Cancer Cured in Canada? Pharma in the Way?

[ScipioCowboy]

Remember, Medicare is government-run healthcare -- and I don't hear anyone clamoring for its demise (except the libertarians and right wing radicals who think all government is bad). Medicare for all wouldn't be a bad alternative to the current mess, and rich folks could still purchase high end policies on their own, similar to what all congressmen already have.

In the next few decades, it won't matter whether people are clamoring for its demise or not. The major entitlements programs, including Medicare, won't be sustainable. They'll consume 18 percent of GDP, and tax revenue as a percentage of GPD generally averages 18.4 percent.

 

[Doc50]

I remember a few years ago I took the wife to the ER. Among the things they did were give her a couple of tylenol. They charged something like $8 a piece for the tylenol. Drove me crazy thinking how could they charge that when you can buy a whole bottle for less.

I also hate how Doctor's offices will book too many people which results in people waiting over an hour to see the Doctor and once they get in to see the Doctor they only spend a minute or two with the patient. However there are some Doctors who will charge you if you do not show up for an appointment without giving at least a days notice. Seems to me if you wait more than an hour they should take some money off of the appointment fee.

Another thing that irritates me is the system they have set in place where a regular doctor can not prescribe some meds (either at all or just for a certain period of time) without the patient having to go see yet another doctor who basically is just there to approve the medicine.

The wait at a doc's office is the same principle as the the wait at a restaurant; it's about profit margins. If I allow 1 hour per patient (and some may unexpectedly take that long), then I could be expected to see every patient at precisely the scheduled time. But seeing only 9 patients per day would not even pay my overhead. Then those no-shows that you mentioned make margins even worse. Volume has to be sufficient to generate revenues that exceed overhead or we'll all be out of business.

 

[visionary]

there will never be a cure for cancer. Genetic mutations will continue to happen, and so will cancer..

i bet you are a rich doctor trying to keep the real cures for the rich few while the rest of us rot

why i oughta......

you sir are part of the problem

 

[visionary]

I haven't read the entire thread, but Chris Rock hit the nail on the head. There's very little interest in "the cure". There's no money in it. The money is in the treatment.

:laugh2: :laugh2: :bang2: :bang2:

you dont think the company the could "cure" cancer would make a few BILLION dollars?

got it

yep, there's no money in curing cancer

 

[visionary]

There have been cures for most type's of cancer for decade's. There is simply to much money involved for to many people for a cure to be made public. A cured person makes no money. Sick people are cash cows.

:laugh2:

i like how your sig line appropriately quotes gene roddenberry because this post is also out there.... in space

 

[CliffnDallas]

:laugh2:

i like how your sig line appropriately quotes gene roddenberry because this post is also out there.... in space

What is it like to be a sheep?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

It's just an opinion. Though I do from time to time go down to Dealy Plaza and look for blood stains.

:laugh2:

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

What is it like to be a sheep?

A good question....

 

[Verdict]

Those who believe that frivilous lawsuits are driving up health care costs are sadly misinformed. The cost of bringing a medical malpractice case to trial is a very expensive proposition. Since most clients do not have the money necessary to pursue a case, it is most often pursued on a contingency fee basis with lawyers fronting all of the litigation expenses.

If lawyers are fronting tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the average medical malpractice case (plus substantial man hours in pursuing a case) then a lawyer has very little to no incentive to pursue a frivilous case. A lawyer isn't going to risk that much on a case that isn't pretty clear that the medical provider clearly screwed the pooch so to speak. Additionally, some jurisdictions require that a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL screen a case prior to it being filed and find that negligence did in fact occur BEFORE a suit is filed.

Insurance companies (which shockingly desire to make a profit) lobby very hard for laws that limit a person's access to the courts. This is ludicrous, because the law should allow a hurt person to recover when clear negligence occurs. In a news flash, it isn't doctors who pay the verdict, it is their insurers.

Doctors are also victimized in that the insurance companies get a double benefit from bull****ting the public that frivilous lawsuits are the norm. They charge the piss out of doctors for malpractice insurance, and then they don't pay when someone gets injured due to negligence.

So, the patient suffers due to the fact he or she got hurt and has no access to the courts, the doctor suffers due to the high insurance premiums paid, and the big insurance companies are laughing their collective ***** off all the way to the bank.

If you suffer an injury that isn't worth a huge dollar amount, it is almost impossible to find a lawyer to take your case. Lawyers can only generally take a case when the value of the case is worth at least six figures, otherwise it is not worth the time, effort and risk involved.

 

[arglebargle]

Yeah, the push for tort reform is mostly an industry scam. When put under oath to testify about their 'frivolous lawsuits' spiel, the insurance execs change their tune pretty seriously to avoid perjury charges.

Real frivolous suits should be kicked out, no issue there.


When it comes to developing new drugs for various ailments, the Pharma industry tends to push those new drugs, drugs that may not be better than older ones, or even not as good. But as they are new, they can charge a lot more for them.

One the one hand, you want good, safe drugs. On the other you also want decent remedies that can be afforded.

 

[Hoofbite]

Yeah, the push for tort reform is mostly an industry scam. When put under oath to testify about their 'frivolous lawsuits' spiel, the insurance execs change their tune pretty seriously to avoid perjury charges.

Real frivolous suits should be kicked out, no issue there.


When it comes to developing new drugs for various ailments, the Pharma industry tends to push those new drugs, drugs that may not be better than older ones, or even not as good. But as they are new, they can charge a lot more for them.

One the one hand, you want good, safe drugs. On the other you also want decent remedies that can be afforded.

I don't think this is as big of a problem as it used to be but still happens.

A lot of that should be countered by doctors who evaluate the evidence.

Hospitals have people who evaluate the evidence and decide if the outcomes justify the cost difference.

Even insurance companies have safeguards against that because new drugs raise their costs as well.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

So, Canadian Cowboy -
How's the healthcare up there?
What I hear is that most folks are very satisfied
with the access and quality; not the crisis that
has been feared regarding a single payer system
in the US.

oh we ***** sometimes about waits but for the most part, we are healthier than most in the world, live longer than most in the world so must be doing something right

 

[Hoofbite]

oh we ***** sometimes about waits but for the most part, we are healthier than most in the world, live longer than most in the world so must be doing something right

Like Russia, you guys shiver non-stop and that keeps you healthy.

Not worth it.

 

[visionary]

Those who believe that frivilous lawsuits are driving up health care costs are sadly misinformed. The cost of bringing a medical malpractice case to trial is a very expensive proposition. Since most clients do not have the money necessary to pursue a case, it is most often pursued on a contingency fee basis with lawyers fronting all of the litigation expenses.

If lawyers are fronting tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars on the average medical malpractice case (plus substantial man hours in pursuing a case) then a lawyer has very little to no incentive to pursue a frivilous case. A lawyer isn't going to risk that much on a case that isn't pretty clear that the medical provider clearly screwed the pooch so to speak. Additionally, some jurisdictions require that a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL screen a case prior to it being filed and find that negligence did in fact occur BEFORE a suit is filed.

Insurance companies (which shockingly desire to make a profit) lobby very hard for laws that limit a person's access to the courts. This is ludicrous, because the law should allow a hurt person to recover when clear negligence occurs. In a news flash, it isn't doctors who pay the verdict, it is their insurers.

Doctors are also victimized in that the insurance companies get a double benefit from bull****ting the public that frivilous lawsuits are the norm. They charge the piss out of doctors for malpractice insurance, and then they don't pay when someone gets injured due to negligence.

So, the patient suffers due to the fact he or she got hurt and has no access to the courts, the doctor suffers due to the high insurance premiums paid, and the big insurance companies are laughing their collective ***** off all the way to the bank.

If you suffer an injury that isn't worth a huge dollar amount, it is almost impossible to find a lawyer to take your case. Lawyers can only generally take a case when the value of the case is worth at least six figures, otherwise it is not worth the time, effort and risk involved.

you are obviously a lawyer

here are some facts:

doctors are human and mistakes will occur

sometimes bad things happen despite the best intentions

we are the MOST litiginous society in the world

while there are other reasons that contribute to rising healthcare costs, there is no doubt that our litiginous behavior contributes very significantly to it

the only reason this is not brought up more and is not the focus of lawmakers is because of the very very strong lobby trial lawyers have

i will say again, if we continue to behave the way we have been behaving we will have to suffer the consequences, ignoring the problem or attempts at distraction, will not make it go away

 

[Doc50]

:ralph: While we wrangle and rant about the broken healthcare system in this isolated forum, the High & Mighty court gets to decide if 50 years of ideas and arguments finally agreed upon by 60% of congress (not a simple majority) will ultimately stand. If the individual mandate is struck down, the the entire Affordable Healthcare Act comes unglued, and we'll go back to the drawing board.

Make no mistake -- the current system of non-payers in the hospitals across the country constitutes socialized medicine; we all pay for them, and it would certainly be inhumane to turn them away. The mandate is a proper method for addressing that problem, encouraging individual responsibility. This was originally a conservative idea, but they are against anything Obama. And why is that? Why can't compromise be reached on anything? Why do they claim he is the most liberal spendaholic job-killing president ever, when the statistical evidence says the opposite? It's bigotry and racism, plain and simple.

Conservatism has become a theocracy, representing a "be like me, and don't change anything" ideology. Liberalism has been villified by the other side as
"tax & spend tree-hugging socialist crazies". In their arrogance, conservatives have become the religious right, a party who claims they're the ones who can know and define God's will for the rest of us. They they trumpet freedom, yet would deny it for many under their proposed system. Education is one area that would take a huge hit under the conservative theocracy, giving a much better product to those with the most money. That, my friends, would constitute the end of the American Dream - the end of equal opportunity.

The healthcare debate is about equal opportunity and access as well.
I hope all readers can encourage their congressmen to compromise, or throw the bums out.

 

[The30YardSlant]

:ralph: While we wrangle and rant about the broken healthcare system in this isolated forum, the High & Mighty court gets to decide if 50 years of ideas and arguments finally agreed upon by 60% of congress (not a simple majority) will ultimately stand. If the individual mandate is struck down, the the entire Affordable Healthcare Act comes unglued, and we'll go back to the drawing board.

Make no mistake -- the current system of non-payers in the hospitals across the country constitutes socialized medicine; we all pay for them, and it would certainly be inhumane to turn them away. The mandate is a proper method for addressing that problem, encouraging individual responsibility. This was originally a conservative idea, but they are against anything Obama. And why is that? Why can't compromise be reached on anything? Why do they claim he is the most liberal spendaholic job-killing president ever, when the statistical evidence says the opposite? It's bigotry and racism, plain and simple.

Conservatism has become a theocracy, representing a "be like me, and don't change anything" ideology. Liberalism has been villified by the other side as
"tax & spend tree-hugging socialist crazies". In their arrogance, conservatives have become the religious right, a party who claims they're the ones who can know and define God's will for the rest of us. They they trumpet freedom, yet would deny it for many under their proposed system. Education is one area that would take a huge hit under the conservative theocracy, giving a much better product to those with the most money. That, my friends, would constitute the end of the American Dream - the end of equal opportunity.

The healthcare debate is about equal opportunity and access as well.
I hope all readers can encourage their congressmen to compromise, or throw the bums out.

Good lord :laugh2:

Moving past your obvious inability to discern disagreement from hatred, the fact that you believe medical care is an inherant right should be addressed. Emergency medical care is afforded to everyone, as it should be. Long-term specialized healthcare however is a privalege, not a right, and attempting to write it into the constitution as some are will do nothing but drive down both the quality of care and incentive to provide quality care.

 

[trickblue]

oh we ***** sometimes about waits but for the most part, we are healthier than most in the world, live longer than most in the world so must be doing something right

I don't think you live any longer, it's just the cold up there keeps the bodies preserved so much longer that no one realizes the dead people on the bus for a few years...

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Conservatism has become a theocracy, representing a "be like me, and don't change anything" ideology.

You don't seem to know what a theocracy really is.

 

[Doc50]

Good lord :laugh2:

Moving past your obvious inability to discern disagreement from hatred, the fact that you believe medical care is an inherant right should be addressed. Emergency medical care is afforded to everyone, as it should be. Long-term specialized healthcare however is a privalege, not a right, and attempting to write it into the constitution as some are will do nothing but drive down both the quality of care and incentive to provide quality care.

Hatred is your word, not mine, and you misspelled privilege.
Your aggieness might be showing.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yet another one closed due to politics and religion.