Healthcare going forward

[swerve]

And...

Don't even get me started talking about Chantix...

 

[gsdx]

^ At least they won't have voices in their heads telling them how to quit smoking.

It's amazing how many drugs actually worsen the condition they're supposed to be treating... or generate an entirely-new condition you didn't have before.

 

[ballcaphair]

^ At least they won't have voices in their heads telling them how to quit smoking.

It's amazing how many drugs actually worsen the condition they're supposed to be treating... or generate an entirely-new condition you didn't have before.

We have clients. I'm no expert, but this is probably the primary cause of "piggy-backing." Often these medication combos void insurance coverage. It's like being shot in the back......twice.

 

[gsdx]

^ There are commercials running for Prolia (osteoporosis) featuring Blythe Danner. It's all about strengthening bones, but then they get into the side effects which may actually make bones more brittle and bones (jaw and pelvis, etc.) can break all by themselves.

There are all sorts of diabetic medications now, and each one actually seem to make the diabetes worse, even to the point of killing you.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single advertised drug in which death is not one of the side effects.

 

[Benvolio]

The drugs would not be on the market if those side effects were not extremely unlikely and the doctors would not prescribe them if the benefit did not outweigh the risks. People take them because the disease is such a burden that whey accept the risk.

 

[Kulindahr]

The drugs would not be on the market if those side effects were not extremely unlikely and the doctors would not prescribe them if the benefit did not outweigh the risks. People take them because the disease is such a burden that whey accept the risk.

You make the same critical error that most economists do: assume that people are rational. People take most drugs because they were conned by emotionally-based advertising.

 

[Benvolio]

You make the same critical error that most economists do: assume that people are rational. People take most drugs because they were conned by emotionally-based advertising.

No, no. They cannot take prescription drugs without a prescription and they take take their doctors' advice. The advertising is not that attractive with the litanies of bad side effects.

 

[gsdx]

^ We're not talking life-saving prescription drugs. They don't need to be advertises. I am on Metformin and Coversyl for diabetes and blood pressure. I have NEVER seen commercials for them. Never. And I've never seen commercials for insulin. But now, look at all of the 'fake' insulin commercials on television. There are dozens of them, and they all have a list of side effects. All of them.

The side effects are not what are being advertised. They are there because they must be there. Throughout the commercials, however, are people who are happy and carefree knowing they won't pee a little when they laugh. Until recently, people have been dealing with minor issues without harmful medications which can kill them. The drug companies don't advertise side effects. They play up the possible - I repeat "possible" - benefits of an unnecessary drug which can kill them. That is obvious by the numbers of deaths and injuries and new conditions caused by drugs that people don't need.

There was a reason that the tobacco industry and its advertising is one of the most highly-regulated products in the United States, and that same reason is why drug advertising should be regulated or banned completely: People Die!!!

 

[Benvolio]

^ We're not talking life-saving prescription drugs. They don't need to be advertises. I am on Metformin and Coversyl for diabetes and blood pressure. I have NEVER seen commercials for them. Never. And I've never seen commercials for insulin. But now, look at all of the 'fake' insulin commercials on television. There are dozens of them, and they all have a list of side effects. All of them.

The side effects are not what are being advertised. They are there because they must be there. Throughout the commercials, however, are people who are happy and carefree knowing they won't pee a little when they laugh. Until recently, people have been dealing with minor issues without harmful medications which can kill them. The drug companies don't advertise side effects. They play up the possible - I repeat "possible" - benefits of an unnecessary drug which can kill them. That is obvious by the numbers of deaths and injuries and new conditions caused by drugs that people don't need.

There was a reason that the tobacco industry and its advertising is one of the most highly-regulated products in the United States, and that same reason is why drug advertising should be regulated or banned completely: People Die!!!

The ones advertised are new drugs, some lifesaving. Insulin does not need to be advertised, but perhaps the more convenient deliveries do. People die from insulin as well. Every drug has potential side effects. A prohibition of advertising would mean that the cost of new drugs cannot be recovered. It will seriously impede research and development here and in other countries including Canada.

 

[ballcaphair]

The ones advertised are new drugs, some lifesaving. Insulin does not need to be advertised, but perhaps the more convenient deliveries do. People die from insulin as well. Every drug has potential side effects. A prohibition of advertising would mean that the cost of new drugs cannot be recovered. It will seriously impede research and development here and in other countries including Canada.

Many of our clients are quizzing our doctors about advertised drugs. Big Pharma steals profits, tax-breaks, bargaining leverage, and even exam hours from America. I am sour on the whole concept. Obama and those before him have given our seat at the table to drug pushers. There is no excuse for this. Don't trot out the R&D argument. Auto makers have doubled the efficiency AND the safety of their products without this concept.

 

[Benvolio]

Many of our clients are quizzing our doctors about advertised drugs. Big Pharma steals profits, tax-breaks, bargaining leverage, and even exam hours from America. I am sour on the whole concept. Obama and those before him have given our seat at the table to drug pushers. There is no excuse for this. Don't trot out the R&D argument. Auto makers have doubled the efficiency AND the safety of their products without this concept.

Auto makers spend huge amounts on research and development, and do not need to conduct expensive clinical trials. And yes they advertise the new developments and seem to charge more for those accessories than justified.

 

[gsdx]

The ones advertised are new drugs, some lifesaving. Insulin does not need to be advertised, but perhaps the more convenient deliveries do. People die from insulin as well. Every drug has potential side effects. A prohibition of advertising would mean that the cost of new drugs cannot be recovered. It will seriously impede research and development here and in other countries including Canada.

Always the argument and never, ever, the proof. And it has NOT impeded Canada's research and development unless you have statistics you back up your statements. But you never do.

And you still have yet to justify the enormous American profits when everyone else in the world is profiting quite nicely without advertising.

 

[Benvolio]

Always the argument and never, ever, the proof. And it has NOT impeded Canada's research and development unless you have statistics you back up your statements. But you never do.

And you still have yet to justify the enormous American profits when everyone else in the world is profiting quite nicely without advertising.

You always forget. Canadian drugs are sold legally in the US through pharmacies and they advertise in the US.

 

[thewiz]

No, no. They cannot take prescription drugs without a prescription and they take take their doctors' advice. The advertising is not that attractive with the litanies of bad side effects.

You really have no idea how powerful advertising and promotion by drug companies is throughout the health care field. Having been president of a small, rural hospital, I know we had boxes of new pharmaceuticals provided to our doctors and those in the surrounding communities. Most of the very plush hospital conferences (Hawaii, Scottsdale, etc) were paid for by the same companies. They advertise at all hours of the day and night because people see the drugs, recognize the symptoms and ask their doctors for a prescription. Doctors who fail to provide such prescription find one less patient because there are a host of them out in the world that will easily and gladly do so. How do you think the opioid epidemic came about?

Pharmaceutical companies have no problem making profits and drug prices in the U.S. -- where the drugs are developed and often produced -- should be the same as in all other countries. The difference is in group purchasing and regulations of the pharmaceutical companies by those other countries. If they still didn't make a profit in those countries, they would not be there.

 

[gsdx]

The difference is in group purchasing and regulations of the pharmaceutical companies by those other countries. If they still didn't make a profit in those countries, they would not be there.

I ddon't know how many times we've tried to tell him that. He still insists the companies are doomed to failure. Well, the drug companies in Canada have been failing for decades and still making a profit.

 

[KaraBulut]

You always forget. Canadian drugs are sold legally in the US through pharmacies and they advertise in the US.

You're wrong on this.

It is against US law for individuals to import pharmaceuticals and medical devices from outside the US. The FDA has historically been lax on enforcement on mail order shipments but that does not make the practice legal.

In most circumstances, it is illegal for individuals to import drugs or devices into the U.S. for personal use because these products purchased from other countries often have not been approved by FDA for use and sale in the U.S. For example, a drug approved for use in another country but not approved by FDA would be considered an unapproved drug in the U.S. and, therefore, illegal to import.

FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of medicine purchased over the Internet from foreign sources, storefront businesses that offer to buy foreign medicine for you, or during trips outside the U.S. For these reasons, FDA recommends only obtaining medicines from legal sources in the U.S.

 

[KaraBulut]

...I know we had boxes of new pharmaceuticals provided to our doctors and those in the surrounding communities. Most of the very plush hospital conferences (Hawaii, Scottsdale, etc) were paid for by the same companies. They advertise at all hours of the day and night because people see the drugs, recognize the symptoms and ask their doctors for a prescription....
...Pharmaceutical companies have no problem making profits and drug prices in the U.S. -- where the drugs are developed and often produced -- should be the same as in all other countries. The difference is in group purchasing and regulations of the pharmaceutical companies by those other countries. If they still didn't make a profit in those countries, they would not be there.

^QFT.

In the US, thanks to the ACA we now know that in 2016, pharmaceutical companies made $8.18 billion in payments to US physicians to [STRIKE]bribe[/STRIKE] encourage them to prescribe their products. If those payments were eliminated, the cost to consumers could be decreased proportionally.

 

[Benvolio]

You're wrong on this.

It is against US law for individuals to import pharmaceuticals and medical devices from outside the US. The FDA has historically been lax on enforcement on mail order shipments but that does not make the practice legal.

Yes, but look again at what I said. ‘Canadian Drugs are sold legally in the US through pharmacies....” I am not talking about direct sales from Canada US individuals, but legal sales through US pharmacies.
‘’ Over half of [Canada’s ] production is exported and mostly to the United States.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/422621/canadian-pharmaceutical-exports-and-imports/
Canadian companies can advertise in the US and sell without price controls.

 

[Kulindahr]

Many of our clients are quizzing our doctors about advertised drugs. Big Pharma steals profits, tax-breaks, bargaining leverage, and even exam hours from America. I am sour on the whole concept. Obama and those before him have given our seat at the table to drug pushers. There is no excuse for this. Don't trot out the R&D argument. Auto makers have doubled the efficiency AND the safety of their products without this concept.

The hospital clinic here has a policy that you don't ask your doctor about drugs, he presents options. Before the hospital acquired the clinic and set that policy, doctors spent an hour or two every day explaining drugs that patients asked about -- so just that policy made it possible for them to take on a lot more patients. So, yes, they steal exam hours!

 

[Kulindahr]

You're wrong on this.

It is against US law for individuals to import pharmaceuticals and medical devices from outside the US. The FDA has historically been lax on enforcement on mail order shipments but that does not make the practice legal.

I think he was referring to ones imported legally and sold in drug stores.