U.S. Senate approves children's health bill

[Stella]

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30286520071102


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate approved legislation on Thursday expanding a popular children's health-care program, setting the stage for a fresh showdown with President George W. Bush, who vowed to veto the bill that would also raise tobacco taxes.
-
Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill that the House last month failed to override.
-
The bill would provide $60 billion in funding for the program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level. The tobacco tax increase, raising the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack, would cover the added cost.
-


Makes you wonder. $60 Billion is a drop in the Ocean compared to the what the u.s spend in Iraq.

Spending $60 million to keep kids healthy or alternatively... war.

[Swarmlord]

God forbid that the kid's parents keep them healthy. At least war is one of the responsibilities attributed to the Federal government.

How about 60 billion for some vasectomies?

[leekohler]

God forbid that the kid's parents keep them healthy. At least war is one of the responsibilities attributed to the Federal government.

How about 60 billion for some vasectomies?

Ah yes, Swarmlordworld- where accidents never happen and everyone is the same. You really do need to start a theme park.

[Swarmlord]

Ah yes, Swarmlordworld- where accidents never happen and everyone is the same. You really do need to start a theme park.

It's getting to the point where a majority of our population is an accident using that reasoning. The only way to reduce "accidents" is to hold people responsible for their accidents. You'd be surprised how the rate of "accidents" goes down.

[bartelby]

Ah yes, Swarmlordworld- where accidents never happen and everyone is the same.

Not forgetting illnesses that even healthy people get, like cancer.

[leekohler]

It's getting to the point where a majority of our population is an accident using that reasoning. The only way to reduce "accidents" is to hold people responsible for their accidents. You'd be surprised how the rate of "accidents" goes down.

You'd also be surprised at how many people don't seek medical attention when they should. Then 5+ years down the road, their health problems are far worse, when if they'd just been able to afford it earlier it probably wouldn't have been an issue.

[scotthayes]

Isn't it time you got universal health care over there???

[Swarmlord]

Isn't it time you got universal health care over there???

No. We've determined that like it or not it's not a constitutionally mandated responsibility of our government.

Actually it might be interesting if it were enacted though. Once the problem shifts from not being able to pay for medical care to one of no one is entering into the medical care field, I'd love to see government's proposed solution to that.

[leekohler]

Isn't it time you got universal health care over there???

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Th-th-th-th-that's COMMUNISM!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

No. We've determined that like it or not it's not a constitutionally mandated responsibility of our government.

Actually it might be interesting if it were enacted though. Once the problem shifts from not being able to pay for medical care to one of no one is entering into the medical care field, I'd love to see government's proposed solution to that.

Yeah- because no other in country in the world has doctors. And if they do- the doctors are poor. Because everyone knows that no one makes any money in communist countries like Britain. :rolleyes:

[scotthayes]

Actually it might be interesting if it were enacted though. Once the problem shifts from not being able to pay for medical care to one of no one is entering into the medical care field, I'd love to see government's proposed solution to that.


Take it you mean that people wouldn't enter the health care field as they'd earn less. Well, (and not aimed at you) that is BS. the average GP (family doctor) over here earns £110k per year, and with the fantastic :D £-$ rate at the moment that's around $228k

[leekohler]

Take it you mean that people wouldn't enter the health care field as they'd earn less. Well, (and not aimed at you) that is BS. the average GP (family doctor) over here earns £110k per year, and with the fantastic :D £-$ rate at the moment that's around $228k

You're obvously lying. You live in a communist state. Everyone knows your doctors are poor and live in tiny one-room apartments. And if they don't show up for work, they are flogged. :)

[scotthayes]

You're obvously lying. You live in a communist state. Everyone knows your doctors are poor and live in tiny one-room apartments. And if they don't show up for work, they are flogged. :)

Sorry, can't answer that at the moment, got a sore toe and need to pop to the hospital. Now where's my insurance form??? Oh yeah don't need one.

On a serious note. Our health care system isn't perfect, and I'm lucky that if I had to I could afford to pay for private care. but it's free at the point of service. If I lost my job no worries, if my brother lost his job and his children were ill, no worries. In the UK we have some of the best children's hospitals in the world , and the health of the child always comes first not the profit of some HMO.

Oh and $1 tax on a pack of cigarettes.. YES PLEASE, we pay around £5.60 (guess that is around $11.50) for a pack of 20 and around 75% of that goes to the government.

[leekohler]

Sorry, can't answer that at the moment, got a sore toe and need to pop to the hospital. Now where's my insurance form??? Oh yeah don't need one.

On a serious note. Our health care system isn't perfect, and I'm lucky that if I had to I could afford to pay for private care. but it's free at the point of service. If I lost my job no worries, if my brother lost his job and his children were ill, no worries. In the UK we have some of the best children's hospitals in the world , and the health of the child always comes first not the profit of some HMO.

Oh and $1 tax on a pack of cigarettes.. YES PLEASE, we pay around £5.60 (guess that is around $11.50) for a pack of 20 and around 75% of that goes to the government.

What? You don't make money off the misery of others? Well that's just downright un-American! Oh wait...:)

[Swarmlord]

Take it you mean that people wouldn't enter the health care field as they'd earn less. Well, (and not aimed at you) that is BS. the average GP (family doctor) over here earns £110k per year, and with the fantastic :D £-$ rate at the moment that's around $228k

I know that probably sounds like a lot of money to you, but given the amount of training, the years of schooling, the cost of schooling and then more importantly the cost of liability insurance they have to pay, doctors don't start reaping real benefits until the middle to late years of their career. The stress levels and crappy quality of life while they gain seniority sucks.

Like I said, it might seem a lot compared to people that stock shelves at Wal-Mart, but it's low considering their skill level compared to other high paying occupations. You don't even have to be a high level bean counter to make that kind of money in some industries.

[scotthayes]

I know that probably sounds like a lot of money to you, but given the amount of training, the years of schooling, the cost of schooling and then more importantly the cost of liability insurance they have to pay, doctors don't start reaping real benefits until the middle to late years of their career. The stress levels and crappy quality of life while they gain seniority sucks.

Like I said, it might seem a lot compared to people that stock shelves at Wal-Mart, but it's low considering their skill level compared to other high paying occupations. You don't even have to be a high level bean counter to make that kind of money in some industries.


Don't know how to break this to you, but it costs huge sums over here to become a doctor. Remember the figures I mentioned were for GPs, however take someone like a cardiologist and that can hit £250k.


oh and if you got rid of the stupid blame culture where people get sued for just about anything then their insurance would also be a lot cheaper

[leekohler]

Don't know how to break this to you, but it costs huge sums over here to become a doctor. Remember the figures I mentioned were for GPs, however take someone like a cardiologist and that can hit £250k.


oh and if you got rid of the stupid blame culture where people get sued for just about anything then their insurance would also be a lot cheaper

Would you quit trying to make sense? We're 'Mercans, dammit! :)

[scotthayes]

What? You don't make money off the misery of others? Well that's just downright un-American! Oh wait...:)

It seems to be a European thing.

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/files/January%202007.pdf

[Swarmlord]

Don't know how to break this to you, but it costs huge sums over here to become a doctor. Remember the figures I mentioned were for GPs, however take someone like a cardiologist and that can hit £250k.


oh and if you got rid of the stupid blame culture where people get sued for just about anything then their insurance would also be a lot cheaper

You're telling this to me? If you've read my posts on this subject in other threads you'd realize that this is one of my very arguments.

[leekohler]

You're telling this to me? If you've read my posts on this subject in other threads you'd realize that this is one of my very arguments.

Or maybe if we stopped letting drug companies charge whatever they want for drugs, while selling them for almost nothing to other countries...hmm?

[scotthayes]

You're telling this to me? If you've read my posts on this subject in other threads you'd realize that this is one of my very arguments.

I apologies, It's the first time I've found this section of the forum, which is pretty amazing when you consider my love of American politics. But I did get the idea you don't agree with bush vetoing the bill last time from some of your posts in this thread.

One other point, if a doctor screws up over here, in general the government pays the compensation not the doctor.

[Swarmlord]

Or maybe if we stopped letting drug companies charge whatever they want for drugsm while selling them for almost nothing to other countries...hmm?

Or just stop buying the latest and greatest drugs. You can get the stuff they invented a couple decades ago for real cheap. If it was good enough for your parents, it's good enough for you.

[leekohler]

Or just stop buying the latest and greatest drugs. You can get the stuff they invented a couple decades ago for real cheap. If it was good enough for your parents, it's good enough for you.

Well, here's the thing- I refuse to take prescription drugs unless absolutely necessary. I have bad arthritis in both knees and of course, what did they want to give me? Vioxx. That would have been great. Because it was such a good drug and so obviously well-tested. :rolleyes: Nope, I deal with it through exercise, not pills like the medical field so likes to sell us all on.

Nope- I don't trust the US medical field, because like so many other things here, the goal is to make money, not to prevent or cure disease. After all, if less people were sick, what would they do?

[Stella]

Or maybe if we stopped letting drug companies charge whatever they want for drugs, while selling them for almost nothing to other countries...hmm?

Plenty of americans come to Canada just to buy cheaper drugs. They are warned by FDA that the drugs may not be safe ( which is completely bull - scare tactics - Canada tests its drugs and isn't exactly a 2nd or 3rd world country ).

I'm surprised that the high price of drugs isn't a higher profile issue.

[scotthayes]

Or just stop buying the latest and greatest drugs. You can get the stuff they invented a couple decades ago for real cheap. If it was good enough for your parents, it's good enough for you.

or they could just charge a fair price.


UK prescription costs, Link (http://www.ppa.org.uk/ppa/ppc_intro.htm)

"People who have to pay for more than 3 prescription items in 3 months, or 14 items in 12 months, could save money by buying a PPC. From 1 April 2007, the charge for a single prescription item is £6.85, whereas a 3-month PPC will cost you £26.85 and a 12-month PPC £98.70. To help spread the cost you can now choose to pay for the 12-month PPC by 10 monthly Direct Debit instalments."

[mactastic]

I know that probably sounds like a lot of money to you, but given the amount of training, the years of schooling, the cost of schooling and then more importantly the cost of liability insurance they have to pay, doctors don't start reaping real benefits until the middle to late years of their career. The stress levels and crappy quality of life while they gain seniority sucks.

Like I said, it might seem a lot compared to people that stock shelves at Wal-Mart, but it's low considering their skill level compared to other high paying occupations. You don't even have to be a high level bean counter to make that kind of money in some industries.
So you're saying compensation should be commensurate with skill level? I highly doubt you are willing to extend that argument to teachers...

[Swarmlord]

So you're saying compensation should be commensurate with skill level? I highly doubt you are willing to extend that argument to teachers...

How did you reach that conclusion? I never said that compensation for teachers was too high, too low or just right. I do know that grade school teachers are more common than cardio vascular surgeons. I'll bet you that teachers would be paid a hell of a lot more if there wasn't a zillion layers of administration at the local, country, state and federal government.

[mactastic]

How did you reach that conclusion? I never said that compensation for teachers was too high, too low or just right. I do know that grade school teachers are more common than cardio vascular surgeons. I'll bet you that teachers would be paid a hell of a lot more if there wasn't a zillion layers of administration at the local, country, state and federal government.
You mean like back in the good ol' days? Nah, they weren't paid well then either.

Besides, if one doesn't like the rate paid for doctors under the new rules, they can always "beat feet" to another profession. Market forces dictate that someone else will be willing to work for less.

[IJ Reilly]

Plenty of americans come to Canada just to buy cheaper drugs. They are warned by FDA that the drugs may not be safe ( which is completely bull - scare tactics - Canada tests its drugs and isn't exactly a 2nd or 3rd world country ).

I'm surprised that the high price of drugs isn't a higher profile issue.

It's high-profile as an issue.

The drugs in Canada and the US are the same. The difference is that your government negotiates prices. Here, only insurance companies are allowed to do that.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Besides, if one doesn't like the rate paid for doctors under the new rules, they can always "beat feet" to another profession. Market forces dictate that someone else will be willing to work for less.

That's right. I guess the government will just have to produce enough qualified surgeons out of thin air or maybe they'll force people to become doctors to meet the public's need. Probably be cheaper to fly patients to Bangledesh to get operated on even when you take into account the air fare anyway. I guess I shouldn't overlook all the inventive ways we can make medical care affordable.

[mactastic]

That's right. I guess the government will just have to produce enough qualified surgeons out of thin air or maybe they'll force people to become doctors to meet the public's need. Probably be cheaper to fly patients to Bangledesh to get operated on even when you take into account the air fare anyway. I guess I shouldn't overlook all the inventive ways we can make medical care affordable.
The government won't have to do anything. You're making this crap about a doctor shortage up without any shred of evidence to back it up.

Perhaps some day you'll learn the distinction between reality and fantasy.

[Thomas Veil]

No. We've determined that like it or not it's not a constitutionally mandated responsibility of our government.Neither is space flight. Doesn't seem to be stopping NASA.

Isn't it time you got universal health care over there???No...that was, like, 1970. We're still workin' on it. :rolleyes:

[it5five]

I know that probably sounds like a lot of money to you, but given the amount of training, the years of schooling, the cost of schooling and then more importantly the cost of liability insurance they have to pay, doctors don't start reaping real benefits until the middle to late years of their career.



Schooling in the UK (and the rest of Europe, I believe) costs close to nothing. They don't have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans to pay off.

[mactastic]

Neither is space flight. Doesn't seem to be stopping NASA.
So true... Conservatives only care about "constitutionally mandated" costs when they disagree with the underlying philosophy of those costs.

I note no conservatives are up in arms about NCLB, or SBA grants on the basis that they can't find a reference to it in the Constitution.

Of course, they're also for abrogating the right to privacy, which IS expressly in the Constitution. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't take lessons on constitutionality from conservatives.

[skunk]

Schooling in the UK (and the rest of Europe, I believe) costs close to nothing. They don't have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans to pay off.There are private schools here too, of course. And university students do have thousands of pounds of loans to pay off. It's a little trick our politicians picked up from yours.

[Stella]

It's high-profile as an issue.

The drugs in Canada and the US are the same. The difference is that your government negotiates prices. Here, only insurance companies are allowed to do that.

I very much doubt the drugs are any different. The FDA fuels fear mongering by saying Canadian drugs may not be as safe.

Shame the NHS doesn't wield its power in the UK.... if they did, they could buy drugs for a lot less...

[Peterkro]

There are private schools here too, of course. And university students do have thousands of pounds of loans to pay off. It's a little trick our politicians picked up from yours.

Those same politicians who of course received a free university education.

[Stella]

Those same politicians who of course received a free university education.

Politicians don't live on the same planet. They are so indifferent from commoners, its not true!

[Iscariot]

Swarmlord does have a good point here. In Ontario, nearly 50% of medical students face upwards of $80 000 in student loan debts when they graduate, in addition to losing at least 3 years of earning power by completing a medical degree. So they graduate in their late twenties and end up paying off a debt that often continues well into their thirties.

Sure they make $120/year, but they give up years of their lives and 80 000 in debt in order to do it, not to mention the intense demands their education and profession place on them.

I'm very strongly in favour of nations with nationalized healthcare subsidizing health education.

[it5five]

There are private schools here too, of course. And university students do have thousands of pounds of loans to pay off. It's a little trick our politicians picked up from yours.

You are right. England differs a bit more than some other countries in Europe, as far as I know. I know that public university in France is practically free, but I don't know if it applies to medical school too. I think Finland is the same.

Private universities are expensive regardless of what country you are in, yes.

[Rodimus Prime]

Schooling in the UK (and the rest of Europe, I believe) costs close to nothing. They don't have tens of thousands of dollars of student loans to pay off.

yeah but the trade off is a lot fewer people can go to college. Heck a lot fewer even go though high school level.

[Rodimus Prime]

Or just stop buying the latest and greatest drugs. You can get the stuff they invented a couple decades ago for real cheap. If it was good enough for your parents, it's good enough for you.

only problem with that is back 20 years ago we did not have the ablitlity to treat a lot of things we can today. I am on medication for some depression. treating depression is only more recently become an issue and the medicatino I am on is really not that old.

The drug companies have a huge part in prices of medication getting way out of hand. They send people to doctors and say treat almost everything with medication XYZ. They encourage doctors to over medicate. A huge part of the reason for medication cost going sky high is the drug companies over charging for them and getting away with it. They encourage doctors to make demand artificially high by writing mroe scripts than really are needed. They run adds on TV left and right.

[Ugg]

yeah but the trade off is a lot fewer people can go to college. Heck a lot fewer even go though high school level.

Are you saying that fewer Europeans graduate from high school?

I'd really like to see the basis for that claim. AFAIK, the US has the highest non-completion rate of any western country.

Since public college admissions exams are very strict, the absolute number of students attending university in Europe is lower. However, anyone can and many do pay high fees to attend private universities in Europe. The end result is not that different than in the US. Once you figure in the non-completion ration of US students in US universities, there's virtually no difference in university attendance rates.

[Rodimus Prime]

Are you saying that fewer Europeans graduate from high school?

I'd really like to see the basis for that claim. AFAIK, the US has the highest non-completion rate of any western country.

Since public college admissions exams are very strict, the absolute number of students attending university in Europe is lower. However, anyone can and many do pay high fees to attend private universities in Europe. The end result is not that different than in the US. Once you figure in the non-completion ration of US students in US universities, there's virtually no difference in university attendance rates.

but there you have it right there. In the US everyone is encourage to go to colllege. In the Europe system I can promise you I would not be in college nor getting my degree come Christmas. I would never of passed those test with a high enough score (I tend to suck on standardized test of any type) And to top it off I could never afford the cost of a private so I would of be SOL with out a degree.

I am saying exactly what I said Fair few students in Europe have the opportunity to go to college.

I like the US system a heck of a lot more then Europe because more people have the opportunity to go to college

[it5five]

I like the US system a heck of a lot more then Europe because more people have the opportunity to go to college

Isn't true with France, as far as I know. As long as you pass your BAC, you can go to public university for a few hundred euros to pay for the administration fees.

I am extremely envious of the French education and healthcare systems.

[furcalchick]

here's another question i keep thinking about? why are more people on medication (aka drugs) than before? is it because they want a quick fix or is it because the doctor insists that it's the only way to fix their problem (which it doesn't, the health industry, in my opinion, doesn't want to cure anything, they will be out of business if they did that). i know also in med school, they teach that only drugs prevent and cure disease, i guess maybe that's what has gotten into american society today.

if you didn't know by now, i'm anti-drug, and with a few exceptions, don't trust the health industry.

and also, will this children's health bill lead to more meds taken by children? i thought we wanted our kids off drugs, not on more.

[solvs]

Wasn't SCHIP a Republican program? Expanded during the Clinton years by the Republican Congress? God forbid we pay for middle class kids who've been injured or become sick and their parents can't pay for it though. After preventing women from getting abortions, we should obviously make their children suffer if the parents can't afford healthcare. Doesn't matter what the circumstance is either I guess. Doesn't matter that our healthcare system is seriously broken, even if you have insurance. Swarmlord, and other good Christians like him, don't want to have to pay for it. Even though, for the I don't know how many-ith time, we already do pay for it. Not to mention the fact that it's just the plain decent thing to do.

We could go over all the facts again, maybe even throw some anecdotal evidence with some links to back it up, but it will fall on deaf ears. Some people have theirs, they are islands, screw everyone else. The GOP has decided to make this their cause du jour to oppose, in yet another reason people have started to dislike them, so the loyal talking heads have to spout their talking points about how evil it is to care for sick and injured children with excise taxes. Even though, again, it was their program to help working families, some of whom couldn't afford or even get health insurance for their children. But since it's all their fault for daring to even have children who could possibly get sick or injured (even if they were laid off, or the primary provider died or left, or their current insurance is inadequate, if they even have any, if they can even get any, or any of the other myriad of reasons), the children obviously don't deserve our help. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

Wasn't SCHIP a Republican program? Expanded during the Clinton years by the Republican Congress? God forbid we pay for middle class kids who've been injured or become sick and their parents can't pay for it though. After preventing women from getting abortions, we should obviously make their children suffer if the parents can't afford healthcare. Doesn't matter what the circumstance is either I guess. Doesn't matter that our healthcare system is seriously broken, even if you have insurance. Swarmlord, and other good Christians like him, don't want to have to pay for it. Even though, for the I don't know how many-ith time, we already do pay for it. Not to mention the fact that it's just the plain decent thing to do.

SCHIP was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The Bush and Republican opposition to the program now has more to do with an effort to deny the Democrats a legislative victory than any other issue. Reminds me of the sad old joke about the Reagan administration: they believe that life begins at conception, and ends at birth.

[Rodimus Prime]

here's another question i keep thinking about? why are more people on medication (aka drugs) than before? is it because they want a quick fix or is it because the doctor insists that it's the only way to fix their problem (which it doesn't, the health industry, in my opinion, doesn't want to cure anything, they will be out of business if they did that). i know also in med school, they teach that only drugs prevent and cure disease, i guess maybe that's what has gotten into american society today.

if you didn't know by now, i'm anti-drug, and with a few exceptions, don't trust the health industry.

and also, will this children's health bill lead to more meds taken by children? i thought we wanted our kids off drugs, not on more.

I have to agree we over medicated. Everyone wants things fix by a pill. While I may be on anti depressants they where not the first things I turned to. I tried counsellings before I considered it. Others just want pills first I say try them as a last resort.

[furcalchick]

I have to agree we over medicated. Everyone wants things fix by a pill. While I may be on anti depressants they where not the first things I turned to. I tried counsellings before I considered it. Others just want pills first I say try them as a last resort.

i think i heard at least one place that certain health programs will give you cash if you medicate the problem instead of actually trying to fix the problem, so money is a big motivator. i'm just hoping that the health care we're talking about isn't just going to be that you have to take the prescribed medication doctors give you on checkups to make you sicker in many cases, otherwise you'll be dropped from coverage. that sort of system will just make things worse, as many doctors are paid off by pharma to sell drugs (and man are they nasty) instead of actually fixing the problem, which they cannot do because drugs are "the only cure to anything" according to med school.

but i agree in this regard, drugs shouldn't be the first things we turn to, that sort of thinking leads to forgetting the problem over time and drug dependency.

[IJ Reilly]

For many conditions, medications are the proper treatment of first resort.

[CalBoy]

only problem with that is back 20 years ago we did not have the ablitlity to treat a lot of things we can today. I am on medication for some depression. treating depression is only more recently become an issue and the medicatino I am on is really not that old.

The drug companies have a huge part in prices of medication getting way out of hand. They send people to doctors and say treat almost everything with medication XYZ. They encourage doctors to over medicate. A huge part of the reason for medication cost going sky high is the drug companies over charging for them and getting away with it. They encourage doctors to make demand artificially high by writing mroe scripts than really are needed. They run adds on TV left and right.
To be fair, creating a new life-saving drug is rather expensive. Let's take a look at a hypothetical (but very plausible) drug creation cycle:

Biotech Firm INC decides to invest in the creation of a new post-chemo drug which can help patients recover from chemotherapy faster than before. The drug is expected to increase blood cell counts, improve overall quality of life (less pain, less nausea, etc), and is expected to improve the strength of the immune system, thereby reducing the risk of other infections or viruses from further weakening the patient. The drug can only be used for 6 months after chemotherapy has been completed because after that point, it becomes less effective (again, this is all hypothetical).

Now, let's say that it takes Biotech Firm INC 15 years to develop this drug after all development, testing, clinical trials, etc. The total investment Biotech Firm has put into this drug is ~$15 billion.

So, in year 15, Biotech Firm gets FDA approval to sell the drug. The cost of production comes to about 20 cents/pill. Not a lot, but decent. Now, Biotech Firm's accountants have run the numbers, and they figure that the investment costs must be recovered over the course of 20 years, as this is the total time Biotech Firm will have exclusive patent rights over the drug. So, the $15 billion investment is amortized over 20 years. Biotech Firm figures that it loses some money to inflation, interest rates, etc, so the total annual pay off will be $1.5 billion over the next 20 years.

Biotech Firm also notes that marketing costs, legal costs (patent lawyers are quite expensive), and distribution costs will hit about 30 cents per pill.

Biotech Firm also realizes that there are going to be about 500,000 patients per year which can use this drug. Since each patient would only need a 6 month supply (let's call that 180 days), the total amount of capsules/pills consumed in a given year tops out at around 90 million.

So, $1.5 billion of investment debt divided by 90 million capsules comes to $16.67 per pill. Add the 20 cents and 30 cents from before, and we're at $17.17/pill. Now factor in a profit (there does have to be some incentive for producing new drugs). I think a 10% profit margin is fair, since most industries expect at least this much. So, I'll add $1.70/pill for profit. The net result is $18.87/pill.

However, this all relies upon the drug reaching all patients in the first year. Since we know that some patients will not be able to afford the drug, it's unlikely that Biotech Firm would hit the entire market in the first year (it would likely take two or three years).

Of course most drug companies license out the drug to generic producers, which provides constant return, but less than what selling the drug exclusively would bring.

So, I can see why certain drugs are expensive, but a lot of drug companies charge far too much for their drugs. I can reasonably see why a drug costs $20 or even $25 per pill, but anything more than that is just going too far.


I am extremely envious of the French education and healthcare systems.
Yes, which has somehow resulted in possibly the weakest economy in the Developed World.

How did we get on this topic anyhow? We were supposed to be discussing SCHIP right?:p

I hope three Republican senators and a few reps join with the Dems and override his veto this time. There's really no good reason to vote against this bill.

[mactastic]

SCHIP was passed by a Republican congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. The Bush and Republican opposition to the program now has more to do with an effort to deny the Democrats a legislative victory than any other issue. Reminds me of the sad old joke about the Reagan administration: they believe that life begins at conception, and ends at birth.
While this is undoubtedly true, a portion of the reason is also the rise of the Norquist conservatives, and their paranoia of allowing the Democrats to re-prove themselves champions of the middle class. The GOP has invested so much of their time and money trying to convince us that Democrats only care about the welfare queens, the immigrants, the gays, the tree-huggers -- in other words, painting them as champions of "others", not as champions of "us". SCHIP threatened to undermine that message, and thus needed to be killed no matter what previous Republicans had approved.

Just ask William Kristol: "...we as Republicans must ensure that there is no plan because if there is a plan, if Clinton gets something, it will legitimize, re-legitimize the welfare state..."

[Rodimus Prime]

To be fair, creating a new life-saving drug is rather expensive. Let's take a look at a hypothetical (but very plausible) drug creation cycle:.....

I think you missed my point of my post on what the drug companies are doing. They are encouraging over medicating. They more or less bribe doctors to prescribe their drugs. It is insane. They are causing demand to be artificially high which means it cause the prices to be way to high and not fair market value.

I know it is expensive but it does not get around the fact that we take way way to many pills today and the drug companies are a huge problem with that.

[CalBoy]

I think you missed my point of my post on what the drug companies are doing. They are encouraging over medicating. They more or less bribe doctors to prescribe their drugs. It is insane. They are causing demand to be artificially high which means it cause the prices to be way to high and not fair market value.

I know it is expensive but it does not get around the fact that we take way way to many pills today and the drug companies are a huge problem with that.

Some medications are over-prescribed, but I don't think this is as rampant as you make it seem. 20 years ago many things were not treatable with medications, but now they are. If you have a legitimate problem, then there are now an array of drugs that can help you. If we think about it from a quality of life perspective, people with chronic conditions are much better off today than they were two or three decades ago. If you suffer from depression, why not take the drugs to help end or lessen that depression? If you have asthma problems, why not take a drug that can alleviate it? I think that such instances are perfectly reasonable. Now if a doctor tells you you have asthma or depression when you really don't, then that doctor ought to be prosecuted for fraud. However, I don't think that such cases comprise the majority.

[leekohler]

Some medications are over-prescribed, but I don't think this is as rampant as you make it seem. 20 years ago many things were not treatable with medications, but now they are. If you have a legitimate problem, then there are now an array of drugs that can help you. If we think about it from a quality of life perspective, people with chronic conditions are much better off today than they were two or three decades ago. If you suffer from depression, why not take the drugs to help end or lessen that depression? If you have asthma problems, why not take a drug that can alleviate it? I think that such instances are perfectly reasonable. Now if a doctor tells you you have asthma or depression when you really don't, then that doctor ought to be prosecuted for fraud. However, I don't think that such cases comprise the majority.

Then why are we constantly bombarded by ads for things such as "restless leg syndrome"? Does anyone know what this is? Does anyone have friends who suffer from this "ailment"? Yet, you would think it was the most rampant thing in the world as much as it's advertised. The ads for sleep aids are unbelievably widespread too. These companies aren't advertising this stuff without going to your doctor's office for "lunch" either. Ever been to see your doctor close to lunch time? You'll find drug reps with literally handfuls of drugs. "Oh I just wanted to leave these samples and remind him about our lunch date today." WTF is that? You can't tell me my doctor's office is the only place this happens. You also can't tell me there isn't pressure on doctors to prescribe certain drugs.

[CalBoy]

Then why are we constantly bombarded by ads for things such as "restless leg syndrome"? Does anyone know what this is? Does anyone have friends who suffer from this "ailment"? Yet, you would think it was the most rampant thing in the world as much as it's advertised. The ads for sleep aids are unbelievably widespread too. These companies aren't advertising this stuff without going to your doctor's office for "lunch" either. Ever been to see your doctor close to lunch time? You'll find drug reps with literally handfuls of drugs. "Oh I just wanted to leave these samples and remind him about our lunch date today." WTF is that? You can't tell me my doctor's office is the only place this happens. You also can't tell there isn't pressure on doctors to prescribe certain drugs.

Restless leg syndrome is something I haven't made up my mind about. My sister says that it's a real disorder (she's an RN) but I'm not so sure.

As for the drug companies and their "samples", I know what you're talking about, but I don't see it at my doctor's office because I go to Kaiser (I believe that drug reps are forbidden to see the doctors there). Nonetheless, I'm not entirely sure that these 'needless' medications form the bulk of drug company sales. I still think that cholesterol, diabetes, post-chemo, etc, drugs make up the vast majority of sales. I mean how many people can be stupid enough to believe that they have RLS?

[Rodimus Prime]

Some medications are over-prescribed, but I don't think this is as rampant as you make it seem. 20 years ago many things were not treatable with medications, but now they are. If you have a legitimate problem, then there are now an array of drugs that can help you. If we think about it from a quality of life perspective, people with chronic conditions are much better off today than they were two or three decades ago. If you suffer from depression, why not take the drugs to help end or lessen that depression? If you have asthma problems, why not take a drug that can alleviate it? I think that such instances are perfectly reasonable. Now if a doctor tells you you have asthma or depression when you really don't, then that doctor ought to be prosecuted for fraud. However, I don't think that such cases comprise the majority.


Oh believe me I can think of a long list of drugs over prescribe and pushed onto people. All the ADHD drugs and a good chunk of the anti depressants. The encourage people to go to their GP to get the drugs. I do not thin the GP should be the first ones to write the script but some one who specializes in those areas and knows more about the problems.

Or do not forget the sleep aid drugs, or these random problems drugs they seem to talk about it. Like the poster above point out it is a problem. We over prescribe drugs in general and these leads to artificial increase in demand which increases the price

Restless leg syndrome is something I haven't made up my mind about. My sister says that it's a real disorder (she's an RN) but I'm not so sure.

As for the drug companies and their "samples", I know what you're talking about, but I don't see it at my doctor's office because I go to Kaiser (I believe that drug reps are forbidden to see the doctors there). Nonetheless, I'm not entirely sure that these 'needless' medications form the bulk of drug company sales. I still think that cholesterol, diabetes, post-chemo, etc, drugs make up the vast majority of sales. I mean how many people can be stupid enough to believe that they have RLS?

quite a bit. it annoys me that they drug companies press that everything can be fix with drugs. Cholesterol should be targeted with diet first but instead it is all about pressing the drugs (which have pretty nasty side effects that they are not telling you about)
Or we can go after teh diabetes drugs which first should be targeted with diet not drugs but do the tell you this stuff NO. It drugs drugs drugs.
Huge amount of drugs that are not needed are pushed on people. A lot of them things like Anti depressants and ADHD meds on people who do not really need them but the drug companies say they do.

[leekohler]

quite a bit. it annoys me that they drug companies press that everything can be fix with drugs. Cholesterol should be targeted with diet first but instead it is all about pressing the drugs (which have pretty nasty side effects that they are not telling you about)
Or we can go after teh diabetes drugs which first should be targeted with diet not drugs but do the tell you this stuff NO. It drugs drugs drugs.
Huge amount of drugs that are not needed are pushed on people. A lot of them things like Anti depressants and ADHD meds on people who do not really need them but the drug companies say they do.

As I pointed out before, when I got diagnosed with arthritis in both knees, the first thing they wanted to do was give me Vioxx, which I flatly refused. I figured there had to be some sort of exercise option. Of course there was, but I had to refuse the chemicals first, and my doc didn't back down right away. Look what could have happened if I'd taken that crap. Anyway, I stuck to my guns on that one and I'm glad I did. Exercise works pretty well for arthritis pain management.

[IJ Reilly]

Restless leg syndrome is something I haven't made up my mind about. My sister says that it's a real disorder (she's an RN) but I'm not so sure.

It's real. It's considered to be a major cause of insomnia.

[CalBoy]

It's real. It's considered to be a major cause of insomnia.

So I take it you have no strong objections to drug companies peddling their wares onto patients who may or may not actually suffer from the disorder?

[IJ Reilly]

So I take it you have no strong objections to drug companies peddling their wares onto patients who may or may not actually suffer from the disorder?

Well that's loaded question. I don't know why you'd take that. I was only responding to the question of whether the condition is real or a fiction.

[CalBoy]

Well that's loaded question. I don't know why you'd take that. I was only responding to the question of whether the condition is real or a fiction.

I know I know. I was really trying to get you to express an opinion on the subject by getting you all "riled" up:p

[IJ Reilly]

I know I know. I was really trying to get you to express an opinion on the subject by getting you all "riled" up:p

Did it work?

[CalBoy]

Did it work?

Well clearly not!:p (HINT, HINT)

[solvs]

Well clearly not!:p (HINT, HINT)
You're going to have to do a lot better than that. I'd tell you how, but you'd have to have been around here for longer to get the joke. Sorry.

On topic, of course we're overmedicated, but that doesn't negate the need for some meds. Doesn't negate the need for better care for those that can't afford it, which this bill attempts to do with middle class children whose parents make too much to qualify for Medicaid. But yeah, the big pharma companies desire for profit may create some amazing things, but it does create needs where there are little to none where we feel we have to overmedicate. It also lets them get away with things they normally might not, as we've seen with meds that are rushed through that pass first inspection, but are later found to be less than safe. As well as over charge as they see fit. Record profits for them this year again BTW.

Forgive me if I'm meandering, I've got a cold right now and am high on vitamin c and NyQuil.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
Forgive me if I'm meandering, I've got a cold right now and am high on vitamin c and NyQuil.

You're able to afford medication without Universal Healthcare? :eek:

[solvs]

You're able to afford medication without Universal Healthcare? :eek:

I have healthcare (though it's just a cold). :rolleyes: It's other people's, especially children's, I'm worried about. Besides, NyQuil and Emergen-C are like $5 a piece at Target.