Healthcare going forward

[Kulindahr]

Actually, the overall life expectancy is not relevant.

Of course it's relevant, it just isn't the only thing that is.

It is illogical to impede innovations because some people cannot afford them.

A friend in college wrote a paper arguing that the initial super-high prices of medical treatments (including medications) was a benefit overall because it meant that only a smaller number would be exposed to discovering side effects that hadn't been found yet -- which I observed seemed to amount to letting the rich and well-to-do serve as guinea pigs for the rest of us.

Interesting, the unintended consequences of things. Though with lots of people having good insurance coverage for medications, these days it's not focused so much on economic status but on how good your insurance is.

 

[Benvolio]

Of course it's relevant, it just isn't the only thing that is.



A friend in college wrote a paper arguing that the initial super-high prices of medical treatments (including medications) was a benefit overall because it meant that only a smaller number would be exposed to discovering side effects that hadn't been found yet -- which I observed seemed to amount to letting the rich and well-to-do serve as guinea pigs for the rest of us.

Interesting, the unintended consequences of things. Though with lots of people having good insurance coverage for medications, these days it's not focused so much on economic status but on how good your insurance is.

A drug innovation which cures or relieves symptoms of a serious condition is worthwhile irrespective of its ultimate effect on the overall national life expectancy. The slow change in the national life expectancy reflects the natural deterioration with age. Solving one problem means that other problems will come to the fore. But quality of life will be increased in the meantime. I do suspect that the expectancy will take a increase as the percentage of smokers and former smokers declines. But until progress is made on the age deterioration problem expectancy will not greatly increase.

 

[gsdx]

A drug innovation which cures or relieves symptoms of a serious condition is worthwhile irrespective of its ultimate effect on the overall national life expectancy.

But those are rarely, if ever, advertised. The only ones that seem most often to be advertised treat minor conditions and have a list of side effects, including death. Legitimate drugs don't need to be advertised. Heartburn medicine does not have an effect on life expectancy except, perhaps, to shorten it. A pill to treat a woman who pees a little when she laughs does not have an effect your life expectancy.

I can't think of a single advertised drug which is necessary, especially when they claim that they MAY help with a condition. Advertising is not for the people. It's for the profits.

 

[Benvolio]

But those are rarely, if ever, advertised. The only ones that seem most often to be advertised treat minor conditions and have a list of side effects, including death. Legitimate drugs don't need to be advertised. Heartburn medicine does not have an effect on life expectancy except, perhaps, to shorten it. A pill to treat a woman who pees a little when she laughs does not have an effect your life expectancy.

I can't think of a single advertised drug which is necessary, especially when they claim that they MAY help with a condition. Advertising is not for the people. It's for the profits.

Drugs which increase the quality of life are “legitimate” even though the may not increase life expectancy.

 

[ballcaphair]

Drugs which increase the quality of life are “legitimate” even though the may not increase life expectancy.

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.

 

[gsdx]

Drugs which increase the quality of life are “legitimate” even though the may not increase life expectancy.

Again, you switch it around. My post was in direct response to your comment about the drugs extending life expectancy, you you know for a fact (unless you've been living in a cave for decades) that most advertised drugs have nothing whatsoever to do with it. They treat minor conditions (many of which they make up new names for) to make them sound like a disease. Sure, they're 'legitimate' according to the FDA, but if people are dying because of a leaky bladder or heartburn, that makes them no more legitimate than the drugs which kill young people on the street day after day.

It is legalised drug trafficing which the government ignores because the drug companies which are killing people legally donate so much money to political parties which keep them in business and raking in the dough.

No drug where 'death' is a side effect should EVER be advertised.

 

[Benvolio]

Again, you switch it around. My post was in direct response to your comment about the drugs extending life expectancy, you you know for a fact (unless you've been living in a cave for decades) that most advertised drugs have nothing whatsoever to do with it. They treat minor conditions (many of which they make up new names for) to make them sound like a disease. Sure, they're 'legitimate' according to the FDA, but if people are dying because of a leaky bladder or heartburn, that makes them no more legitimate than the drugs which kill young people on the street day after day.

It is legalised drug trafficing which the government ignores because the drug companies which are killing people legally donate so much money to political parties which keep them in business and raking in the dough.

No drug where 'death' is a side effect should EVER be advertised.

Look again. I repeatedly said that the overall life expectance is irrelevant. And, any drug, including aspirin can cause death. Advertising is necessary to the financing of innovation. Perhaps if you had a serious reflux/heartburn problem of incontinence you would see the balancing risk vs quality of life issue differently.

 

[ballcaphair]

I don't think the government will not seek the lowest cost. In college I worked as a form-man and as a tie wire man. Both were "government jobs" and waste and hours were not a consideration.

 

[Benvolio]

I don't think the government will not seek the lowest cost. In college I worked as a form-man and as a tie wire man. Both were "government jobs" and waste and hours were not a consideration.

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.

 

[gsdx]

Perhaps if you had a serious reflux/heartburn problem of incontinence you would see the balancing risk vs quality of life issue differently.

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.

 

[gsdx]

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.

 

[Benvolio]

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.

Business corporations exist to make profits. There may be people yet who do not realize that there are drugs to solve their heartburn.

 

[Sausy]

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.

 

[gsdx]

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?

Of course. Herbal medication has been around for millennia. The Peoples of the First Nations discovered so many medications that we use today. They made tea from willow bark for pain, tea from pine needles to cure scurvy, etc.

However, people have been convinced by advertising that they need more expensive chemical combinations to fix them. You can make a lot more money from chemicals than you can from tree bark and needles.

 

[Sausy]

Of course. Herbal medication has been around for millennia. The Peoples of the First Nations discovered so many medications that we use today. They made tea from willow bark for pain, tea from pine needles to cure scurvy, etc.

However, people have been convinced by advertising that they need more expensive chemical combinations to fix them. You can make a lot more money from chemicals than you can from tree bark and needles.

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.

 

[gsdx]

^ 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.

 

[Benvolio]

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... buiit everyone gets basic, good care as a floor and forget about worrying about the cost of drugs and what's your copayments or deductibles.

Ok, just tell you doctor that you want only drugs produced by not-for-profit producers.lots of luck. There are many herbs and supplements reputed to have medicinals properties. But the are not regulated ny the FDA and with few exceptions have not been subject to valid scientific testing. For that reason they will not be recommended by doctors as as a cure for serious ailments. Doctors are correctly trained to stay close to scientific diagnosis and treatment. That excludes most herbs and supplements because it costs a lot if money to conduct clinical testing of drugs—up To a hundred million. And a company testing an herb or supplement would be growing its money away, for this reason. Herbs and ordinary supplements are in the common domain and cannot be patented. Therefor the company paying to test them could not charge enough to recover the cost. It’s competitors will benefit from the tests and sell the stuff without the cost of testing.

 

[Benvolio]

Of course. Herbal medication has been around for millennia. The Peoples of the First Nations discovered so many medications that we use today. They made tea from willow bark for pain, tea from pine needles to cure scurvy, etc.

However, people have been convinced by advertising that they need more expensive chemical combinations to fix them. You can make a lot more money from chemicals than you can from tree bark and needles.

Gee, do Canadian doctors prescribe willow bark tea for pain? What are some of the MANY medications your doctors get from Indians? There are better sources of vitaminC for scurvy than pine needles; oranges for one.

 

[TX-Beau]

Gee, do Canadian doctors prescribe willow bark tea for pain? What are some of the MANY medications your doctors get from Indians? There are better sources of vitaminC for scurvy than pine needles; oranges for one.

...utterly pointless response...

 

[gsdx]

Gee, do Canadian doctors prescribe willow bark tea for pain? What are some of the MANY medications your doctors get from Indians? There are better sources of vitaminC for scurvy than pine needles; oranges for one.

I wasn't talking to you. If you're going to insult me and Canada, at least do it to a response I made to you.

Seriously, man, you're taking this to grade school levels.