More ammo for Kerry, and he needs to keep focusing on this. Multiple years now of double digit increases in the costs of health care with nothing being done by the current administration to control them.

Perhaps if his running mate gave back some of the 50 million he milked out of his lawsuits... that might help.

I've actually been thinking about this one. People generally have quite vivid anecdotes about lawsuit abuses, from frivolous product claims (McDonalds coffee, etc) to medical shakedowns. If Edwards were this baracuda of a plainiffs' attorney, where are the cases. They're public record. Are there no cases from his career that could embarass him? Did he never sue a doctor who didn't have it coming. Even if every doctor he sued (assuming there were any) was guilty of something, surely the amount of money he made off the case and the amount of money it cost insurance companies, therefore costing their premium payers, would make him look bad. I find it difficult to believe that either the Republicans haven't thought of that or that such information is impossible to find. Is it just possible we have the one honest lawyer in the land running for Vice President? If so, it sure as hell beats a crooked CEO.

Or Halliburton could just use a portion of their profits and pay for everyones healthcare.

Where does your candidate stand on healthcare PhillyCoward?

Experts over the years have clearly pointed out that the vast majority of lawsuits in this country are NOT consumer-suing-manufacturer (or patient-suing-doctor). They are companies suing one another for things like patent infringement (and many of those lawsuits are frivolous).

Given that the Institute of Medicine estimates that 90,000 people a year die from medical mistakes, and most of those families don't sue, I don't really think you can fault lawyers who sue bad doctors and bad hospitals for the costs of medical care. Our medical system is an inefficient nightmare, a cottage industry where economies of scale and scope that keep costs down in other industries cannot be realized.

Not to mention we are a nation of lazy fools who just want a pill to take care of everything, so the rates of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, etc. just keep increasing. That makes medical care more expensive as well.

Then you add in the insurance companies trying to make up for a disastrous few years by raising medical insurance premiums (the increase in which is not correlated to any increase in the size or number of malpractice cases), and you get the current crisis of physician supply in many states.

Finally, we get to subsidize the cost of medication for the rest of the free world, which also adds to our costs.

The increases in health insurance premiums have myriad causes, so blaming John Edwards really does not make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. It's just another RNC mantra that far too many idiots have latched onto. Tort reform in general is a ploy by megacorporations--which as we know pay little to no taxes--to keep more of their money.

It isn't passed on to the consumer. And hospital corporations, like the one Billy "Catkiller" Frist's family owns, are, along with the gouging drug companies and the screwed up insurance industry, one of the chief reasons our health care system is among the most expensive (though not the best) in the world.

It wasn't always this way. But then, we didn't always have the horrible HMOs or their diehard champions, the neo-Republicans.

The blame for this lies as much with doctors as patients. A friend of mine (a woman in her early forties) was diagnosed with high blood pressure and placed on medication. Her blood pressure then fell too far, and the doctor wanted to experiment with a lower dosage. She basically said to hell with that and decided to see if there was another way, and found that by making some lifestyle changes to reduce her stress level, she was able to bring her blood pressure down to normal levels. In contrast, when my sister in Canada was diagnosed with high blood pressure, the first thing they looked into was whether there were lifestyle changes that could be made. Same with my father, who has diabetes--he was able to control it with diet, and doesn't need to take insulin. But in my experience, doctors here would rather send patients home with pills than spend time actually talking to them about how they could improve their health.

I guess we could call him "Good Samaritan," too, but what's in a name, eh FT? Unless you're the one calling it.

It's issues that count, and the issues surrounding health care don't admit of easy answers, let alone sophomoric solutions such as Hillarycare. There are as many frivolous med-mal lawsuits as there are valid ones; I've arbitrated both. There are also ER denizens - the left euphemizes these as "the homeless (sob) and uninsured" (sniff) - who rack up the costs of diagnosing sniffles as much as they do surgery, just as there are families struggling to pay their health insurance premiums jacked up partly as a result of these slackers' refusal to do so themselves. And yes, there's the corporate greed factor too, which begs regulating in some, but not all, circumstances.

What's behind all this though, is the traditional American expectation that one takes personal responsibility for his own life, although this idea has been abandoned to the GOP and the right of late. So long as people are told they have an "entitlement" to unlimited health care they'll take advantage of it, and not always in the most cost- and health-effective ways. There is as much greed in individuals' selfishly refusing to look after themselves as there is in corporations' looking after themselves too well. Both require correction, and we've yet to see either party or candidate seriously and openly address all the facts surrounding this issue and its resolution. One thing is clear: name-calling never solved anything.

That sounds like name calling to me.

Socialized health care is definitely a viable solution. It does work in nations accross the world, much to the chagrin of the Republican party. I'm not a medical policy expert, but I have had some experience with both the Israeli and Canadian health care systems, and my experience indicates that both are fully capable of taking care of their citizens without the catasrophic results naysayers would have us believe.

There was a time when the proponents of flouridating the water supply were accused of being communists trying to impose socialized health care on our society. Well, we did it anyway and are spending far less on dentists than we would have without flouridation. These solutions deserve their day in the sun without being dismissed as somehow subversive to the American way of life.

That being said, while I am an advocate of socialized health care, I recognize that it is not necessarily either the best solution for America or the solution that the political process will eventually reach. The one thing that truly is clear is that the system in the United States is broken or very close to it. The forces and stresses on it are too great and moving in too many directions. If something is not done soon to limit insurance costs, increase patient ownership of their own treatment options, increase both doctors' autonomy and responsibility and control outrageous costs our system will fall apart. I'm perfectly willing to listen to, and perhaps support, alternatives that aren't socialized medicine, but nothing the Republican party has suggested so far does anything but protect insurers from the insured (not that the Democratic party has been any more useful in this debate).

Perhaps it's time for you to look to move to one of these socialist states and stand inline for you medicine.

What line? You mean the line we wait in in the pharmacies of the United States to pay for criminally overpriced medication where more of our dollars are going toward being advertised at than went into the cost of developing the drug? I've been in pharmacies and hospitals in nations with socialized health care. The lines aren't any longer than here and the wallets are fuller at the end of the process. Your antipathy for anything you don't understand isn't terribly becoming, but then I suppose the wife beater stained with your own vomit from the alcoholic stupor makes that irrelevant.

Just remember to bend over while you are standing in line in the US -

When my Mom had Cancer the cost of her Meds was ASTRONOMICAL in NY - more than $1500 per week; When she went to GA for the winter the same Meds cost her around $700 per week; She took a trip to Canada for several weeks where the same Meds at market cost were around $120 per month. That was 10 years ago.

A Hospital Room in NYC can cost you around $1500 per night; a Hospital Room in NNY costs around a fifth of that. The same room in London costs the equivalent of $100 per night - if they take you, because the health service there STILL MAKES HOUSE CALLS!

In the meantime my company dishes out over a grand a month per person for health insurance...

If Free Enterprise is always the best system, then how come it is far more costly than anywhere else on earth?

Modern Health Care in the US is ruled by Mega Corporations out for a buck, Inner city hospitals struggling to keep their heads above water, Pharm Corporations who have mooved 90% of Med production offshore since 1990 anyway (Mostly to Puerto Rico), and HMOs who are overstaffed with bureaucrats counting pennies and not paying attention to patient needs.

And no one pays attention to the 15-20% of Americans who have NO Health Care coverage.

Rob

[ September 12, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Hate to tell you this, gmginsfo, health care may not be an entitlement (and as the government pays for little health care outside of the elderly and their own employees, you can't really call it an entitlement in this country) but it is a public good, just like a strong defense. It is just as important to the long-term outlook of our economy that we have a healthy and productive workforce, and having 45 million Americans without health insurance does not get us there.

As for the "ER denizens," as you call them, many of those people are uninsured, but working nonetheless. The American people in the 60s made a decision that they did not want socialized medicine, and so decided to rely on a system that had employers provide health insurance as a benefit of being employed - which only works when you have most employers providing insurance. That is not the case in this country any longer, and the vast majority of the uninsured are the working poor. They should not be blamed for not having access to care that requires them to use the ER because there is no other choice.

Plus, that there, for the uninsured having to rely on ER's is a huge reason why health costs continue to skyrocket.

Well apparently the Catholic Church believes more in enforcing anti-gay prejudice than in helping in the quest to get all Americans covered by health insurance:

I wonder, did they (and do they still) cover health insurance for the spouses of their previously divorced straight employees? I bet they do.

365gay coverage

I'm sitting here waiting to hear back from a pharmacy. My doctor, after trying several meds for me, found one that worked like a dream. For the first time in ages, I was living without chronic pain. But she only had a few samples. I brought in the prescription and found it's a "new" med (it's been around for at least a year) and not on the Blue Cross "list". My doc is trying to get them to add it. If she is not successful I have to pay out of pocket and it's over $200 a month. For a permanent condition. Ah, the wonders of capitalist medicine.

I recently saw a study that said that Holland is the one country in the world where you can no longer tell a person's class status from his/her looks. They also have the world's greatest average height. 6'2" for men, 5'10" for women. Usually, wealthier people are taller (genetics plays a role, of course, but nutrition is huge in determining height). Teeth are another giveaway, poor kids who lack dental care in childhood are more likely to have decaying teeth as even young adults and far more likely to have crooked teeth. But Holland, although a capitalist country, has for decades had cradle to grave state medical care for all including nutrition, prenatal care, dental care, everything. And the results are visible. Frankly, I'd rather pay taxes for that than for pre-emptive war.

Meanwhile, I am reading about fears of a new polio epidemic in Africa. Not isolated cases, an epidemic. There has been an extremely effective vaccination against polio for, what is it, 40 years? 45 years? But poor countries can't pay for it and lack the refrigeration necessary to preserve it. Cuba, on the other hand, has wiped out polio and measles. Could social system have something to do with it?

Ms. DeBlazer. I wish you the best of luck in trying to obtain the med you need. Hang in there. I don't know what your income situation is like but there may be some options available if your income is lower. You may try to contact your state agencies like D.S.H.S. and the like to see if they can help. If not they may be able to refer you. Good luck!

Have you considered or looked into ordering the med through a Canadian Pharmacy?

The cost difference is amazing...

I agree with the plan of looking at a Canadian pharmacy, though you'd have to be very careful and make sure it's a legit outfit, rather than one of the scam pharmacies that are getting drugs from Mexico and China that *aren't* what they claim to be, which can be deadly.

ER visits, even when factored into the overall equation, are not the primary source of rising health costs. Again, this is a conservative canard that demonizes the poor and working-classes--who, if they had affordable, available health care, as well as comprehensive education about better health options--wouldn't NEED to use ERs as much. But then neither would wealthy Americans either.

Mrs. de Blazer's point about the Netherlands is well taken. Let's not forget, however, that it is a nation about 16 million people. I have heard that among larger countries, the two nations with the best health care systems are Germany (82 million people) and France (60 million). I have no proof of this, though, so does anyone else know? Britain and France have almost the exact population totals (with 200K more people in France), but Britain's NHS has repeatedly come in for criticism, even by politicians who support it. None of these three countries has either the wealth disparities that exist in the US or same level of negative health outcomes per capita.

Earlier this week, I was diagnozed with high blood pressure, and high cholesteral .

For the high blood pressure, I was prescribed Avadline.

For the Cholesterol, I was prescribed Lipitor.

For both, I had a 3 month prescription filled. I didn't bill it through my drug plan at work this time.

My total cost? $21.98

And I got a blood pressure monitor for free.

What would 90 pills of each cost in the US?

To answer your question... From a US mail discount house (I checked three)
Lipitor 10 mg. 90 Tabs $359.00
Lipitor 20/40/80 mg. 90 Tabs $474.00


Hey Lks - I also have high blood pressure - diagnosed two years ago - did you see this past springs NE Jornal of Med and JAMA reports on BP Meds - in a couple of long term studies they found that OLDER meds tend to work as well or better than the newer ones - ex - Diuretics had equal or better results for people with elevated BP than did the newer ACE inhibitor classes of drugs. This was found to be particularly true for the elderly.

In several related articles therapies of mild daily exercise, simple diet modification, and diuretics (All Together)were prefered as treatment for all but those with the most severe Hypertension.

I had problems with the ACE inhibitors (light headed - blurry vision) which never worked all that great to begin with; I had my doc change my scrip to HCTZ and Atenalol (A mild Beta Blocker), and my BP dropped like a stone... 150+/100 to 110-120/70...

Although I admit to being frequently thirsty these days - oh well - I love iced green tea anyway. :cool:

Rob

[ September 17, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

I've only been on the blood pressure for 4 days, and it's dropped from 160/110 to 121/91 (as of 8pm tonight)
I do notice that I pee a lot more, but I drink lots of water anyway.
ANd now I am gonna quit smoking tomorrow at midnight to reduce the risk factor even more.
We have a gym at work that costs 7.50 per month, so I'm joining this as well.

Just so long as I can eat chocolate at some point in the future.

Lksimcoe. Good for you about kicking smoking. Stick with it. Just take it each day a day at a time, and be good to yourself too.

Good news, Lksimcoe, word now is that DARK chocolate (in moderation, of course) is considered GOOD for you!

Thank God - If I had to give up gourmet dark Chocolates and fresh ripe Strawberries I think I would give up the whole sex thing...

Jeez, who am I kidding

Rob

Their view of moderation and my view of moderation tend to differ widely.

My view of an "average" portion of ice cream is
a 500ml container of Ben & Jerry's triple fudge chunk.

Now, if I could smear it all over Copman or ITJock and then eat it, I could combine it with exercise.

:cool: With or without whipped cream?

I have always enjoyed things on the .. er... Athletic side...

Hold that thought.... wink

Rob

PS - Took the train to Galway today, God this country is beautiful! Green like the Pacific NW only more so... Tmrw I am supposed to have a 'period' dinner in a Med. Castle!

[ September 20, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Costs associated with health care and prescription drugs are on the rise everywhewre. Lately some in the states see getting drugs over the net from Canada as a solution. There is no problem if a few do this but if a lot of people start doing this, Canadians will ens up with more expensive prescription drugs. Pharmas will not provide two times the consumption of a drug to a country, knowing half of it is exported to another country and cutting their profits.


Some here are starting to worry. From the Toronto Star:

"Canadians will find prescription drugs more expensive — if they can find them at all — unless the federal government stops Internet pharmacies from catering to Americans, a health coalition warns.

Several groups representing pharmacists, patients and seniors called on the federal government yesterday to ban fast-growing exports of Canadian prescription drugs before it's too late.

Demand from Americans, fed up with high drug prices at home, is already causing drug shortages in some areas

"Our system would quickly be overwhelmed and Canadians would pay the price for our government allowing the U.S. to raid our medicine cabinet."

Pharmacists in Manitoba, where Internet pharmacies are popular, are already having trouble finding enough supplies of some drugs to fill prescriptions, said Lothar Dueck, head of the Coalition for Manitoba Pharmacists.


Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry has promised to allow American citizens to import drugs from Canada if they send him to the White House.

"While I feel badly for Americans ... we cannot solve their problems," said Binder. "Cross-border Internet pharmacies are not the solution."

Observers say it's highly unlikely the U.S., which accounts for about half the global prescription drug market, would ever move to regulate drug prices because of a powerful lobby by the global pharmaceutical industry."