringBrigade were the same people who were advocating for end-of-life counseling in a provision a couple of years earlier.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26149.html

• Link
• Report this comment

poison – no matter how you slice it, it’s never good.

• Link
• Report this comment

““Maybe the government can work out a deal with whoever owns the patent!!””

good grief. I misread that as “whoever owns the patient”

then, I realized that’s just as accurate when talking about the question.

• Link
• Report this comment

Life is not fair.
We don’t all get the same genes.
Unfortunately, some of us get really poor genes and have health issues. Nevertheless, it is not my neighbor’s responsibility to pay for my health care. It is not the drug company’s responsibility to provide me with free or low cost drugs.
Life is tough and then we die.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet
June 28th, 2011
10:54 am

Were you a “Doobie Brothers” fan?

• Link
• Report this comment

The business community will not let the us default. Let’s see whose arm gets twisted to get the deal done.

• Link
• Report this comment

Good health is our only real asset. And it’s our personal responsibility to live a healthy life style that does not put undue stress and expense on our loved ones or the government. If I become incurably ill and have lived beyond the benefits I’ve paid for, then I’m ready to go. I’ve given my permission to pull the plug on more than one family member and it ain’t easy; but it has to be done. So, no extra money for six months.

• Link
• Report this comment

blahblahblah – why wouldn’t it be? my dad is 85, calls bingo at the VFW, volunteered in Ringgold, helping people after the recent storms – not all octogenerians are ready for pasture.

• Link
• Report this comment

Leg Lamp @ 10:06a: My point is basically that public education is NOT evil, and that you CAN get a good education out of it. You made that case yourself. Whether or not it was “best” is up to interpretation and priorities, both yours and the priorities of the educational institutions in question. But you did not choose between one evil and another, you chose between two GOOD options. That is my point.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK, why wouldn’t it be? Because we’re broke. Give his wrinkled behind a power scooter and a scrip for pain meds and save 80% of the cost.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thanks for sharing Del.

I shared last night and Uncle Jed called me a liar.

I am thinking about Facebooking or Tweeting my next surgery in real time for my friends and family.

The first thing I do when I wake up every morning is celebrate that I have lived another day.

Our health care system is outstanding.

Our health care bills are out of control.

• Link
• Report this comment

One of my best friends passed away on Saturday after a year long struggle with cancer. Three weeks ago they said we can go again with raidation and Chemo but the prognosis was still death. He chose to go on his own terms, and thus saved the insurance company probably a hundred grand. We all know he made the right decision.
On a different note it is interesting that Jay is concerned about the consumption of heath care based on percentages, but you can use almost the identical numbers for who pays taxes and the liberals scream the rich are under taxed. (ie the top 3% pay around 40% of the total, while the bottom 50% pay no federal taxes)

• Link
• Report this comment

“with regard to your answer to blahblah, do 80 year olds get knee replacements in the publicly funded NHS in England?”

yep.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Give his wrinkled behind a power scooter and a scrip for pain meds and save 80% of the cost.”

which is going to be more expensive in the long-term than to just fix the flipping problem

like I said, you have a choice – treatment or CURE. given that my grandma lived to 102 and my dad is still going strong, you’d be talking about treatment for another 20-ish years.

penny-wise/pound-foolish

• Link
• Report this comment

finn – the VFW in Marietta is great – they do fundraisers for local schools, all kinds of stuff.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam
June 28th, 2011
11:08 am

Agreed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Boy that trip got expensive…yesterday we were told it was $500,000

Now if you want to be a REAL reporter when you grow up compare that to the costs incurred by Laura and her girls trips to Budapest and to Paris and to Africa.

What’s the difference between Laura and Barbara and Jenna traveling
and Michelle, Sasha and Malia traveling?

What could it be I wonder?

Is

• Link
• Report this comment

If you want to just cut to the chase, healthcare costs are escalating at alarming rates and capitalism and the free market allow for these companies to make unconscionable profits which are spiraling out of control.

Apart from more tax breaks for the parmaceutical companies, does the Republican/Tea Party have a plan? So far all I’ve see is Republican’ts doing everything they can to protect this out of control industry.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well either a government board will have to decide, subject to political meddling and influences. Or individuals will decide. Basically we have Medicare writing a blank check to senior currently, saddling untold future generations with huge debts for a short extension of their lives.

I vote end Medicare and let individuals sink or swim. Anything less is suboptimal.

• Link
• Report this comment

Clinton “Skink” Tyree

You’re wrong, not ALL Republicans or Tea Party members feel this way.
Personally, I don’t belive their should be ANY tax breaks. That includes individuals.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Clinton “Skink” Tyree

Yeah, Republicans are making people live longer and it’s their fault that these new treatments are so expensive. You are a fool sir…

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh yeah, and how does taking tax breaks away from these companies make things cheaper?? Please answer that one…

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet
June 28th, 2011
11:08 am

I liked their earlier stuff better as well. Anything with Tom Johnston was better than the songs with Michael McDonald. Nothing wrong with McDonald, I liked a lot of his Doobie songs, but the original sound was better.

• Link
• Report this comment

Why is it so hard to see who is getting all the money? Lot of these cost are because folks are making a lot of money, duh?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Maybe the answer is that we shouldn’t keep people alive for just the sake of keeping them alive but that opens up a whole other can of worms…”

which is why Death with Dignity (or medically assisted suicide) should be legal

• Link
• Report this comment

@getalife

It’s about coming up with a new solution. Some form of Medicare will always be around. If we know that it’s unsustainable or there may be a better solution are you not open to looking into it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R: And letting the patient know IN ADVANCE what the consequences of their actions will be.

THIS

• Link
• Report this comment

mmm mmmm

what was that deficit that Bush left….11.7 TRILLION…..how many jobs
did the Bush administration end up netting the nation?

again what’s the difference?

and hope and change has worked out quite well for me.
thanks for asking.

• Link
• Report this comment

JJ exactically correct;
Jay,
One point you make but do not expand on is that there are 3 new prostate cancer drugs. If there were no profit in new drugs how many new drugs do you think there would be??
Some of your readers seem to think the drug companies are making huge profits on these new drugs OK prove it; what was their cost to develop, make and market the new drugs? what is the lifespan of the new products?
Take the profit out of developing new drugs and there will be no new drugs!!
Who develops the new drugs for treating illness (hint US drug companies make over 50% of all new drugs on the market)?
You can grandstand about what you would do if you were faced with deciding about impending life or death but facing the situation is another matter!
We are all going to die sometime, no one knows when , but is you want certainty just put a gun to your head now and we will all be happy!!

• Link
• Report this comment

This is another area where the GOP is dead wrong on their social agenda of protecting life.

Assisted suicide should be allowed across the whole country.

• Link
• Report this comment

How does stealing Medicare make things cheaper?

Ask Florida’s Govenor….

http://www.wusf.usf.edu/news/2010/06/18/whistleblowers_say_rick_scott_knew_about_medicare_fraud

• Link
• Report this comment

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the Liar Obama – BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE! I am very sorry about your cancer. I do speak for myself but I had a few of those problems myself, by the grace of God lived to tell about it. We live in a time of great depression in many people who especially after health problems do not care to live, so lead the way brother, the will to live is a very good thing. I got it just not eaten up with it for 6 months more.

• Link
• Report this comment

Woodstock Mike: “When the private sector pursues profits in a capitalist society, prices are driven down”:

Wrong.

Did you not see my post above about how healthcare is an exception to this ‘free market efficiency’ hypothesis in almost every conceivable way? In healthcare private markets cause prices to spiral with a vengeance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some of your readers seem to think the drug companies are making huge profits on these new drugs OK prove it;

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2007/industries/21/1.html

$11 billion profits for J&J.

• Link
• Report this comment

Where is Dr Kevorkian when you need him.

• Link
• Report this comment

Eight years ago my primary care physician, having diagnosed me with high blood pressure, prescribed a name brand medicine which cost about $80 per month (my co-pay was $15). It lowered my blood pressure but had the side effect of persisting serious coughing. He switched me to another brand name medicine which cost about the same and had no side effects but did not lower my blood pressure. I read a story in the AJC that reported a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) which compared the relative effectiveness of the various types of blood pressure reducers. It concluded the single most effective is the oldest, a diuretic. Wondering why my physician would prescribe less effective, more expensive medicines, I formed a theory. I called my brother, an MD retired, and asked whether pharmaceutical companies hire good looking young women in short skirts to visit physicians and try to convince them that company’s drugs. He laughed and said, “you bet they do, and plunging necklines.” When I went back to the physician I asked his assistant and the laughed and guessed that I had seen one sitting in the lobby. When the physician came in he denied that he was influenced by the tactics of the drug companies. He wrote me a prescription for a generic diuretic which cost me $4.25.
Many physicians get a lot of their information about drugs from the drug reps.
Thus endeth the lesson

• Link
• Report this comment

Man Nurse, What you say is true, when Lipitor goes generic the fall they will lose 10 Billion a year in sales.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave – he stalks because he loves …

• Link
• Report this comment

“Boy that trip got expensive…yesterday we were told it was $500,000″

No kidding! By tomorrow it’ll be 200 billion PER DAY!

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave — “Stop enabling bad choices, as government tries to do in every walk of life, and you get better choices.”

This is OT, but I would be interested in hearing Dave’s application of this aphorism to the War on Drugs.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Who was the poster that said they worked for a health care insurance company?”

Why do you care?

• Link
• Report this comment

I understand, USinUK, but I just found that choice problematic for making your point.

• Link
• Report this comment

Profit, in and of itself, is not wrong or immoral. The real issue is reasonable profit, instead of an absolute maximization of profit.

• Link
• Report this comment

cluelessinUK- yeah. because medical costs have been declining for the last 30 years.

Two reasons: 1: Miracles cost money, and it’s hard to make the fattest laziest country in the world live longer.

2. There is NO COMPETITION to drive down prices. The insurance company (and now government) is going to pick up the tab so who cares what it costs. The poor sucker without insurance has to pay $70 for an office visit because the doctor knows the government is only going to pay him $4 for all the others he’s virtually forced to take.

• Link
• Report this comment

Regarding guilt and late stage prostate cancer, it is hard to blame those who failed to get checked for prostate cancer annually if they do not have the funds to pay for preventative medical care. In Canada, which has universal health care, albeit imperfect, men are encouraged to get their prostate checked at 50 years of age, and thereafter. My prostate cancer was caught “very early”, which allowed for treatment at one tenth of the cost of the late stage drugs cited. Until the lower and working class has free access to preventative care the problem will persist, much to the benefit of the drug companies as indicated.

The propaganda in the U.S. regarding the Canadian system fails to point out that it is a system with concerns about early detection and treatment, worker safety, etc. When in Palm Springs in the winter I cannot find a GP for an appointment, although I can see specialists at will. This is the result of a system which worships profit and not health.

Maybe the difficult decisions coming in the U.S.” Buy your Health” systems will set the scene for a decent public health program, however, I am not too hopeful, reflecting on the study at Stanford in the 1960’s, in which the Med students gave “to get rich” as their dominant (93%) reason for choosing that profession. This, before the era of greed! Edmonton, Alberta .

• Link
• Report this comment

“Miracles cost money, and it’s hard to make the fattest laziest country in the world live longer.”

TESTIFY!

• Link
• Report this comment

The cost of US health care compared to that of other nations is distorted precisely because we do not “ration” care. Proponents of national health care won’t tell you that in other countries care is rationed to a high degree. Low cost, routine care is available, but if you need expensive treatment you will likely not receive it.

The US does develop most new drugs, technologies and techniques. Other countries do not invest in this process and piggyback off the US system.

As an international benefit consultant who has worked in numerous countries around the world, I have yet to find an individual who was happy with their national health care.

With that said, in the US we must start to limit care given for the small possible extension of life, over treatment of routine and minor conditions for the elderly in hospitals (treat in an outpatient setting). We also must stop paying for drugs that cost $5,000 or more a month to treat psoriasis. The drugs were developed to treat the serious condition of rheumatoid arthritis not the less serious skin condition. If you want the treatment, then pay for it don’t ask your employer, your fellow taxpayers or others to foot your bill.

• Link
• Report this comment

Man Nurse — “Those profits go into research for other new drugs.”

What, none for the shareholders and executives? Surely you jest.

“I would put more faith in a joint group of physicians, nurses and patient care advocates devoid of government ties to make recommendations.”

And I would put more faith in a joint group of physicians, nurses and patient care advocates devoid of *corporate* ties and allegiances to make recommendations.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now, off to get some good old fashioned capitalism done for the rest of the day.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh, good, Dave and getalife are at it again…life on the blog is back to normal…

Old guy…
From last p.m. Ain’t that prescription for red wine a good one…?

• Link
• Report this comment

““Those profits go into research for other new drugs.””

no, they USED to go into research for other drugs … now they go into marketing …

or did you think that the proliferation of commercials you see during prime-time – not to mention the 2-page spreads you see in magazines – are free?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave,
Better enjoy that good old fashioned capitalism now, If Obozo has his way there won’t be any in a few years!!

• Link
• Report this comment

As some have said earlier and I concur, drug companies are in it for profit. As a result, they focus on the treatment of an illness as opposed to a cure. Repeat business is much better for the bottom line.

This is also why we are are seeing increased use of “fast track” approval of drugs. If I can get my drug that costs $5000 a dose to market three to five years earlier, I can make a ton more of money – probably enough to cover any lawsuits and still leave a tidy profit.

Now I don’t deny anyone the right to make a profit. A little greed is good – it’s what makes us all want to try harder and do a bit better. However, a lot of greed is not so good – it tends to pervert free-enterprise a bit and upsets the balance between free-enterprise and social responsibility.

For a concrete example, I was on a drug that was $5000 per infusion per month. It was a fast-track drug and there were a couple of deaths related to it after the FDA approved it. It was withdrawn for a year while the company negotiated with the FDA. When it came back on the market it was supposed to be a drug of “last resort” – if all the other treatments weren’t working. The doctor I went to set up a new “infusion” room shortly after approval. During the couple of months I was on the drug, all 20 seats were full when I went in. From what I understand they were full every day. It took an hour for the infusion, so total monthly revenue for the infusion center was roughly (20 [people/hour] * 8 [hour/day] * 30 [days/month]) * $5000 [avg. charge/dose] which comes to a gross revenue of 24 million $ a month. Of course there are expenses (cost of the drug (vs retail price), labor, equipment, etc.) that would be deducted, so the doctor wasn’t making $24 mil a month, but that is what was coming out of insurance companies and individuals pockets. Again, this was for a treatment and not a cure.

This is just one isolated instance. Multiply this by a hundredfold for all kinds of different, new treatments (not cures) and you’ll see why health care costs have run amok in this country (and others). I don’t have a solution, but I can remember a day when the profit motive in medicine was not near as prominent and primary as it is now.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa Doom is also way crazier than Dave R. I am not sure how you managed to conflate the two.

• Link
• Report this comment

oldguy: Better enjoy that good old fashioned capitalism now, If Obozo has his way there won’t be any in a few years!!

I am disappointed in you, oldguy. Believing such nonsense even after it has been debunked multiple times.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lynn — “We also must stop paying for drugs that cost $5,000 or more a month to treat psoriasis. The drugs were developed to treat the serious condition of rheumatoid arthritis not the less serious skin condition.”

Excuse me, madam, but you can go take a flying leap. There are plenty of *other* serious diseases those drugs treat — some MUCH more serious than RA — and I’ve *got* one of them.

“If you want the treatment, then pay for it don’t ask your employer, your fellow taxpayers or others to foot your bill.”

Here’s a thought. How about we cover the cost of the MABs for all patients with truly serious, life-threatening diseases, and let those with less-serious, non-life-threatening diseases — like RA — go pay for it themselves? How would that grab you?

RA is a painful and debilitating disease, to be sure, but to claim that because many of the MABs were developed to fight it — and therefore shouldn’t be used to treat other autoimmune conditions — is absolute lunacy IMO.

• Link
• Report this comment

We are learning today because people are sharing their experiences.

Make no mistake, everybody will get sick do this is great stuff.

Of course Uncle Jed is not here to call you liars so that helps.

I think it is up to the individual and their family to make this decision.

Not government or health care insurance companies.

How much is life worth?

If you are pro life, the answer is that is a stupid question.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah, Thulsa is all against government subsidized health care, but all for government subsidized insurance…that same mentality is what’s at work in this health care reform fiasco…nationalize the lot of them and be done with it…you can’t have it both ways…jmo…

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam (and Dave) – talk about a back-handed compliment …

• Link
• Report this comment

I, for one, always comparison-shop whenever I call 911 for an ambulance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sen. Harry Reid Key Player In Big Pharma’s Control Over Washington

• Link
• Report this comment

“in particular those “expected” by the generational government dependent baby factory, contribute nothing to society leeches!!

Question: are you pro-life?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you know any doctors ask them about the perks, trips and kickback the drug dealers lay on them. Wonder why pills cost so much?

• Link
• Report this comment

USisUK-

If you want to be insulted talk to kamchak. It’s obama’s”new tone of civility” that seems to make every Demwit swell with hatred these days. I just said you were clueless as to why healthcare “cost so much”. I’ll stand by that.

Competition doesn’t “solve” everything, but without it you will never see the price of anything go down. It’s called a monopoly.

• Link
• Report this comment

For me It would depend on if the six months were during Fooball season. LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

Baby Mama said I need to eat healthy so I have a right to free hot wings. Why no Hooter’s amendment in obamacare? Free wings for everyone or the terrorists win.

• Link
• Report this comment

What will undoubtedly be the moral dilemma of our time. Who gets how much benefit from public sponsored health and social services. I think all I know for certain is that I wouldn’t want the decision based on profitability. And for the same reason I don’t believe unfettered control of drug pricing by a few mega drug firms is an option either. And in case anyone’s wondering – they have that control because we give it to them in the form of almost unlimited patent protection. In many cases they did not invent the drugs that make them rich, but bought them and price them without competition. Nice work if you can get it.

• Link
• Report this comment

A major problem with insurance is this: When you go to get a regular check-up,all of the tests are covered by your deductable. But, if anything is found, then the whole bill goes toward treatment and you have to foot the bill plus more. This is just one thing that should be addressd in reform. I have no problem with a business making money, but shifting terms in this way should be regulated in order to keep Americans from getting those early tests.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch

June 28th, 2011
11:53 am

Bosch,
Thank you for your words. I’m at a tough spot right now. My basic instinct is to run away as fast as I can until it’s all over. I don’t want to see her waste away. We were a military family and Dad was gone most of the time. She was it. She was our rock growing up. My Sister is dealing with the day to day stuff, but she is worn out. Our kids, grand kids and the rest of the families are looking to me to guide them through this, so there’s no running in my near future. I’m visiting her twice a week now and I know she’s enjoying that, but it’s really hard to be positive all the time. I guess I just have to accept it first, myself, and then I’ll deal with it and the others better. I can do it.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Bosch

“I think you are under the delusion that we libs all are in favor of the HC Bill — I certainly am not because I am painfully aware of all the connections by all politicians from all sides who got their way.”

Considering health care reform is widely viewed as Obama’s greatest accomplishment as president thus far, based on your comments above you must not be very happy with the POTUS??

• Link
• Report this comment

Mike — “Considering health care reform is widely viewed as Obama’s greatest accomplishment as president thus far, based on your comments above you must not be very happy with the POTUS??”

In all seriousness, do you not read our comments? Many of us — possibly *most* of us — aren’t happy with him. But don’t think that that will translate into a wave of Democrats voting for Bachmann or Gingrich or Romney or Cain or whoever it is y’all end up nominating next year.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bosch

“long as some people see healthcare as a privilege instead of a right associated with being a citizen of this country, things will not change — until, of course, a majority of people are not privileged enough”

We as a country do not empathise with our fellow humana beings unlike some other some other countries that do. Unfortunately for those of us who vehemently oppose any form of NHC, there is no guarantee that we will not someday join the ranks of those unable to meet the costs of HC!!!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

@Joe Mama

And Romney is certainly a threat so don’t overlook him… At this point, he will be nominated in my opinion and he is extremely sharp, the debates will be very interesting…

• Link
• Report this comment

Aquagirl: Mama James pimped her baby out and now she has da houze, da joo-rey, and everything money can buy. But her son is a lame a-hole.

For some reason Aquagirl you sound bitter. Mama James worked two Fast food jobs, was homeless, and had a hard time; her life wasn’t a “crystal stair” — nothing was handed to her. Her son had talent, he translated that talent into a profitable enterprise – that’s the American way. He may be a lame a-hole; but he’s a rich lame a-hole and he couldn’t be anymore lame than anyone else who worked for what they had and came up the hard way.

Why all the hate for someone who has done absolutely NOTHING to you nor affected your standard of living one little bit? You wouldn’t be from Cleveland would you? If so, that would explain a lot.

• Link
• Report this comment

Biggest Tax Avoiders Would Win on U.S. Tax Break

Here is your next one Jay- from Bloomberg.

Solution- set a system that is not based on world wide taxable income. Charge a repatriation “toll” of 5-10%.

Let’s get a Clinton type back in the House.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal

St. Elsewhere…

• Link
• Report this comment

I remember , as if it was yesterday, my mother telling me “if I had known it would be like this I wouldn’t have had the chemo”. She was in her mid 70’s and very healthy and then wham! Cancer of the spine and bones. The doctor gave her his best advice and she took it. She got 6 months extra but the cost to her quality of remaining life was horrible. She went from a “pain in her back” to being a limp rag who could barely move around.
So I think what you, Jay, are asking us is the question most Americans want to avoid. When and how are we going to die? Or better, when and how long are we going to live? Americans simply hate to face the fact that we are going to leave this Earth. In my family, from Spain originally, death and conversation about it was always around the dinner table. Not morose, sad, macabre= just a fact of life.
But we Americans who are accustomed to being able to accomplish almost everything we set out minds to can’t seem to overcome death and so we try to delay it by any means and at any cost.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is why government should have nothing to do with health care at all (except for military and veterans). We need medical savings accounts, like IRAs where we save all of our lives for the last months or years of our lives and then we can choose how to spend that money, because it is our own money. Spend it and extend your life, or don’t spend it and pass it to the next generation. Yes, this creates haves and have nots.I for one am tired of paying into a system I never expect to get anything out of it. All of these “programs” were put in place before I was born, so I never got a say. How about this, your money, your choice. You can have minimum coverage or you can have a Cadillac plan… your money, your choice. When its taxpayer money, it’s no longer your choice.
I don’t think taxpayers should be on the hook for life extending drugs or enhancing drugs (viagra). Just mercy care and the rest is on you. Harsh, I understand, but health care is not a function of a federal government.
I appreciate your personal stories, but this problem will not be solved with personal stories. This is solved by a analytical look at how we’re spending money and on whom. At some point you have to ask is this a wise taxpayer investment. For these reasons, the government should be removed and this becomes a discussion of family resources and family investment. Would you give up your inheritance for your relative to have a few months more?Or should my child have to work 3 jobs as an adult to pay the taxes necessary for your relative to have a few months more? Unfortunate, yes, but that’s the point we’ve reached. It’s time for an honest, dispassionate conversation on this issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Joe Mama you clearly misunderstood my comments. Serious conditions should be treated up to point. If the cost of the drug is $500,000 for a 6 month life extension, then no I don’t believe the rest of us should foot the bill.

If you read my comments you will see that I also do not agree that we should pay for treatment of psoriasis with a drug that costs $5,000 or more a month. If you choose that treatment then pay the cost. Psoriasis is not a life threatening condition. Paying $5,000 a month will treat the cosmetic complications of the disease (which a family member has) but it not a cost that should be borne by the rest of society.

National health care will from financial necessity be forced to make these and much harder decisions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal, you hang tough, my brother.

Heartbreak is never easy to take, and all I can do is offer you my compassion.

And to janet’s point (and based on my own experiences), I have no regrets and am not at all worried about the “other side”. I’ve had one helluva great run and will try my damnedest to keep on running for as long as I can, but sooner or later, the race is gonna end.

Then my treasure trove of memories and family and friends will have to succor me.

There’s a life full of pain and a life full of glee
So you see that the rain doesn’t mean much to me
For I know that it pays making light
of living’s tragedies
Make your days be as bright
Take a few of these, the sweeter memories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ctHzyVDFc

• Link
• Report this comment

Normal,

“I can do it.”

I have no doubt.

We got your back.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Healthcare is as much a right as hot wings”

Healthcare is in the process of becoming a right. We’ll get there. It IS “we the people” who decide what we want as rights and what we don’t. And more and more people are beginning to see that making a profit off someone else’s health is reprehensible – especially when making that profit mean denying them the care they need. The it’s despicable.

• Link
• Report this comment

It appears that deciding whose life is worth what is only considered a “death panel” if it’s part of Obama’s health care plan. Because, you know, it makes a cool bumper sticker.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t think the majority of you guys realize what is about to happen to this country. Health care will be the least of our worries.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe the determination should be made on the basis of average life expectancy. Has the man reached this milestone year already? If so, no go on an expensive treatment (unless he wants to pay for it himself) that would only add months to his life.

This could be applied to any number of expensive treatments that would not offer a cure or a better quality of life, but just extend someone’s life by a matter or weeks or months.

If you’ve had a good, long life, you should count your blessings and accept that the inevitable is nigh. Father Time is undefeated.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,
Democrats have at least attempted to address the problems of healthcare and the uninsured, something the Repbublicans are unwilling to do. In my opinion, a large part the problem with healthcare legislation, is that the legislators aren’t actually affected by a unaffordable, or unavailable healthcare. Does anyone actually believe anyone in the House or Senate has to worry about coverage? When providing quality, affordable healthcare becomes a priority in the US, without regard to profit, then the situation will begin to improve. Drug manufacturers, big health insurers and their bought and paid for politicians (Republicans in particular) will stand in the way.

• Link
• Report this comment

Citizen, age should NOT should not be the criteria. I’ve seen folks who were still mowing their lawn with a push mower in their nineties and I’ve seen people in their 60’s who rarely get out of bed. Functional status and comorbid conditions would be a much better paramter since it probably correlates with likelihood of success of the treatment as well as quality of life of the individual.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Gator Joe

Sorry, you need to do some research, Democrats as well are in bed with drug companies, it’s real simple, look it up and I think you might learn something… Start with Harry Reid…

• Link
• Report this comment

Mike,

Your partisan rants do help anybody.

Your party bows down to insurance companies and you know it.

Give it a rest.

• Link
• Report this comment

JKL2: “You want the government to pay for everything while my point is why does the US spend a single dime on it? Healthcare is as much a right as hot wings. If you want to make it affordable, get the government out of it.”

Then would you support abolishing the law forbidding emergency care from being refused to an indigent person or someone who can’t prove ability to pay out of pocket?

If not, then you’ll have to swallow your argument and join those of us who argue that health care is as much a right as a basic education.

• Link
• Report this comment

No doubt about it Mike, but I believe Democrats have done more to address the problems with healthcare and the uninsured than have Republicans.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention; IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

It’s maws birthday and we are going for a nice drive and some Dawsonville Varsity. Yummm!

• Link
• Report this comment

We need to start a grassroots push to force the congress critters to give up their public healthcare it they are not willing to allow all of us to have it. Let them pay out of their pockets the way we do.

I just looked into my employer provided healthcare. After retirement, the cost triples.

So, all of you free market crazies, how in the world does my risk increase one day after retirement that my premiums should triple?

• Link
• Report this comment

I hate to break it to all of you who think the drug company is evil for wanting to make money, but the only reason they have the drug is because they spent a lot of money figuring out how to make the drug. The guy who developed the AIDS drugs used by around 90 percent of the AIDS population is not hurting for money. Eventually, the cost because small for those drugs, but he was definitely able to recoup the investment and more so. He works at Emory by the way.

But for some reason people view healthcare as this product that is supposed to be given away to people because it seems to be the moral thing to do. What other aspect of life is this the thought? Do we give away big homes to people because they have a large family but no place to live? Do we give people cars because they need to work at a job that requires them to drive? Why do we make healthcare something different? Ahh…because of the great liberal equalizer – FEELINGS. It FEELS wrong to not give another human being the best shot at healthcare. Ironically, we let these same people starve and go homeless everyday, but when it comes to $500,000 drugs then somehow the drug company is evil for not taking care of these folks.

I hate to break it to you, but we don’t live in an equal world. And no matter how much someone like Jay or Obama say the word “fair”, reality isn’t. And instead of motivating people to get out and help each other – like setting up a non-profit organization that can accept donations to then provide care or drugs for free – we have articles like this one that hint at (and sometimes just blatantly say) the idea that wealthy people owe it to poor people to help. And they demonize the wealthy person and make it seem like wealthy people or companies are trying to kill poor people. Such arguments just create a totally different problem instead of provide the solution.

The most ironic thing, in my opinion, is that liberals have done all they can to kill Christianity in this country. And it is the Christian mindset they wish everyone would have. Help those in need. Give to the poor. If a man needs a coat, give him your own. But liberals are not into motivating people to do anything. They are all about forcing them through taxation and regulation. I admire their goals, but their methodology is all wrong.

Telling my sister she was a horrible sister because she didn’t give me a part of her candy bar never worked. Coming up with a way to coax her into believing it was a good idea or I would give her a benefit in return for a piece of the candy did. This is how life works. Nobody gives you money for nothing (typically). You work (the benefit), they pay you (the candy bar). Again, because we FEEL bad about it, we think healthcare is different. But it is not.

• Link
• Report this comment

Is it 2012: “Anyone notice the riots in Greece? This will be us in 2013 if we don’t face the situation now and stop our spending and start making our own cuts ..”

The riots in Greece are precisely BECAUSE of said cuts, dude! Are you really that misinformed? Or are you just willfully so?

Here’s a plan: allow ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire (not just those on the top brackets) and that will MORE than get us on the way back to manageable debt-to-GDP ratios in the middle term

But why is such a reasonable suggestion as that not even light years from being thinkable, let alone doable, in the current climate? Because we have a POLITICAL crisis, that’s why. And that’s why you’ll reject the very suggestion. Because that’s what you’ve been told to think.

• Link
• Report this comment

Your cost triples in retirement because you are not benefiting the company anymore. Why do you think your company should pay for your healthcare after you are not working there? You should have planned years ago to assume this cost on your own.

What do you do for others for free? Do you give away all of your own personal “profit” to those who need it? I doubt it, so quit making that the expectation for others. Work with your OWN money, quit telling others what they should do with theirs, including your company.

And by the way – government regulation makes it illegal for an insurance company to operate across state lines, hence the huge overhead costs since they have to basically have a “company” in every state. Want lower costs? Get rid of that regulation!

• Link
• Report this comment

The President’s health care bill was the best bill that could pass corrupt congress.

It is more corporate welfare with a mandate for more corporate welfare.

Pure and simple.

• Link
• Report this comment

mm –

Exactly how many drugs have you brought to market? Do you have any idea how much it costs? Because of the FDA, do you have any idea how LONG it takes??

Quit with your conspiracy theories about drug companies lying to people. I work in the healthcare industry. It’s not free nor is it easy thanks to organizations like the FDA to come up with a new treatment or drug. And to say that an organization or group of people need to go through all of that and then not benefit from it is stupid. Do you show up at your job and turn down the paycheck? Do you tell them they pay you too much? Didn’t think so. The reason people are willing to work hard to discover anything (the car, train, etc.) is not just because they want to make your life better.

• Link
• Report this comment

Moderate Line: “It does not address cost which is the problem.”

At the risk of getting overly legalistic here, you said “neither side addresses it”, which is what I’m taking exception to. However tentatively the Affordable Care Act attempts to move us towards effective cost control in health care, it nonetheless at least represents an attempt to address it, which is more than can be said of the right which only ever proposes doubling down on the disastrous private system we now have and which has gotten us to the current impasse.

• Link
• Report this comment

JKL2

“If you want to make it affordable, get the government out of it.”

As the saying goes …….” Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”

Brush up on your knowledge of Govt HC systems!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

To ALL of you, aching for your Mommas today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB1-1zuDGJ0

• Link
• Report this comment

josef
June 28th, 2011
12:08 pm
Yeah, Thulsa is all against government subsidized health care, but all for government subsidized insurance…that same mentality is what’s at work in this health care reform fiasco…nationalize the lot of them and be done with it…you can’t have it both ways…jmo…

Josef,

You’re an educated guy. But you’re not a mind reader.

I’m not opposed to all govt subsidized health care- you would be surprised what I’m in favor of such as govt funding of small health clinics or mini clinics in poor neighborhoods that could treat patients for very nominal or zero co-pays as opposed to treating them in an ER room.

Secondly I’m not all for govt subsidizing health insurance plans. That just happens to be the model right now in Medicare and it works with some effectiveness because the health plans themselves do a good job of delivering the health care and because they are incentivized to keep the individual healthy. Is it perfect? No. But it certainly beats a single payer, fully funded govt system where cancer survival rates are substantially lower than in the U.S.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam
June 28th, 2011
1:05 pm
“Death Panels” have another name: “Health Insurance Companies.”
Repeal and Replace should be: Repeal ACA and replace with Single Payer, abolishing health insurance companies.

Adam,

Just another statement of profound ignorance not to mention baseless, emotional rhetoric. Unfortunately I’ve come to expect only that from you.

And I suppose we could go to a national health system if enough folks voted for it. But you can’t simply abolish health insurance companies. They have as much a right to exist and sell a product as McDonalds does. If you don’t like them then don’t purchase their product. Problem solved.

• Link
• Report this comment

“And I suppose we could go to a national health system if enough folks voted for it. But you can’t simply abolish health insurance companies. ”

exactly so –

the different, of course, is that then health insurance companies are a NICE to have, not a NEED to have.

• Link
• Report this comment

We need to start a grassroots push to force the congress critters to give up their public healthcare it they are not willing to allow all of us to have it. Let them pay out of their pockets the way we do.

It may surprise you to learn, Wimpy, that there isn’t a “public healthcare,” unless you’re talking about Medicare. All federal employees, including members of Congress and the President, must choose from among some 25 health insurance plans or HMOs. These health plans include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, United Healthcare, Aetna, etc. They must pay a share of the premium, just as employees of businesses do.

But don’t let the facts get in the way of your anti-government rant. Keep on believing that there’s a public healthcare plan that doesn’t charge covered employees anything and certainly never requires co-pays or deductibles. If that’s what you want to believe, go for it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Robbing Peter to pay Paul’s hospital bills only ensures that Peter won’t have anything left when his hospital bill comes due”

But that is a false comparison. We aren’t “robbing Peter to pay Paul” – we’re “robbing” (not) maybe 100,000 Peters to help Paul overcome his health issues. And when any other of those 100,000 Peter’s beccomes a “Paul” – there will be 100,000 Peters helping to pay for HIS health issues as well.

It is not, and never will be, a one-to-one issue.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa, USinUK: “And I suppose we could go to a national health system if enough folks voted for it. But you can’t simply abolish health insurance companies. ”

Precisely. Which is why I — in agreement with Marx — believe that democracy is overrated. Private interests first have to be neutralized before you can have true democracy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Anyone notice the riots in Greece?
This will be us in 2013 if we don’t face the situation now and stop our spending and start making our own cuts….

And with that, you obviously missed the reason the riots are taking place. Hint: It’s because of the CUTS.

• Link
• Report this comment

“you can have true democracy”

You can never have “true democracy” because true democracy = mob rule – anarchy. There is no “pure” political system that is perfect, which is why they ALL have some form of checks and balances. And why those checks and balances are needed.

• Link
• Report this comment

WhateverMan: But for some reason people view healthcare as this product that is supposed to be given away to people because it seems to be the moral thing to do. What other aspect of life is this the thought?

Police, fire, roads, infrastructure….

Basically anything that uses taxes, instead of private interests, to get the job done.

Oh, I’m sorry, were you trying to say that we wanted it without paying for it AT ALL? Please do indicate where any of us said that.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Joe Mama – I never said these drugs should be limited to RA treatment only.”

And I didn’t say that you did. But you keep referring to “the serious condition of rheumatoid arthritis” and pointing out that the drugs you’re talking about were developed to treat it, as if those drugs shouldn’t be used on *other* autoimmune diseases. Your rhetoric makes it look like you’re saying ‘other diseases shouldn’t be treated with the drugs that were specifically developed to treat RA.’ I don’t think that’s what you mean, which is why I’ve been asking you questions and asking you to clarify your position.

“And I am sure you will find those suffering from RA disagreeing that this disease is just “arthritis”.

Just as I’m sure those suffering from various forms of psioriasis would disagree that it’s just a ’skin condition.’ I try not to diss others’ health problems. FWIW, I’ve got several relatives with RA, and I am sympathetic to those suffering from it.

“I agree that this drug should be used to treat autoimmune diseases that are debilitating.”

Good. I’m pleased to hear that. Seriously.

“My point which you keep overlooking is that psoriasis is not a debilitating disease and to pay for the treatment of this condition at $5,000 a month is not what health care should be paying for whether it is the government or an insurance company.”

I’m not overlooking that at all. My point — which you keep overlooking — is that as autoimmune diseases go (which is what many RA drugs were developed for), RA is *far* from the worst. There are plenty that are way, way worse.

“And again, you misunderstand what will happen with the real life example Jay has given us of a drug that does cost this much. Insurance companies will exclude drugs and treatments deemed experimental.”

Don’t they already do that?

“There will be insurance companies who will cover this drug and employers who will be forced to provide the coverage as well due to the current restrictions on plan design changes under the current regulations with PPACA (Obamacare).”

Okay. And your issue with that is what, precisely?

“You seem to want to argue about your condition and treating this condition.”

Not at all. I’m more concerned with you labeling psioriasis a mere ’skin condition’ when RA isn’t a life-threatening disease itself.

“Without revealing the condition, can you tell us what the monthly cost to you and to the insurance company/Medicare is to treat this condition?”

Actually, I’ll come right out and tell you. It’s called Ulcerative Pancolitis. And I’m not taking the immunosuppressant meds any more, as I underwent a proctocolectomy last fall. For those of you keeping score, this is what Tony Snow had — but he didn’t get it treated, so it led to colon cancer and eventually killed him. I had it for about two years from onset of symptoms to major abdominal surgery.

At this point, the monthly cost is a few hundred dollars, as I’ve had an ileostomy and now crap in a bag. I’m no longer on medication for the condition (as my colon is gone), but insurance does pay 100% for the ostomy supplies (bags, adhesives, skin protectant, cleaning items).

“Does the treatment cure your condition or does it alleviate symptoms?”

When I was taking Humira, it gave me *some* relief from symptoms, but not a lot. Remicade made me horrendously sick.

“Again, I an not saying your condition should not be treated. Treatment and alleviation of symptoms are the reason to take these drugs. My argument concerned $5,000 a month to treat psoriasis.”

If you’re taking a dose of Humira each week, that’s about $5K a month. And Humira treats lots of different autoimmune diseases — but most of them have no cure. There was a surgical option available to me that would have significant, lasting results and would relieve my pain. There was a pharmaceutical option available to me that would probably last a few years at most, and which may or may not give me symptomatic relief. I gave the meds the best part of a year; they offered a marginal improvement in my symptoms.

So last fall, I had the d**n thing taken out. Now it doesn’t hurt any more.

• Link
• Report this comment

WhateverMan — “I love your idea – allow people to not pay into SS and have their own accounts. Good deal – done!”

I didn’t say anything whatsoever about SS. I specifically indicated that I was referring to Flexible Spending Plans. Are you familiar with them?

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK: the different, of course, is that then health insurance companies are a NICE to have, not a NEED to have.

I would prefer completely unnecessary. Or rules placed on them that they would have to cover anyone no matter what.

Health Care should not be a for profit venture. It is the reason we spend more on it than any other country, and get less out of it per person.

• Link
• Report this comment

The key here is do we expect health-care companies, providers,etc… to be profitable? If we do, then we have to expect them to do all they can to make money. They are owned by shareholders who expect a lot in return for their investment. Those of us lucky to have 401Ks probably have some type of investment in health insurance companies, health care etc…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Here’s a plan: allow ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire (not just those on the top brackets) and that will MORE than get us on the way back to manageable debt-to-GDP ratios in the middle term”

Proof positive that government education in mathematics has failed miserably.

• Link
• Report this comment

Doggone/GA :

Did you know that our Republic is a “States Rights” Republic ?

And it has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment !

• Link
• Report this comment

PGS: If we do, then we have to expect them to do all they can to make money.

Including their own death panels that determine when to cut off recipients one the basis of nothing more than monetary greed.

• Link
• Report this comment

We need more money for healthcare for the illegals. You know they are a burden on taxpayers but they do have a right to invade our country. Just ask the Federal Judges !!!

• Link
• Report this comment

I would prefer completely unnecessary. Or rules placed on them that they would have to cover anyone no matter what.

Health Care should not be a for profit venture. It is the reason we spend more on it than any other country, and get less out of it per person.

Amen! Until my wife had her stroke, I had no idea about the sheer number of leeches who lurk in the healthcare industry, ready to pounce on your misfortune to make a buck. Nationalize the entire industry and get rid of the health insurance companies.

• Link
• Report this comment

Scout: “………… and that takes the murder of millions of “resisters” !”

No it doesn’t. It takes awakening the majority to the fact that they needn’t perpetuate a system that is unsustainable and unjust. Then we’ll see just how small the numbers are of those who are the true resistors — those who benefit most from that system and refuse to part with those benefits.

Doggone: “You can never have “true democracy” because true democracy = mob rule – anarchy. There is no “pure” political system that is perfect, which is why they ALL have some form of checks and balances. And why those checks and balances are needed.”

Ah ye of little faith!

Careful, Doggone, that you don’t get too caught up in the belief in the ‘purity’ of your vigilance against an overhasty attempt to usher in ‘pure’ democracy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam

June 28th, 2011
1:59 pm

USinUK: the different, of course, is that then health insurance companies are a NICE to have, not a NEED to have.

I would prefer completely unnecessary. Or rules placed on them that they would have to cover anyone no matter what.- Adam

Adam,

Obamacare does away with pre-existing conditions and so therefore a health plan has to take just about everyone. Of course you’re going to pay obscenely sky high rates as a result. It would be like buying car insurance after you had the accident. Don’t you understand that the cost would therefore be substantially higher for everyone?

Health Care should not be a for profit venture. It is the reason we spend more on it than any other country, and get less out of it per person.- Adam

Says who? You? So now you have a right to a doctor and nurses and hospitals services at other taxpayers expense because you decide it should be a right?

Also we spend more than other countries not because of the profit incentive but because of a myriad number of reasons- an aging population, the cost of new drugs and technologies being born by Americans while the rest of the world piggybacks off of us, increased costs due to our litigation culture and defensive medicine.

• Link
• Report this comment

I thought I heard a buzzing fly and I swatted for a while. I’m not sure I got him but he seems to have gone away. I think he just wanted some attention.

• Link
• Report this comment

Y’all forget that according to Herman Cain who is a conservative “know nothing” we are guaranteed the right to “the pursuit of happiness” Does that right not include unlimited drugs and medical care regardless of who pays????? A true consevative would know why it is in the Declaration of Independence and not in the Constitution.

Of course any one versed in the Constitution knows there is no right guaranteed there for unlimited happiness. That is why this country is so messed up- everyone thinks they have the right to unlimited profits, greed, health care, housing, food, farm subsidies etc
.But hey if you believe that you have a constitutional right to pursue unlimited happiness -no amount of health care and drugs will make you or your family happy and no one can limit that god given right. That’s why we are no. 37 in quality of health care.

• Link
• Report this comment

josef,

Well we certainly don’t and won’t agree on everything. We are a compassionate society- even us cons, that wants to see all people treated with the most basic of care. Personally I don’t mind paying a little extra tax to make sure that the poor among us as well as all children have access to routine care. I suspect where we differ is in how that care is delivered in the most efficient manner.

And I do believe Jay has touched on what I think is the crux of the debate. We as a society do in fact spend an inordinate amount of money on end of life care and on costly drugs, new techniques and medical devices, etc. And while this makes our health care system the best in the world it also means we have the most expensive system in the world. There is no way around it. If we want all this we are going to either have to ante up and pay for it or start rationing care in one form or another on end of life expenses.

• Link
• Report this comment

“everyone thinks they have the right to unlimited profits, greed, health care, housing, food, farm subsidies etc”

I guess you’ll have to stop using that “everyone” because I, for one, do not believe that. That means NOT EVERYONE believes it.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Or is all of your hate directed at only Insurance companies?”

There’s nothing wrong with insurance companies making a profit. But HOW they make that profit can be, and is, open for criticism. Just as it is for any other company.

• Link
• Report this comment

thomas,

Don’t forget tobacco companies, auto manufacturers, candy makers, pool makers, bicycle makers, motorcycle makers, jetski and skiboat makers, football, b-ball equipment mfgers, any sporting good company mfging anything such as skiboards, etc. basically any company that produces a product which can injure or kill people shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit since they all add to the cost of health care.

• Link
• Report this comment

Love all of the Monday morning QBs about what should be done with those diagnosed with cancer or some other disease where the treatment costs are in the tens of thousands per month. I’m sure that all of you brave souls will just go out in the backyard, grab some dirt and rub it on your sore place. Not likely…..you’ll be queued up at the infusion room just like all of the rest no matter the costs.

“The statement that the drug only extends life for up to 6 months” may be true but then again it may not and the doctors cannot predict what type of response you’ll have. Statistics are for groups….in the cancer world, ignore stats ’cause they are depressing and sometimes grossly wrong. I know many Stage IV patients who have been Stage IV for several years…was the cost of their treatment worth it…you betcha!!

When you time comes, in the cancer world, you’ll know. You don’t need an insurance company, gov’t death panel to tell you that further treatment is hopeless. I know someone who has chosen hospice and stopped all treatments. They knew when they didn’t respond and the tumors continued to grow and spread in spite of costly and painful treatments.

Do yourself a favor and go visit a chemo room and talk with some patients. Ask your questions and listen carefully to their responses. You’ll find most are just ordinary people trying their best to stay alive and beat an unrelenting foe, cancer. They are not the “money grubbing…stay alive at all costs” folks that many of you seem to think occupy the chemo rooms. I am one of these folks. I am a cancer patient with melanoma Stage III; kidney cancer…left kidney removed; and lung cancer, non-smoker, with upper left lobe of lung removed. My battle has been for 10 years but thankfully I am still here. Don’t make us to be the evil ones who’ll cling to life at any cost. Some of you will probably find out when you enter the cancer world. Jay’s chart doesn’t tell the true story but only the statistical story. Be sure to send Jay the facts and decisions made in your specific case when your time comes…..the human side of the story.

• Link
• Report this comment

From Disgusted: It may surprise you to learn, Wimpy, that there isn’t a “public healthcare,” unless you’re talking about Medicare………………… They must pay a share of the premium, just as employees of businesses do. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your anti-government rant. Keep on believing that there’s a public healthcare plan that doesn’t charge covered employees anything and certainly never requires co-pays or deductibles. If that’s what you want to believe, go for it.

I’m confused. Why are you mad at me? I just wanted a hamburger.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet:

No ……… I want all radical Islamists killed.

Radical Muslims (many which are here in the U.S. preaching their jihad) I would be happy to just have locked up !

……………………………….

• Link
• Report this comment

Matti, to your point,

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) uses data from IMS, a firm specializing in pharmaceutical market intelligence, to conclude that pharmaceutical companies spend $29.6 billion on R&D and $27.7 billion for all promotional activities (data from 2004).

3) Most of the industry’s new products were no more effective than established drugs on the market.

Throw in GARGANTUAN salaries for the fat cats who run the show and some serious swindling of Uncle Sam, and voila!

The perfect storm of BIG business malfeasance…

• Link
• Report this comment

Left wing management,

Absolutely I understand the idea of a risk pool and the law of large numbers. But here is where you are wrong with Obamacare. Obamacare mandates certain coverages such as coverage for pregnancy, mental health, alcohol and drug abuse treatment, etc. It is similar to the difference between individual health insurance and group health insurance. If I do a quote for a group of 5 people vs 5 individuals the individuals are going to pay roughly 60-70% as individuals as what they would pay as a group plan. Why? Because they can pick and choose what they want in their plan whereas the group plan doesn’t give them a choice. The group plan covers more but consequently the costs are going to be higher for everyone.Same as with Obamacare. More people will be covered and more conditions covered but it will be at a substantially higher cost to everyone.

• Link
• Report this comment

thomas: “Are you Ok with Food Companies making a profit? / Or is all of your hate directed at only Insurance companies?”

As we’ve pointed out on here ad nauseam, there is no comparison between food and health care as insurable products/services. As Krugman et al. have pointed out — and as we know, Krugman is a perfectly honest broker here, and if you try to dispute his view on this then you are deluded and in need of re-education — health care is the quintessential example of an INEFFICIENT market, primarily because information sharing for the average consumer is impossible (”hey I hear Emory Hospital’s got a great deal on stints right now”), therefore there’s no ability for the market to function as a free market.

• Link
• Report this comment

“therefore there’s no ability for the market to function as a free market.”

yup, as long as it is the most regulated industry by government any talk about using free market forces to lower prices in healthcare is just a waste of time

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam:

Yep …………. it’s called “terroristic threats”.

You can get locked up for yelling “I’m gonna punch you in the nose” to your neighbor right here in
Georgia ……………. happens everyday ……….. welcome to the real world !

• Link
• Report this comment

NATO is killing them by the droves yet you try to undermine our troops in time of war, Scout?

Don’t you think they read about how you peaceniks are hurting our boys’ morale?

Tsk, tsk. Billy “Loofah” O’Reilly would say that is un-American.

According to him, once the bombs start falling, you need to shut up. (LOL)

• Link
• Report this comment

RedEye: yup, as long as it is the most regulated industry by government any talk about using free market forces to lower prices in healthcare is just a waste of time

Agreed. It should be a national system paid for through taxes instead.

• Link
• Report this comment

eddie -

Remember this eddie.
No government parasite EVER helped you ONE bit.In fact …government bureaucrats hampered your effort of survival EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
.
Doctors, family, businessmen, and you ,yourself , are responsible for your heroic struggle.
.
Good luck Sir. …and for your heir’s sake(if any)….vote freedom..vote Ron Paul.

• Link
• Report this comment

Left wing- join those of us who argue that health care is as much a right as a basic education.

Wow, another department the federal government is totally inept at controlling and needs to get out of. Can we talk about how the Dept of Energy has eliminated our dependance on foreign oil next?

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam,

As long as it can get funded without raising taxes..I’m all for that

• Link
• Report this comment

health care is the quintessential example of an INEFFICIENT market, primarily because information sharing for the average consumer is impossible (”hey I hear Emory Hospital’s got a great deal on stints right now”), therefore there’s no ability for the market to function as a free market.- Leftwingmanagement

Completely untrue. You can shop for docs and services all day long and get substantially lower rates by paying private pay. I have a client who works at a docs office. She does her own shopping and needed an MRI. Rather than paying $2500 at a hospital she found mri of georgia and paid 300 or 500 I don’t remember which. Lot of docs will take $50 cash co-pays to see you and several are now going to plans where you pay a flat monthly fee such as $50/month for a family and have unlimited copay visits of $15-20 per visit. In other words they are getting rid of the middle man- the insurance plan which is a good thing. And if you call around you will also get varying costs on what what you pay for a mammogram- anywhere from $200- $800 to free screenings. Health insurance should be just like car insurance where it covers the catastrophic and unexpected events such as cancer, etc but where the patient pays for routine care such as doc visits,etc. You don’t expect your car insurance to pay for new tires or oil changes do you?

• Link
• Report this comment

RedEye: Of course taxes will have to go up. But is that go up from the current levels, or up from the Clinton rates, or up in the form of loophole closing… etc etc. We already spend more than we take in, and until we take in more than we spend we won’t be able to implement a new program.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not so, Adam.

Tax rate INCREASES are off the table, and should be. Nothing could be worse for the “recovery” than to raise income tax rates.

However, the GOP is willing to look at removing subsidies and closing loopholes to clean up the tax code and provide more consistent revenues.

• Link
• Report this comment

doggone- It is not, and never will be, a one-to-one issue

Social Security says, “What?”

• Link
• Report this comment

Regardless of the dilemma government controlled healthcare is the worse solution.

• Link
• Report this comment

for those of you talking about price transparency for healthcare, here is an article discussing a state bill in Florida which will require urgent care clinics to display costs for procedures. however, the prices are for those who are paying in cash, and not for insured patients

http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/some-florida-urgent-care-clinics-will-be-required-to-post-prices-for/1177493

• Link
• Report this comment

“Regardless of the dilemma government controlled healthcare is the worse solution.”

Perhaps so, which is exactly why single payer is a great answer…

• Link
• Report this comment

living will
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: a document in which the signer requests to be allowed to die rather than be kept alive by artificial means if disabled beyond a reasonable expectation of recovery.

How can you call that a LIVING WILL?

• Link
• Report this comment

RedEye: Your figures indicate that tax revenue has gone down and spending has gone up. This is true. My question, though, is how you can then reconcile that ONLY spending decreases must be talked about FIRST. I have no faith in the GOP “Tax Cut and Spend” agenda machine deciding that they will reverse tax cuts or implement any tax revenues AFTER they get their way on spending cuts. I say they put up or shut up, by implementing spending cuts AND tax revenue increases in the SAME legislation. Not one after the other, where they can renege on the deal any time.

• Link
• Report this comment

“How can you call that a LIVING WILL?”

Because the wishes in that will are enforced while you are still alive, rather than post-death.

• Link
• Report this comment

nevermind, I misread the living will thing

• Link
• Report this comment

Outlaw BIG pharma?

No.

I’d be happy to just reign in their collusion, price fixing, vote buying/bribery and litany of criminal indictments…

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’d be happy to just reign in their collusion, price fixing, vote buying/bribery and litany of criminal indictments…”

Oh, so you’d just like to outlaw Congress . . .

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa, AmVet: “Outlaw BIG pharma? / No. / I’d be happy to just reign in their collusion, price fixing, vote buying/bribery and litany of criminal indictments”

Yeah I wouldn’t either, at least not for now. Throw shackles around their ankles and lock them in the dungeon, use their waste to fertilize the garden.

You may have some good points on the areas of coverage, Thulsa. I’m not up on where the psychiatric, pregnancy, and other types of coverage fits into the pricing and cost schemes, but my sense is there is going to be a good deal of flexibility needed on these matters.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife,

Get a grip. Private health plans will always be with us. Public plans don’t work- just ask England which is moving in the exact opposite direction as us and is moving more towards privatized reforms. They’ve been there, done that, and it doesn’t work.

• Link
• Report this comment

Adam

June 28th, 2011
2:23 pm

Starvation may not be that much of a factor but you must be smart enough to admit that the foods they put into their body certainly raises the cost of their health insurance.

So its simple, we should eliminate the ability of any company to make a profit if that companies product causes the cost of ones health insurance to become more expensive.

Starvation is not the only thing that comes from not being able to afford healthy food. Buying healthy food is actually not an opition for many people who do not make alot of money. Filler food is much cheaper and is what you see as the majority selcetion at most major grocery stores. There are some, very few, that carry truely healty no preservatives or additives types of foods, but they are very hard to find, and are even more expensive.

Seems the cost of health care would go way down if we could just eliminate people’s freedom to choose what to eat and what to do with their own body, as we Americans have shown our selves incappable of being able to make appropriate decisions, like budgeting for health care and such! Or planning ahead to ensure ourselves are marketable to the types of jobs which would include HC as part of the benefits package. Or simply deciding ahead of time, as in before someone gets sick or hurt, that health insurance may be more important than cable TV, or internet, or cell phones, or even a car.

Life’s about decisions, and sometimes people make the wrong one. i do not punish others when I make a bad choice, I should not be punished or responsible when others make bad choices either.

• Link
• Report this comment

“This is where I mention that, aside from New Zealand, I believe the USA is the only country on the planet that permits advertising for prescription medicine.”

Yeah, that whole pesky “Freedom of Speech” thing is such a downer, isn’t it?

• Link
• Report this comment

Private health plans will always be with us. Public plans don’t work- just ask England

None of the dozens, nay, hundreds I’ve heard speaking from the left side of the aisle in the USA on this topic, is proposing that we actually socialize the delivery system; rather, the insurance system.

I think you know that the UK’s NHS is not equal to Canada’s provincially-based Medicare systems.

And if you ask the English if they’d trade their system for ours, I think you’ll get very few takers.

• Link
• Report this comment

that whole pesky “Freedom of Speech” thing is such a downer

So you’re seriously suggesting that the reason we began permitting the direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs, back in the 80s, was because we were just such a freedom lovin’ bunch we just hadda?

go on, pull the other one…

• Link
• Report this comment

Now if we could only disallow the lawyers from advertising. You know- the ambulance chasers that want you to call them everytime you have a fender bender or anytime you don’t feel good and you suspect it could be the medication you’re taking. Looks like the ambulance chasers have plenty of free speech.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So you’re seriously suggesting that the reason we began permitting the direct advertising to consumers of prescription drugs, back in the 80s, was because we were just such a freedom lovin’ bunch we just hadda?”

No, I’m saying that we have no Constitutional justification to prohibit said advertising.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t suppose it’d help to mention that our foolish tendency to allow more-or-less unregulated, unplanned residential development combined with a fossil fuel industry that literally writes legislation for us, plays a pretty significant role in America’s obesity rates, since Americans basically drive everywhere rather than walking or biking? And that if we addressed that as well, it’d probably drive down our healthcare costs?

• Link
• Report this comment

stands, your 3:10 doesn’t work in real life.

We planned out “live-play-work” communities with centralized retail and sidewalks and bike paths and nobody used them much more than non-planned communities.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R: No, it doesn’t. Bad idea in the middle of a supposed “recovery” for anybody.

That’s only if you buy into the idea that people making over a certain amount of money and paying more income tax on that extra money is going to hurt the economy. Which it won’t. Those people aren’t exactly giving jobs away with the tax cuts they’ve already been given, so just roll them back. It won’t hurt them and the US will have a little more revenue. It certainly won’t statistically significantly hurt job creation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Obamacare was rushed through in the middle of the night in secret without anyone knowing what was in it.

Not Intended to be a Factual Statement.

• Link
• Report this comment

WhateverMan — “I have no problem with free speech nor someone else’s opinion. I do have a problem when their free speech and their opinion ends up taking from my pocket and yours.”

Well, that’s a shame. Freedom of speech protects even freedom that upsets you, and there’s not a lot you can do about it.

“And I agree, if your original agreement with a company said the retirement benefits were to be a certain way, then you have an argument to be upset with your company. However, if those benefits were dependent upon the success of the company being at a certain level and the company doesn’t achieve that or economic reasons cause it to be different, it is unrealistic to think they can live up to everything as promised.”

If the company doesn’t achieve that level of success, do you think that failure is the company’s or the individual employee’s? More to the point, if the company doesn’t think it can deliver on those benefit promises, then perhaps it shouldn’t be making them.

“It is actually remarkable that companies provide healthcare at all. In fact, it might be that the overall price would be lower just by having it up to individuals versus large company contracts.”

I doubt it; the pricing power of large or collective buyers far outstrips the pricing power of individuals. There’s a reason Costco is cheaper than Racetrac on potato chips and anything else they both happen to carry.

“And your argument about insurance regulation doesn’t make sense. I don’t care what government regulation it is (federal, state, local), it doesn’t change the fact that it is regulation that causes this increased expense.”

Given that the regulation you’re complaining about is a collection of 50 different sets of *state* regulations, maybe you could work on getting one state to drop theirs?

No?

Maybe they realize that dropping those regulations (while other states still have them) wouldn’t be in the best interest of their citizens.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yep, take those Ken Nugent scumbag ads back off the air.

“But you’re cool with a Fast Food commercial every 4th one, or a Soda company, or alcohol ads?”

Nope and fight back the best way I know how. I don’t buy that disgusting fast food crap, or that awful Unreal Thing (or any of it’s cola cousins) or drink pitiable cheap swill. And no matter how many times they try to convince me that “he can’t be a man ’cause he doesn’t smoke the same cigarettes as me.”, I’ve been wise to their Madison Avenue/Hollywood trash since I was a pup listening to the mid 60s Rolling Stones.

For gawdsakes, lots of folks sit around and watch the friggin’ commercials during the Super Bowl???!!!

You’ve got to be shiite-ing me. I walk out of the room.

I will not be manipulated.

• Link
• Report this comment

We planned out “live-play-work” communities with centralized retail and sidewalks and bike paths

good lord, this bit of revisionist history is even sillier than the notion that we flog boner-pills on teevee because we love that Freedom of Speech.

• Link
• Report this comment

Maybe we should eliminate the freedom of any company that contributes to our sedentary lifestyle.

I would be in favor of forced internment of people who consistently indulge in false dichotomies.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet

June 28th, 2011
3:20 pm

then why do you watch the drug company ones?

are you saying it is your responsibility to make your own choices and then…… deal with the consequences of those choices, like not eating fast food and drinking soda?

Or are the people who are fooled by those commercials just too dumb to make a good decision in your opinion?

• Link
• Report this comment

1811 — “You can get locked up for yelling “I’m gonna punch you in the nose” to your neighbor right here in Georgia”

Voice of experience?

• Link
• Report this comment

“good lord, this bit of revisionist history is even sillier than the notion that we flog boner-pills on teevee because we love that Freedom of Speech.”

Reading comprehension continues to be your weak suit, stands.

However, I have 4 years of government service and decades of planning training that pretty much backs up my statement.

You?

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2011
3:10 pm
“I don’t suppose it’d help to mention that our foolish tendency to allow more-or-less unregulated, unplanned residential development combined with a fossil fuel industry that literally writes legislation for us, plays a pretty significant role in America’s obesity rates, since Americans basically drive everywhere rather than walking or biking? And that if we addressed that as well, it’d probably drive down our healthcare costs?”

I would point out our forefathers walked everywhere and died in their 30’s. But you are right about one thing. Their health care costs were low. No Big Macs either. Clean air and plenty of exercise. I think I’ll take my bergers and pollution, thank you.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet

June 28th, 2011
3:24 pm

Go back and read through the comments, it has been mentioned directly more than once, and indirectly more than twice…..

No need to call names you can read!

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay

June 28th, 2011
3:23 pm
“Go look at the charts showing obesity rates and the WHO’s health system rankings.

Weird how the countries with high obesity ratings are usually in the lower rankings of the WHO, while those countries with very low obesity rates seem to also be at the top of the WHO’s rankings……

Weird!”

You know what’s weird, Thomas? When Michelle Obama makes that same point and tries to encourage people to exercise and eat smarter, she gets accused by conservatives of meddling and dictating and all kinds of other bad things.

THAT’S weird.

I will tell you what is weird. She is about 30 pounds overweight telling me how to eat.

• Link
• Report this comment

Health care is already rationed–by money. Would it be more equitable to ration it on the basis of need? This would mean taking profit out of the system. But even then, some drugs are more costly to produce than others and even socialized systems ration health care partially by cost.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mighty Righty

“will tell you what is weird. She is about 30 pounds overweight telling me how to eat”

Face it she is gorgeous ,articulate, brilliant and, oh yes, her husband is now the president!!!! Choke on it!

• Link
• Report this comment

The competitive market does not work well in medical care for several reasons:
1. The incidence of the need for it is very unpredictable for most of us. The exception is for those who have conditions which make it predictable that they will need a lot of it.
2. The fact that expenses can run very high means that you have to have an insurance policy if you can get one.
3. If you have a serious medical condition you may not be able to get one. You absolutely cannot get one if you go to the individual market.
4. Unlike most markets, you probably do not know enough to decide what you need so you have to rely on the physician who has the requisite expertise.
5. You do not deal with the physician or hospital about the costs. The insurance company does.
6. The physician has an obligation to act in your best interest and not in his/her own. They take an oath. That all do not always do this does not cancel the obligation. Storeowners are not under any such obligation. Nor do you expect them to be. Insurance companies have limited interest in your well being as do pharmaceutical manufacturers.
7. Our society decided, like most, that some level of medical care should be available to everyone just like some level of education. We are not prepared to let people suffer and die if they cannot afford medical treatment. That is why our governments already pay for almost half of all medical care delivered.

On Jay’s main question, we do not have the right to expect for others to pay for any and all medical care. If one wants some expensive treatments which will bring not very much benefit he/she ought to pay for them if they are able. As George Bernard Shaw said once, “Do not try to live forever. You will not succeed.”

• Link
• Report this comment

If Medicare tells the maker of Provenge, that yes, they will reimburse for the drug, but that they will only pay $500 ( or $1000, or more or less) per month for it, take it or leave it, what do you think the makers of Provenge would do? My bet is they would take the deal.

• Link
• Report this comment

currently drug companies look at what is the potential return on their investment in research…..if the potential return is low (limited market application i.e. to few potential customers) they WILL NOT work on developing a drug…..What do you think they will do if you cut their return in half??
My daughter has a very rare form of cancer….Her Dr tells us that there is no current research going on in the field as there is no profit to be made on their return-on-investment. Do you think that will change with government-run healthcare??

• Link
• Report this comment

“At what point, if any, do we decide that the marginal gain in lifespan is no longer worth the investment?”

If they’d rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. E. Scrooge

• Link
• Report this comment

oldguy. You get to decide the care you get if you are willing to pay for it. If you are not or cannot somebody else gets to decide. Which will usually be the insurance company.

• Link
• Report this comment

Until profit is taken out of Health-care in this country we will continue to go down hill. Universal Health-care for all.

• Link
• Report this comment

There was a comment that implied that “if you catch prostate cancer early, it will be cured.” I was treated early (in2003), but am now in stage 4 because I have the most aggressive form of cancer. I’ve had six month checkups consistently.

There was another comment about treatment being too expensive because all men eventually get prostate cancer. The truth is (per Johns Hopkins and Sloan Kettering) that 90 % of prostate cancer patients will die from something else. I just happen to be in the most aggressive 10%.

My father died of this disease in 1985. I have found out the cancer is an evil genius directing other parts of the body to do its bidding. All forms must be trying to be genetic. Otherwise, hw can they live forever. We are getting close to real beakthroughs. DNA, pathways, etc. are current terms that will lead to a much longer life.

I keep reading that big pharma are the richest companies in the world and are sitting on almost endless bundles of cash. I think they always see what the market will bear when a new drug comes out. Do a lot of arm wrestling. Eventually the price comes down. They do spend on research, but the amount they spend is exaggerated.

Anothe problem is that the companies do not want their drugs comared to others in a clinical trial. None of them want anyone to know which drug is more effective. They might lose sales. Competitive drugs will arrive before too, too long and (if there is no price fixing) prices should go down.

I don’t want to be shut off from a drug before prices go down. Don’t blah to me unless you are terminal yourself. Talk is cheap. The time limits that life gets extended are all medians. If one takes care of oneself (mostly diet), one can live longer on these drugs. If someone eats cheeseburgers and fries and drinks soda daily, he is asking for it.

I myself am also doing everything I can to extend my life. Diet, supplements, exercise, and meditation. LIke chicken soup. Can’t hurt. Michael Milken (junk bond king) was told he had a year to live when he got out of prison. I believe that was about 17 years ago. He credits a strict vegetarian diet and meditation. Hopefully, he does not have a secret medicine he is not telling us about. He went right back in the market,has a bundle of cash, and has set up a foundation to fight prostate cancer. I give him credit.

Live every day like it’s your last, even if you are not sick. That person drivng while on a cell may T bone you tomorrow. But, hopefully not. You never know.

• Link
• Report this comment