$30,000-a-Month Cancer Drug

2

Comments

  • coloCan
    coloCan Member Posts: 1,944 Member
    usakat said:

    Follow the money train and see where it goes...
    Top 20 2010 Healthcare Campaign Contribution Recipients

    $193,750 from Big Pharma
    Big Pharma Donors

    $134,200 from Insurance/HMO
    Insurance Donors

    Senator Reid is in no way the only one accepting money - it's reported that Senate and House representatives from 47 states have accepted money from healthcare industry heavy hitters like Pfizer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AMA, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, AARP, among others. Corporate and Association political donorship is reaching an all time high. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions why corporations and associations give big money to elected officials.

    At opensecrets.org website it's easy to follow the association of donorship to legislation.

    The true measure of the labors of any person is what they actually do, not just what they say.

    "The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation's development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success. Without a revolution in spirit, the forces which had produced inequities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance, and fear. Aung San Suu Kyi

    Its not just Big Pharma but big business in general
    that run things more or less. A politicians number one goal is to get elected; second objective is to get reelected. Big money comes from big business. Who's voce gets heard, the public's or the money provider?......Steve
  • PhillieG said:

    $30,000-a-Month Cancer Drug
    and they don't even deliver it, I have to go in and get it!

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • jscho
    jscho Member Posts: 62
    usakat said:

    Follow the money train and see where it goes...
    Top 20 2010 Healthcare Campaign Contribution Recipients

    $193,750 from Big Pharma
    Big Pharma Donors

    $134,200 from Insurance/HMO
    Insurance Donors

    Senator Reid is in no way the only one accepting money - it's reported that Senate and House representatives from 47 states have accepted money from healthcare industry heavy hitters like Pfizer, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, AMA, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, AARP, among others. Corporate and Association political donorship is reaching an all time high. Everyone is free to draw their own conclusions why corporations and associations give big money to elected officials.

    At opensecrets.org website it's easy to follow the association of donorship to legislation.

    The true measure of the labors of any person is what they actually do, not just what they say.

    "The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation's development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success. Without a revolution in spirit, the forces which had produced inequities of the old order would continue to be operative, posing a constant threat to the process of reform and regeneration. It is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights. There has to be a united determination to persevere in the struggle, to make sacrifices in the name of enduring truths, to resist the corrupting influences of desire, ill will, ignorance, and fear. Aung San Suu Kyi

    marketing budgets?
    I was wondering if you have any data on marketing versus research budgets for big pharma, since you seem to have researched this topic a fair amount. I've heard the argument before that drugs need to be expensive to recover research costs, but what amount of their budget is actually devoted to drug development?

    Marketing expenses are a dead loss to patients, though important to the companies.

    Best,
    Jeremy
  • KATE58
    KATE58 Member Posts: 299
    unknown said:

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator

    Kathy,
    I don't know why

    Kathy,
    I don't know why people seemed so scared either.
    we are the only nation (developed) without national healthcare.
    we rank 1st in highest healthcare costs,yet,29th in quality of healthcare.
    we are highest in hypertension, diabetes,heart disease,obesity etc.

    People lose their houses,life savings,everything they own when they come up against
    a catastrophic illness.
    NO ONE in any other country has ever lost their house or life savings due to illness.

    Everything they are saying against national healthcare now ,they said in the early sixties
    when they first implemented medicare and medicaid.

    People keep using Canada as a negative example,but who says our plan is the same one as canada? (I never hear Canadians complain.)
    France has the best health care plan
    And their doctors make housecalls !

    One thing I would like to say,I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
    and and I don't think anyone should make a difference of opinion personal.
    Both sides have their own agenda and propeganda.
    God bless us everyone.
    Kate
  • lisa42
    lisa42 Member Posts: 3,625 Member
    KATE58 said:

    All I can say is I am on
    All I can say is I am on medicare a 'GOVERNMENT RUN INSURANCE' and I have gotten better care
    than I ever did on private insurance, which was always turning down treatments or drugs as too expensive.Medicare has never once even questioned a treatment or drug.
    60% of the U.S population is on government insurance already.
    The poor get help,the rich can afford to pay their own way,the middle class gets screwed.

    medicare
    I'm not on medicare, but while I was at a Dr. appt today, my onc said that regardless of one's political view on the health care reform debate, he said we have to admit that medicare, which is a government run healthcare, covers far more than most private insurance companies do. He said Blue Cross is the absolute worst. He says he never has trouble getting medications approved for his medicare patients, but often does for patients with other insurance companies- especially Blue Cross. (scary- my ability to stay with Aetna as a
    COBRA status runs out in another year and then we will have to use the insurance from my husband's work- Blue Cross- I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it).
    VA insurance, on the other hand, which is military but still under government, isn't so great from what I hear.
  • lisa42
    lisa42 Member Posts: 3,625 Member
    lisa42 said:

    medicare
    I'm not on medicare, but while I was at a Dr. appt today, my onc said that regardless of one's political view on the health care reform debate, he said we have to admit that medicare, which is a government run healthcare, covers far more than most private insurance companies do. He said Blue Cross is the absolute worst. He says he never has trouble getting medications approved for his medicare patients, but often does for patients with other insurance companies- especially Blue Cross. (scary- my ability to stay with Aetna as a
    COBRA status runs out in another year and then we will have to use the insurance from my husband's work- Blue Cross- I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it).
    VA insurance, on the other hand, which is military but still under government, isn't so great from what I hear.

    Walmart's $4 generic prescriptions
    Hey,

    Just thought of another thing to share for those of you who aren't aware (I wasn't)...

    WalMart has many generic medications available for literally $4.00 a month. I just started on Lovastatin and since I needed 60 pills for the month, I paid a whopping eight dollars for the month's supply- less than my copay would have been with insurance!
    I first checked it at Rite Aid and the same exact prescription there would have cost $65.99.
    I guess not too bad compared to the cost of some drugs, but definitely more than Walmart's $8!

    If you take any meds that come in generic, go on Walmart's pharmacy website and you can see their alphabetical list of the generic drugs they have for just $4 a month- it's actually a pretty big list.

    Lisa
  • lisa42
    lisa42 Member Posts: 3,625 Member

    Thank you, Kate58!
    Hey Kate58, we have never met here on CSN... it's been awhile since I participated on these boards. Too many politics got involved with some folk feeling they know a lot more than others and making sure they let them know it. I don't have time for that kind of nonsense and it was real thick in here for some time, so I ended up leaving and taking my chats elsewhere ;)

    But I have noticed a few of your posts here on the boards (I've been searching for a CSN friend to get her email address)... and I just had to say that you are such a breath of fresh air! I love your smile... and what you have to say has been so along the lines of what I believe myself :)

    Sorry, I haven't seen your post for when you first joined but am assuming that you are one of us semi-colons, which I'm sorry to hear, but hey... the fact you've found others in a similar predicament, all I can say is "Welcome aboard!!"

    As for the whole drug thing... I'll be the first to say I don't really understand the ins and outs and politics of the pharmaceutical industry. I do know a heck of a lot of drugs, both anti-cancer and anti-everything else are manufactured in the USA. On the other hand, I also know a lot of these same US companies have plants here in Canada and they are manufactured here as well. Also, Canada has some of their own plants and manufacture a bunch of meds that aren't produced in the States but are exported to the States (I think there's a lot of importing/exporting that goes on in both countries). What the deals are made between the two countries, or more important I think, what the deals are made between the pharmaceutical giants, I don't know... but I can report as a Canadian living in the province of BC what the access is to drugs... and from a patient's perspective, the cost is not our concern.

    Yes, there are all these stories that pop up about Canadians dying, waiing for treatments (such exaggeration). One of the popular ones in the "Cancer" circles is that Canadians can't get certain cancer fighting drugs, one of the popular ones being "Avastin". Well, I'm a Canadian and I'm fighting cancer ... and no matter what drug my oncologist prescribes, I get it. There is NEVER any wait because someone has said it's not available or, as a Canadian, I'm not eligible for it.

    Oh, I did have one wait... back when I was on the 5FU pump and then was going to be doing 6 weeks of daily radiation. My onc wanted to change me from the pump to the oral pill. My extended health plan (yes, I have one of those... it's Blue Cross, a private insurance company, not unlike those down in the US. As a matter of fact, I think Blue Cross IS a US company) balked at paying for the oral pill form... after all, they were paying for me to be on the 5FU pump, so why should they now pay for the oral form? Yes, the oral form is expensive. So they figured our provincial Medical Services Plan (government subsidized) should cover the cost. So there was some back and forth discussion between the government subsidized plan and the private insurance as to WHO was going to pay for it. There was NEVER any discussion about "Well, screw it, we aren't going to pay for it, so the patient will have to cover the cost". And to think I got frustrated because the two of them were hashing it out, while I was actually taking the medication and getting my zaps of radiation every day. In the end, the private insurance company ended up paying for it, since it was just a continuation of the chemo I was on before the radiation and would be going back to after the radiation treatments were through.

    So because of stories like the above, those who are against National healthcare LOVE to alter the stories to say how horrid National Healthcare is... even though it was the private insurance company that started the disagreement in the first place (their argument was that if I, the patient DIDN'T have the Extended Health coverage, the government subsidized insurance would have to cover it, so they should cover it now)

    YES, of course, there is going to be the occasional person who falls through the system... whether the fault of their doctors not pursuing it, or their condition is such that any kind of delay ends up being deadly. Just try and tell me this doesn't happen in the US? And yes, because each PROVINCE manages their own Provincial Healthcare system, you will find differences between provinces. What is available in BC may not be available in Ontario... but because of the Canadian Healthcare Act, all Canadians get equal access to basic medical care and treatments. When a new drug first comes out on the scene, it's not unusual that one province may have access and approve it before another province. All depends on supply and demand and god knows what other decisions are made.

    So I can only laugh at the ignorance when someone screws that around and causes (or tries to) panic about a National Health Care system and how evil it is because just look at Canada... "they don't have access to Avastin" (a drug all Cancer patients are aware of).... and they take that from an old story back when Avastin was first new on the scene.

    Those same people don't mention how there are people right here on CSN who have gotten really depressed because they are losing their house, their private health care insurance is expiring and they don't know how they are going to carry on with their treatments or get to see their doctors. Uh, not one of them is Canadian, just for the record. For some reason those stories don't get the same focus or importance as repeating stories about how horrid Canada's "Government Run" Health care is.

    Well, as a Canadian, I wouldn't change my horrid Canadian Healthcare Insurance for any other insurance coverage. I have been fighting this battle as a Stage IV cancer patient for 3 years now... and my grand total out of pocket has been $212 for TV rental when I was in the hospital for my various surgeries. I am not broke, I'm on LTD (I was lucky enough to be working for a company that had LTD as an employee benefit) and I'm doing really really well all things considered (haven't had to be on chemo since Oct 2007).

    Here is an interesting post from another board... from a fellow in San Francisco (yes, he is an American, this is not Canadian propaganda):

    I don't know why we keep pretending that our health care system is superior to that of Canada.

    Theirs is universal. Ours is not.

    We have pre-existing disease restrictions. They do not.

    They rank No. 8 in average life expectancy. We rank No. 34.

    ** SOURCE: CIA World Factbook, 2009 **

    To be precisely up to date:

    US average life expectancy: 78.11 years
    Canadian average life expectancy: 81.23 years

    This is the difference between health care for profit, and health care for people. We believe that cancer is a profit center. They believe it is a disease.

    The US offers much of which to be deeply proud. Compared to Canada? Our health care is simply not in the same league.

    The best proof? THEY LIVE LONGER THAN WE DO. Doubt it? Just ask the CIA. And then visit them in Vancouver, and see one of the cleanest and most beautiful cities in the world.

    We're not the only people who know how to do things right.

    +++++

    Cheryl!!!
    Hey Cheryl,

    It's great to see you back again!!

    Lisa :)
  • usakat
    usakat Member Posts: 610 Member
    KATE58 said:

    Kathy,
    I don't know why

    Kathy,
    I don't know why people seemed so scared either.
    we are the only nation (developed) without national healthcare.
    we rank 1st in highest healthcare costs,yet,29th in quality of healthcare.
    we are highest in hypertension, diabetes,heart disease,obesity etc.

    People lose their houses,life savings,everything they own when they come up against
    a catastrophic illness.
    NO ONE in any other country has ever lost their house or life savings due to illness.

    Everything they are saying against national healthcare now ,they said in the early sixties
    when they first implemented medicare and medicaid.

    People keep using Canada as a negative example,but who says our plan is the same one as canada? (I never hear Canadians complain.)
    France has the best health care plan
    And their doctors make housecalls !

    One thing I would like to say,I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
    and and I don't think anyone should make a difference of opinion personal.
    Both sides have their own agenda and propeganda.
    God bless us everyone.
    Kate

    It's a reputation thing...
    I'm not sure "fear" is the right word to describe why many citizens are uncomfortable with the proposed healthcare legislation - words that seem more apropos would be skeptical or a lack of confidence.

    We hear that as a nation we could and should provide access to healthcare to all citizens. Any compassionate citizen would agree we should. Currently in some fashion we already do, although without question the system is deeply flawed. Many have asked why we can't simply have nationalized government healthcare, like Medicare, for everyone. I suppose we could, but at what cost and would quality be better or worse using the Medicare model for everyone? Would it truly stabilize the cost escalation of the healthcare market or simply shift cost escalations to other columns on the balance sheets of individuals and government? And more importantly, would it be sustainable over the long term?

    Recently the Social Security Administration released, “A Summary of the 2009 Annual Reports for Medicare”, issued by the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees. Click here to read the Summary. The Board of Trustees clearly state in the Summary that Medicare under it’s current operational structure and based on anticipated tax revenue is not sustainable without deficit beyond 2016. The Summary states, “The projected exhaustion of the [Hospital Insurance – HI] Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund—even in the short range alone—will require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures.”

    “Changes to program income and/or expenditures” means higher taxes, reduced Medicare services, or a combination of both.

    The Board of Trustees are, respectfully, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Trueasury, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor (my former Congresswoman), and Michael Austrue, Commissioner of Social Security. I think it’s safe to take their word for it if they say Medicare is not sustainable.

    It’s important to note that both the House and the Senate bills do NOT provide free healthcare to anyone, other than those who are currently covered under other types of social programs, i.e., Medicare, VA, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc., all of which are flawed but do provide necessary services to citizens. The proposed legislation does not provide no-cost medical coverage or services, but rather mandates that every citizen purchase health insurance. Individuals can purchase medical insurance on their own in the private market, obtain it from their employers, who will be required to provide medical insurance or pay fees-penalties, or through some type of insurance cooperative (TBD). If a person is unable to obtain health insurance under those circumstances, the “public option” will be available for purchase. Individuals who choose not to buy insurance will pay a penalty-fine. There will be hardship provisions for those who cannot afford to purchase the public option provided they earn less income than established by the program (related to Federal poverty levels) – those granted hardship exclusions will remain uninsured.

    The program will be funded by additional taxes to individuals and businesses, changes/cuts to Medicare, price fixing/changes to reimbursable rates for Medicare, eliminates non-taxable reimbursements from Health Savings Accounts, caps Health Savings Accounts at $2,500 (pre-tax dollars for healthcare costs), and other taxes, surcharges, fees, etc.

    Funding for the health reform package will start in 2010, but actual implementation of the program for use by American citizens will not occur until 2013. Between 2010 and 2013 funding will be collected and the bureaucracies will be established to structure and manage the programs. As citizens we will have to take it on faith that while funds are being collected the programs will roll out in a reasonable time frame.

    There is little in the proposed legislation that will provide meaningful cost reductions without affecting quality over the long term.

    Being neither to the extreme left or the extreme right of the political spectrum, I’m troubled by the fact that both the House and Senate bills are extremely partisan, wholly supported by Democrats and rejected by Republicans. I would prefer a greater concurrence between the two parties that would speak of greater balance within the legislation. I would think that legislation that is more equally supported or equally rejected probably greater serves the needs of the masses than those that are supported by a single political ideological group. That is the point of the two party system - to ensure a balanced democracy and to circumvent a concentration of power to a limited group of people, a group of elitists.

    One of my favorite modern day thinkers is Thomas Sowell. He is immensely intelligent, fair minded, and balances logic with reason quite well. While he is fiscally conservative, his social views are rooted in a strong sense of justice. He is quoted, “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

    I’m glad Medicare is currently working for so many people – with supplemental insurance it serves my parents, my aunts and uncles, and my in-laws very well and for that I am very grateful. If Medicare had the promise of lasting viability for the following generations I would be more encouraged and probably more supportive of government taking a larger role in healthcare. Although, I would hope that more marketplace reforms would occur that will actually lower costs for whoever pays the healthcare bills – be it the patients, the insurance companies or the government.

    And lastly, I'm glad our Canadian neighbors have it figured out and that our Canadian friends here at CSN receive quality care without all the red tape and incredible expenses we suffer here in the States.
  • KATE58 said:

    Kathy,
    I don't know why

    Kathy,
    I don't know why people seemed so scared either.
    we are the only nation (developed) without national healthcare.
    we rank 1st in highest healthcare costs,yet,29th in quality of healthcare.
    we are highest in hypertension, diabetes,heart disease,obesity etc.

    People lose their houses,life savings,everything they own when they come up against
    a catastrophic illness.
    NO ONE in any other country has ever lost their house or life savings due to illness.

    Everything they are saying against national healthcare now ,they said in the early sixties
    when they first implemented medicare and medicaid.

    People keep using Canada as a negative example,but who says our plan is the same one as canada? (I never hear Canadians complain.)
    France has the best health care plan
    And their doctors make housecalls !

    One thing I would like to say,I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
    and and I don't think anyone should make a difference of opinion personal.
    Both sides have their own agenda and propeganda.
    God bless us everyone.
    Kate

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • usakat said:

    It's a reputation thing...
    I'm not sure "fear" is the right word to describe why many citizens are uncomfortable with the proposed healthcare legislation - words that seem more apropos would be skeptical or a lack of confidence.

    We hear that as a nation we could and should provide access to healthcare to all citizens. Any compassionate citizen would agree we should. Currently in some fashion we already do, although without question the system is deeply flawed. Many have asked why we can't simply have nationalized government healthcare, like Medicare, for everyone. I suppose we could, but at what cost and would quality be better or worse using the Medicare model for everyone? Would it truly stabilize the cost escalation of the healthcare market or simply shift cost escalations to other columns on the balance sheets of individuals and government? And more importantly, would it be sustainable over the long term?

    Recently the Social Security Administration released, “A Summary of the 2009 Annual Reports for Medicare”, issued by the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees. Click here to read the Summary. The Board of Trustees clearly state in the Summary that Medicare under it’s current operational structure and based on anticipated tax revenue is not sustainable without deficit beyond 2016. The Summary states, “The projected exhaustion of the [Hospital Insurance – HI] Trust Fund within the next eight years is an urgent concern. Congressional action will be necessary to ensure uninterrupted provision of HI services to beneficiaries. Correcting the financial imbalance for the HI Trust Fund—even in the short range alone—will require substantial changes to program income and/or expenditures.”

    “Changes to program income and/or expenditures” means higher taxes, reduced Medicare services, or a combination of both.

    The Board of Trustees are, respectfully, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Trueasury, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor (my former Congresswoman), and Michael Austrue, Commissioner of Social Security. I think it’s safe to take their word for it if they say Medicare is not sustainable.

    It’s important to note that both the House and the Senate bills do NOT provide free healthcare to anyone, other than those who are currently covered under other types of social programs, i.e., Medicare, VA, Medicaid, SCHIP, etc., all of which are flawed but do provide necessary services to citizens. The proposed legislation does not provide no-cost medical coverage or services, but rather mandates that every citizen purchase health insurance. Individuals can purchase medical insurance on their own in the private market, obtain it from their employers, who will be required to provide medical insurance or pay fees-penalties, or through some type of insurance cooperative (TBD). If a person is unable to obtain health insurance under those circumstances, the “public option” will be available for purchase. Individuals who choose not to buy insurance will pay a penalty-fine. There will be hardship provisions for those who cannot afford to purchase the public option provided they earn less income than established by the program (related to Federal poverty levels) – those granted hardship exclusions will remain uninsured.

    The program will be funded by additional taxes to individuals and businesses, changes/cuts to Medicare, price fixing/changes to reimbursable rates for Medicare, eliminates non-taxable reimbursements from Health Savings Accounts, caps Health Savings Accounts at $2,500 (pre-tax dollars for healthcare costs), and other taxes, surcharges, fees, etc.

    Funding for the health reform package will start in 2010, but actual implementation of the program for use by American citizens will not occur until 2013. Between 2010 and 2013 funding will be collected and the bureaucracies will be established to structure and manage the programs. As citizens we will have to take it on faith that while funds are being collected the programs will roll out in a reasonable time frame.

    There is little in the proposed legislation that will provide meaningful cost reductions without affecting quality over the long term.

    Being neither to the extreme left or the extreme right of the political spectrum, I’m troubled by the fact that both the House and Senate bills are extremely partisan, wholly supported by Democrats and rejected by Republicans. I would prefer a greater concurrence between the two parties that would speak of greater balance within the legislation. I would think that legislation that is more equally supported or equally rejected probably greater serves the needs of the masses than those that are supported by a single political ideological group. That is the point of the two party system - to ensure a balanced democracy and to circumvent a concentration of power to a limited group of people, a group of elitists.

    One of my favorite modern day thinkers is Thomas Sowell. He is immensely intelligent, fair minded, and balances logic with reason quite well. While he is fiscally conservative, his social views are rooted in a strong sense of justice. He is quoted, “It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

    I’m glad Medicare is currently working for so many people – with supplemental insurance it serves my parents, my aunts and uncles, and my in-laws very well and for that I am very grateful. If Medicare had the promise of lasting viability for the following generations I would be more encouraged and probably more supportive of government taking a larger role in healthcare. Although, I would hope that more marketplace reforms would occur that will actually lower costs for whoever pays the healthcare bills – be it the patients, the insurance companies or the government.

    And lastly, I'm glad our Canadian neighbors have it figured out and that our Canadian friends here at CSN receive quality care without all the red tape and incredible expenses we suffer here in the States.

    This comment has been removed by the Moderator
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member
    usaKAT
    Why has this become such a politically intensive thread, when
    the intention was, to bring forward the inflated charges for what
    may eventually heal us?

    So..... for educational purposes:

    Thomas Sowell - Black Conservative
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

    And:
    Town Hall - The Conservative Elite

    The real history of Medicare:
    Conservatives and Health Care


    "Where There Is No Vision, The People Perish"


    We wanted change; we are finally seeing an attempt to give us change.

    Please support Health Care reform.
  • geotina
    geotina Member Posts: 2,111 Member
    KATE58 said:

    Kathy,
    I don't know why

    Kathy,
    I don't know why people seemed so scared either.
    we are the only nation (developed) without national healthcare.
    we rank 1st in highest healthcare costs,yet,29th in quality of healthcare.
    we are highest in hypertension, diabetes,heart disease,obesity etc.

    People lose their houses,life savings,everything they own when they come up against
    a catastrophic illness.
    NO ONE in any other country has ever lost their house or life savings due to illness.

    Everything they are saying against national healthcare now ,they said in the early sixties
    when they first implemented medicare and medicaid.

    People keep using Canada as a negative example,but who says our plan is the same one as canada? (I never hear Canadians complain.)
    France has the best health care plan
    And their doctors make housecalls !

    One thing I would like to say,I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
    and and I don't think anyone should make a difference of opinion personal.
    Both sides have their own agenda and propeganda.
    God bless us everyone.
    Kate

    Right on
    Kate - from your lips to Washington's ears. You are right, my sister has reached the age where she has Medicare and she is thrilled with it. You are also right, Canadians do not complain. Many Americans are bankrupt when illness strikes and that is just not right. Tina
  • fringetree
    fringetree Member Posts: 65
    John23 said:

    usaKAT
    Why has this become such a politically intensive thread, when
    the intention was, to bring forward the inflated charges for what
    may eventually heal us?

    So..... for educational purposes:

    Thomas Sowell - Black Conservative
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

    And:
    Town Hall - The Conservative Elite

    The real history of Medicare:
    Conservatives and Health Care


    "Where There Is No Vision, The People Perish"


    We wanted change; we are finally seeing an attempt to give us change.

    Please support Health Care reform.

    Canada
    My friend Antione, who is Canadian, told me if he ever got sick, just to drive him close enough to the border so he could crawl across :)
  • dianetavegia
    dianetavegia Member Posts: 1,942 Member
    Mine too
    Actually, my FOLFOX was $16,600 not counting my disconnect and flush every two weeks.
  • lisa42
    lisa42 Member Posts: 3,625 Member

    Mine too
    Actually, my FOLFOX was $16,600 not counting my disconnect and flush every two weeks.

    costs
    I just went to the Aetna webpage to look at my EOB for my last chemo infusion. I just added up all the charges listed for that day, which they did not specify what treatments/drugs each charge was for. The charges listed for that one day on the webpage for me added up to $13,543 & I was getting this every two weeks. That would be almost $28,000 for one month, not including the charges for my labwork or my monthly oncologist appts- the $28K is just for the chemo treatments alone. Here, now that I've stopped the Folfiri/Avastin and I'm doing an "off market" treatment (technically saving them a lot of money), they don't want to pay for the interferon I need, which costs about $1,000 a month- crazy!! I'm fighting them this week on this.

    Lisa
  • eric38
    eric38 Member Posts: 583
    lisa42 said:

    costs
    I just went to the Aetna webpage to look at my EOB for my last chemo infusion. I just added up all the charges listed for that day, which they did not specify what treatments/drugs each charge was for. The charges listed for that one day on the webpage for me added up to $13,543 & I was getting this every two weeks. That would be almost $28,000 for one month, not including the charges for my labwork or my monthly oncologist appts- the $28K is just for the chemo treatments alone. Here, now that I've stopped the Folfiri/Avastin and I'm doing an "off market" treatment (technically saving them a lot of money), they don't want to pay for the interferon I need, which costs about $1,000 a month- crazy!! I'm fighting them this week on this.

    Lisa

    John - You are an eternal
    John - You are an eternal optimist, aren`t you?

    Eric
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    KATE58 said:

    Kathy,
    I don't know why

    Kathy,
    I don't know why people seemed so scared either.
    we are the only nation (developed) without national healthcare.
    we rank 1st in highest healthcare costs,yet,29th in quality of healthcare.
    we are highest in hypertension, diabetes,heart disease,obesity etc.

    People lose their houses,life savings,everything they own when they come up against
    a catastrophic illness.
    NO ONE in any other country has ever lost their house or life savings due to illness.

    Everything they are saying against national healthcare now ,they said in the early sixties
    when they first implemented medicare and medicaid.

    People keep using Canada as a negative example,but who says our plan is the same one as canada? (I never hear Canadians complain.)
    France has the best health care plan
    And their doctors make housecalls !

    One thing I would like to say,I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
    and and I don't think anyone should make a difference of opinion personal.
    Both sides have their own agenda and propeganda.
    God bless us everyone.
    Kate

    Special interests
    There are so many special interests involved in this debate/discussion. Sadly, it's part human nature and part good old greed. The drug and medical lobbyists too often control what happens to us, the people who are affected by the $$$ decisions. Bottom line too often is $$$. It's what drives too many people, not JUST Americans but we're damn good at it.

    This sort of reminds me of the automotive industry. America COULD have been making fuel efficient, solid, dependable cars and trucks for years. We had what should have been the "wake up call" in the 70's with the earlier gas crisis. Other countries take situations like that and find solutions. But what did we do? NOTHING. We made bigger, crappier cars and thought of foreign competition as a joke. We did nothing as far as getting off our "addiction" to oil. We encouraged more of the same as long as the bottom line ($$$) grew. Here we are again with problems in health care that have been trying to be addressed since 1916 if not before. Again we look at "foreigners" as not knowing what they are doing and refusing to look at what works and take it seriously.

    I'm sure many will disagree and that's fine, we all have our opinions. Then there are the facts. I've tended to stay clear of this because I've been involved in many of these endless circular threads that are lose/lose situations.
    I just felt like throwing in my two cents in for what it's worth.
    (it used to be worth two cents, now it seem to be nonsense)
  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    eric38 said:

    John - You are an eternal
    John - You are an eternal optimist, aren`t you?

    Eric

    Yes, or he's a glutton for punishment
    Aren't we all supposed to be happy and think positive?
    You betcha!
  • scouty
    scouty Member Posts: 1,965 Member
    I know how they can lower our cost
    They can lower their costs/expenses!!!

    I'll use the income statement numbers for Roche (mentioned above and they now own Genentech) for just the first half of 2009.

    Sales: $24 billion

    Cost of Sales: $7.1 billion (includes all advertising, sales employees and their fancy vehicles, incentives for: docs, pharmacist, nursing homes, employees, all marketing, all political lobbying and campaign contributions etc. etc.)

    Research and Development: $4.5 billion

    Legal Cases: $ 421 million

    For a grand profit (after ALL expenses): $4 billion

    Notice that they spend more on selling their drugs than they do on trying to find new ones, almost twice as much.

    I say get them and their million dollars spokespersons off TV. I find it amazing that cigarette and liquor companies can no longer be advertised on TV and radio because it negatively impacts too many people. Well, DUH how many women does Sally Fields draw to her drug of choice, I bet she doesn't even take it. Of course if they stopped TV ads for legal drugs dozens of our TV channels would not be able to afford to operate and lord knows we need all 400 of our TV channels.

    Lisa P.

    I can't believe I just researched this but I have been making chocolate truffles for the last few hours and am on a chocolate high!!!!
  • usakat
    usakat Member Posts: 610 Member
    Good Reading...albeit dry (yawn)....
    To truly understand prescription drug costs, especially as it relates to R & D and corporate profits in the pharmaceutical industry, the attached Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report is quite comprehensive and informative. The CBO is non-partisan and does not offer opinions or commentary, but rather uses purely empirical data to provide objective information and analysis only. Basically the CBO in their reporting provides answers to specific questions. In the case of the attached report the questions are:
    - What explains the cost of developing new drugs?
    - Does federal investment in R&D stimulate or displace private investment?
    - Has the drug industry’s innovative performance declined?
    - How profitable are drug firms, and how do profits affect the amount and type of R&D that companies conduct?

    Click on this link to read the report:
    CBO - R & D in the Pharmaceutical Industry

    As for the second question, the Federal government does not fund R & D for specific drugs, but rather participates and funds basic research - applied research is done in the private sector through private funding. R & D for pharmaceuticals is generally funded by company shareholders or by private investors/venture capitalists. As Scouty reported, very little company internal capital (cash on hand) will fund R & D because of the length of time to develop and test new formularies (average 12 years), thereby using/tying up capital with no anticipated return in the near term (see page 2 of the report).

    It's very enlightening reading and will help us better understand the process of drug development.

    Check it out!