Healthcare going forward

[ballcaphair]

^ Thanks for that. He'll find a way to counter your argument, but he won't find a way to justify it. Profit is more important than people, and there is no justification for that.

Message from the front line:it is horrible to tell a client he can have a15 day free sample. If we script him, he'll often quit due to cost. It's emotionally almost impossible.

 

[gsdx]

^ That is the sad part. Life expectancy certainly isn't lengthened for the people who cannot afford the medicine.

Drug companies deserve to make a profit, but when profits are all they are interested in, they walk all over the public. It's even worse when the governments are so afraid of losing their big, fat donation cheques.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is absolutely true. We have clients who want to be up and active because that's how their wired. For a few clients, staying alive is their whole quality. I, personally, want to be wired and definitely a DNR.

I want to be switched to a robot body like in Chappie.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would like you to use your money to build a house for me on my land. When you are done we will negotiate how much I will pay you for it. Maybe you will get your money back and maybe even a little profit, we’ll see.
Or imagine a table in Las Vegas where you put you money down and gamble on whether the dealer will choose to let you win or not.
Neither are great gambles; nor is developing a new drug and then negotiating whether the bureaucrats will choose to let recover your investment.

They let you recover your investment by allowing R&D to be deductible.

Personally I think there should be not just a deduction for R&D but a credit for doing pure research. The R&D deduction encourages fiddling with known formulas more than any pioneering efforts; a credit for pure research would balance that.

And while we're at it, put in place something like the Nobel Prize, except for new medical treatments.

 

[Kulindahr]

If I had a serious reflux-heartburn or incontinence problem, I would ask my doctor. I would not waste my time and his asking him about a drug being pushed on me in a stupid television commercial. Again, there is only one reason for any type of advertising, and that is to increase profits. Advertising prescription drugs is not a public service announcement.

You left out an important aspect: it's not just to increase profits, it's to do so by emotional manipulation of the target audience rather than by rational presentation of information to parties capable of understanding it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Take a look at this commercial for Jardiance for Type 2 Diabetes. The commercial is 1 minute and 30 seconds long. The first 40 seconds advertise the benefits of Jardiance: lower blood sugar with the benefit of helping to reduce the chances of having a heart attack or stroke. The next 40 seconds consist of a voice-over announcing all of the many side effects - far-to-many to list here - which include higher bad cholesterol (which can cause heart attacks and strokes), ketoacidosis, and other life-threatening conditions.

All through the commercial, the music is bouncy and light.

I would NEVER ask my doctor about a drug which quite likely will make my diabetes even worse or may even kill me.

There is no justification for the millions of dollars spent to advertise this drug nor the billions of dollars the company will make in profits, not even the number of people who die from a drug which is supposed to make their condition better.

No justification at all.

Most listeners/viewers will shut down the moment they here "ketoacidosis". Advertisers know that, so the commercial is designed to leave an impression of negligible side effects outweighed by wonderful promises.

BTW, if I understand the medication right, they're engaging in a fallacy, too, by listing two results when their first one is merely a side effect of the second and thus one that will be shared by any medication doing the same thing. In effect, they're lying by misdirection.

 

[Kulindahr]

Business corporations exist to make profits.

And that's the basic problem here: these companies are NOT doing health care, they're exploiting people with health problems.

Maybe pharma companies should be require to be doing basic research on unaddressed actual medical needs and not just ones they think will bring profit -- or, as is common, avoid doing research on cures because cures don't bring ongoing revenues.

There may be people yet who do not realize that there are drugs to solve their heartburn.

Not in any place that actually offers health care. Clinics now present patients with surveys asking for any and all problems; the one here does so annually. Then the doctor or a nurse assistant will tell them about options.

 

[Kulindahr]

Is it in the least possible that many drugs can be derived from simple things that already exist in nature? Or is that too low tech or low profit potential? There are a lot of foods and herbs that have strong body defending capacities. My own take is extremely socialistic, lol...there should be no private, for profit market when it comes to health as the predominant provider. A private clinic where you are treated to hotel amenities? If you can afford it, be my guest... but everyone gets basic, good care as a floor and forget about worrying about the cost of drugs and what's your copayments or deductibles.

I propose a category between not-for-profit and profit-driven: the LPC, limited-profit corporation. They'd be allowed a small max profit, and if they exceed that it would have to be dumped into the state health care system.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which is why basic health concerns should not be dependent on a for profit delivery system. It's cold and inhuman to profit while others have to worry if they can afford to get sick, and god forbid they are hit with a serious illness or are in an accident that causes injury.

That's one reason a certain pharma industry executive argues strongly for a UBI, universal basic income -- it would help people afford care (which of course means helps sustains his company's revenues).

...which brings me back to one of my standby medical care proposals, a tax credit for the cost of an annual physical and the first four doctor visits.

 

[Benvolio]

I propose a category between not-for-profit and profit-driven: the LPC, limited-profit corporation. They'd be allowed a small max profit, and if they exceed that it would have to be dumped into the state health care system.

You can make a small profit in bonds etc without the risk. Right now, people and companies could develop for small profits. It doesn’t happen. It will not happen. It cannot happen. It takes big profits to justify the risk and to keep developing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Message from the front line:it is horrible to tell a client he can have a15 day free sample. If we script him, he'll often quit due to cost. It's emotionally almost impossible.

I got a ninety-day free sample once. The clinic had it available because there'd been a conference where every attendee was to get a big box of samples -- so they shut down the clinic for two days and sent all their people. The result was enough meds that they actually reduced employee kitchen space to store them.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ That is the sad part. Life expectancy certainly isn't lengthened for the people who cannot afford the medicine.

Drug companies deserve to make a profit, but when profits are all they are interested in, they walk all over the public. It's even worse when the governments are so afraid of losing their big, fat donation cheques.

Corporations shouldn't be involved in politics. Being able to influence legislation by making big donations is corruption all by itself.

 

[gsdx]

Corporations shouldn't be involved in politics. Being able to influence legislation by making big donations is corruption all by itself.

In Canada, they aren't:

Canada’s federal election finance laws put limits on contributions to political parties and candidates. Only individuals — not corporations or trade unions — may donate. Contributions are limited to up to $1,500 a year to each political party and up to $1,500 to all of the registered electoral district associations, contestants seeking the party’s nomination and candidates for each party. In addition, donors may give up to $1,500 to leadership contestants for a party as well as up to $1,500 to independent candidates. These limits were set in 2015, and the amounts increase by $25 each year. Political actors must disclose the names of anyone who donates more than $200.

Moreover, there are spending limits:

Political parties and candidates face limits on the amounts they may spend during an election. Political parties may spend 73.5 cents for every voter in districts where they are running candidates. For their local campaigns, candidates may spend an amount based on the population of the district in which they are running, typically between $75,000 and $115,000. If the election campaign is longer than 36 days, as was the case in 2015, the limits for both parties and candidates are increased proportionately.

Groups or individuals other than political parties and candidates may spend no more than $150,000 to try to persuade voters during an election, and no more than $3,000 of that may be spent in any one district. Critically, all of these limits to spending apply only during the election period — between when the writs of election have been issued (when the election is officially called) and election day.

These are two of the reasons that we have 6 different political parties sitting in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing/

 

[Kulindahr]

In Canada, they aren't:



Moreover, there are spending limits:



These are two of the reasons that we have 6 different political parties sitting in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing/

In other words, excluding corporations is essential to actually representative democracy.

 

[gsdx]

^ Yes. Companies do not run the government. It also gives the smaller parties a chance at being elected into Parliament as evidenced by the 6 parties currently sitting.

We also have very strict lobbying rules.

 

[ballcaphair]

I got a ninety-day free sample once. The clinic had it available because there'd been a conference where every attendee was to get a big box of samples -- so they shut down the clinic for two days and sent all their people. The result was enough meds that they actually reduced employee kitchen space to store them.

This warms my heart, front to back, left to right, and top to bottom. Thanks for the heart exam and good for you. A 90 day supply is, pardon the expression: SICK!

 

[Kulindahr]

This warms my heart, front to back, left to right, and top to bottom. Thanks for the heart exam and good for you. A 90 day supply is, pardon the expression: SICK!

The guy who was director at the time later became my doctor after he got tired of running the bureaucracy that inevitably developed.

And at two pills per day and a bit short of $2 per pill... yeah.

 

[ballcaphair]

You left out an important aspect: it's not just to increase profits, it's to do so by emotional manipulation of the target audience rather than by rational presentation of information to parties capable of understanding it.

Amen, I say with anxiety and remember, I am the caregiver. The client is overwhelmed with emotions over a damned commercial.

 

[tobymerwin]

I think we should take all the money from the wealthy and make everything free. Wouldn't that solve everything?

 

[KaraBulut]

I think we should take all the money from the wealthy and make everything free. Wouldn't that solve everything?

Perhaps but what does that have to do with healthcare?