Problem #1 with health care: Everyone is on drugs

[private_ryan]

and they cost a fortune. Many people don't need to be on drugs but the people are asking for them (thank to advertising) and the doctors are saying yes. Not to mention that the doctors receive benefits for pushing certain drugs...the expensive ones.

Do the math, 2 drugs can easily cost about $200+ a month
http://bernie.house.gov/prescriptions/drugsheet.asp
and that's before the health insurance paying for the doctor visit, test, surgeries, hospital stays etc. The drugs should be cheaper (by forcing them stop direct advertising is one way), but people also need to work out and live a better lifestyle instead of looking for miracles from pills. Eating at McDonalds 3X a day and then popping Lipitor and two other heart pills is not the way to go...
http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.1104.html

fire away!

[candy]

1. I remember when drug companies and lawyers could NOT advertise--

It was wonderful.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. That will never happen again

The media makes WAY too much money off them to allow the politicians (also one of the biggest customers of media networks) to take that revenue stream away.... unless they allowed liquor ads again... hmmmm...




http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[depakid]

21. Actually, Edwards let it slip during his debate with Cheney

that Kerry was planning on reimposing the rule that the Clinton administration (in its usual deregulatory "wisdom") dropped regarding the content of direct-to-consumer broadcast advertisements for prescription drugs.

Basically, that rule required that ads mentioning a specific indication for a brand name drug include a "brief summary" of side-effects and adverse reactions from the FDA-approved label.

Now, the deal is that the "brief summary" isn't so "brief" in terms of TV and radio time- and therefore, before Clinton's FDA sold us all out, it not only cost too much to air the ads, but rendered the ad copy ineffective (to say the least).

No women in soft focus prancing in flowers filled meadows after taking paxil... hard cold facts about side effect profiles and contraindications....

[NC_Nurse]

2. I agree completely.

And I'm sick of seeing effin' Viagra, Cialis and Levitra ads too! :puke:

What a bunch of horseshit!!!!

[private_ryan]

5. honestly

I don't think Viagra or other elective ones should be covered by insurance at all.

[tridim]

6. Is Viagra really covered by insurance?

I sincerely hope not, because I know "stop smoking" drugs aren't.

[private_ryan]

7. many do

they have limits on how many a month.

"Within two months of its entrance into the US market, more than one half of the prescriptions for Viagra received insurance coverage..."
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/BIRTHCONTROL/EPICC_facts.html

[Eurobabe]

9. they probably are, guys like Bob Dole (DOH!) need them

[MountainLaurel]

11. Often, Viagra is, but contraceptive aren't

Because Viagra treats a diagnosable illness (ED), but contraceptives reflect a "lifestyle choice"

:eyes:

[cavanaghjam]

12. Good point.

To extrapolate, isn't eating sausages and eggs every morning also a "lifestyle choice"? Or sitting on one's fat ass watching the 700 club 12 hrs. a day?

Drugs that treat conditions which could be eliminated by sensible diet and a daily walk around the block should in no way be paid for from the public treasury

[CBHagman]

16. Not everyone taking medications is as you describe.

There are astronomical cholesterol levels that cannot be controlled by exercise and diet alone, and there are many other conditions that require regular medication. I think anyone who has a Type I diabetic, cancer patient, bipolar person, or similar in the family knows what I'm talking about.

That said, it's insane that Americans pay 40 percent or so more than Canadians for the same medications. There's something immoral about medical care being based on corporate profits and advertising.

[cavanaghjam]

18. Nor did I say such.

There are few cases of high cholesterol which cannot be managed by diet and exercise when there are not secondary conditions. And there are many conditions which are ameliorated only through pharmaceutical treatment. ALL drugs have side effects, and many cause damage to liver and kidneys; however slight their damage, it lessens the body's ability to function properly, thus contributing to further troubles. It becomes a case of risk/reward.

When there is no alternative to drugs as remedy, by all means that course should be taken and with the most financial assistance warranted. Too often, though, dosing the patient is the first response.

[NNguyenMD]

19. I've been told that someone in the the Veteran's Administration has...

determined that all VA patients are entitled to 2 Viagra tablets a month. Last I checked wholesale Viagra is $8-9 a pill.

[Eurobabe]

8. my cousin is an ER nurse you should hear the

stories he tells about dickdrugs gone bad!! LOL...

[TheFarseer]

3. YES YES YES

you are correct sir. And our idiot Health and Human Services guy Tommy Thompson says it's great that Americans are taking more drugs?!?!?! Yeah, we're alot more healthy now, especially with an obscene percentage of our population falling in the "obese" category. We need more fruits and veggies, NOT more drugs.

[Baconfoot]

10. Yeah. Let the compulsive McDonald's eaters die of heart attacks.

In not changing their lifestyles they are just being irreponsible. You know. It's just like lazy homeless people. It's really easy to change your lifestyle and it's not at all possible to combine attempting to change your lifestyle with a sensible drug regimen with an eye towards reducing the regimen if possible.

Drugs are evil and people would do just as well without them if only they would exercise. After all, antibiotics, antivirals, anti-cancer medication, preventative asthma medication and so on may save lives but come on. In most cases the people would never have been sick in the first place if they only did yoga. How many of the pills or inhalers people take are life saving anyway? 99% of prescriptions are for viagra, diet pills and post-cosmetic surgery pain reducers anyway.

And after all, people used to live a much longer amount of time before the modern era of McDonald's and food contaminated with preservatives and irradiated to kill the nutrients.
</sarcasm>

[sonicx]

13. people can change their eating habits. who ever said it was easy?

[private_ryan]

15. nah, don't ruin it for them

pills will fix up anyone who reaches 500-900 lbs. The more pills the better, all free of course along with the pope-mobile size wheelchair and oxygen tank. The healthy people will pay by having their premiums doubled every few years because you're a victim of (enter name here), and it's not your fault.

Don't even walk to McDonalds, drive there and eat in the car. Supersize of course, it's a great deal. For just 39 more cents you get an extra 4 cents of fries and 2 cents of soda. You're actually ripping off McDonalds.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. A nation of hypochondriacs?

:shrug: Victims of advertising? How incredibly sad.

[Cleita]

17. For those of us who actually really need the drugs, we

have a hard time affording them. So I don't think we are asking for anything other than reasonably priced medicine for our needs.

[NNguyenMD]

20. To be fair...

commercialization of the healthcare industry is the problem. People who get prescriptions don't exactly get to bargain hunt for the lowest price like the do with everything else they buy. Many of these drugs are very effective and useful, some are just repeats of whats already out there. Its really a shame that this business has put profits over all else and reneged on their commitment to patients as distributors of healthcare.

And doctors have to do their part too, evidence based medicine COMBINED with good judgement and experience should never be subsituted with whatever pharm reps tell them, or what is most commercially profitable to them.

But please don't get the idea that all of us are in bed with the likes of Pharma. Many physicians who seemingly look like they coddle with the pharmaceutical companies do so to hawk as many free samples as possible so that they can distribute them to their patients. True, some physicians engage in this practice hoping that their patients get hooked on these "miracle drugs" but I can tell you first hand that just as many do so to help save their patients money, like those times when your doc has given a month's free supply of expensive antibiotics, or antinausea pills for those who are on Chemo. I seen this happen many times while working with many of my instructors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. International drug comparison

If anyone has more direct figures, I'd be interested to see them.

This German website ('Statistics 2004' 1.2M PDF) says, for expenditure per capita:
USA 515
Japan 315
France 287
Switzerland 262
Italy 239
Germany 236
Spain 230
United Kingdom 187

and relative prices:
USA 135
Switzerland 100
Sweden 90
United Kingdom 87
Germany 86
Denmark 86
Netherlands 82
France 76

so, relative consumption, for countries appearing in both lists:
USA 3.8
France 3.8
Switzerland 2.6
Germany 2.7
United Kingdom 2.1

So the US does have something in common with France. Hypochondria.

[zanana]

23. Gross generalization

This is a classic Freeper argument; "If people didn't take so many DRUGS (in other words, medication), prescription prices and healthcare wouldn't cost so much." "And if they only took better care of themselves, they wouldn't have to complain". Conservative political philosophy alway blames the individual, thus getting large, flesh-eating corporations off the hook. Economic inequality masquerading as good vs. bad moral values again.