Pharm Co.'s "find" another 80 billion: More Scanner paranoia

[Scanner]

Obama announces agreement with drug companies - Yahoo! Finance

DisneySteve,

Could you explain this to me? All of the sudden, with the prospect of "healthcare reform" being very real and a public health insurance option being there, they say,

"Oh, we had 80 billion laying around"?

Nothing like a little socialism threat to get capitalism moving, huh?

[GREENBACK]

To socialized heathcare I say, not no, but hell no. It's an absolute failure everywhere it exists unless you're about 25 and in good heaith anyway. It's not about the socialism/capitalism fight. It just doesn't work from what I've seen.

[disneysteve]

I don't know all the details, but it is no surprise to me or anyone that the drug companies make a ton of money. Just like the oil companies when we talk about gas prices going up and down and back up.

Surely, they can afford to sell their drugs for less. It just means less profit down the line. The stockholders may not like it, but the patients who can better afford their meds sure will.

What I would really like to see Obama do is push Congress to reinstitute the ban on direct-to-consumer advertising. That is one of the worst things they've ever done and costs billions of dollars each year. Let them spend that money to help buffer the cost of the meds rather than spending it on ridiculous TV commercials.

[Hot dog]

I dont know I think the commercials are a little special but they have brought mental health disorders a little more out in the public eye and may be helping the stigma a bit that goes with having certain illnesses.

[disneysteve]

I dont know I think the commercials are a little special but they have brought mental health disorders a little more out in the public eye and may be helping the stigma a bit that goes with having certain illnesses.

When the ban on advertising was first lifted, the early commercials were "disease state" commercials, meaning they talked about a condition and said, "speak with your doctor because treatment is available" or something to that effect. They didn't mention any specific drug by name. I'm fine with those types of ads, and they would do exactly what you mention. That leaves the prescribing decision in the doctors' hands where it belongs.

The current system is totally backwards. Patients shouldn't be walking in saying, "I saw a commercial and I've got disease X and want you to prescribe drug Y because the commercial said that's the best treatment."

[akrogers]

Maybe they will make socialized healthcare a temporary solution just to "help people get on their feet".... just like welfare was a temporary solution. Maybe we can look forward to a whole new generation of people who have learned to live off the government for new and even more exciting commodities. yay. [sarcasm]

[Inkstain82]

Stupid people and their expectations of basic standards of living. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting the government to enforce 40-hour workweeks, lawn-mowing and minimum wage. Why can't the government just stay out of things?

[Scanner]

In this case, I am really not advocating socialized medicine or not (even though I have opinions on the matter and I agree with AKRogers that I think Australia has it right).

I just find it interesting that all of the sudden now that the Democrats and BO are putting the squeeze on, that they found 80 billion dollars over 10 years to "help" seniors.

I wonder why Bush couldn't help them "find it" or if McCain had been elected, if they had "found it" together.

Am I the only one who finds these blurbs interesting? Maybe I examine the news differently.

[akrogers]

Am I the only one who finds these blurbs interesting? Maybe I examine the news differently.

No, I am right there with you. I read a lot into things as well, meaningful or not. I am just very paranoid (to use your word) about the new regime...

[disneysteve]

I wonder why Bush couldn't help them "find it" or if McCain had been elected, if they had "found it" together.

I can't help but wonder if any progress made during the current administration will stick if we end up with another Republican president later. I can just see a bunch of new policies being made only to have a later administration go back to the same old garbage.

[GREENBACK]

In this case, I am really not advocating socialized medicine or not (even though I have opinions on the matter and I agree with AKRogers that I think Australia has it right).

I'm not involved in the health care system in any capacity but am curious about why Austrailia "has it right". I know their system is funded by both gov't and private but in what way are they better than us? Do they have better doctors than we do? Do they have doctors as good as we do? Who flies to Australia for a life saving (insert your own word) transplant. They haven't even created their own octomom yet.

I think the concept that everyone will recieve timely and great medical treatment under a nationalized system should be very closely examined. We need go no further than Canada to examine it. Looks good on paper and works well as long as you stay healthy.

[disneysteve]

Going OT here, but TIME has a great article this week about cutting costs in healthcare. They profile the Mayo Clinic and how much less they spend on their average patient than similar facilities in other places and how they really emphasize evidence-based medicine rather than "we do it that way because we've always done it that way." It is really an interesting article that makes some great points about how to cut costs without cutting care.

[EEinNJ]

The high cost of drugs and the wide variation in pricing are major symptoms of the systematized corporate corruption in the industry. 80 billion is the tip of the iceberg- they are offering that up as "protection money". Those of you who think that without government regulation these companies can be trusted to do the right thing and charge a fair price for a quality product have no idea what really goes on.

My dog takes a human heart drug, Enalapril. I called several local and chain drugstores for the generic, got prices from $16 to close to $200. Unbelievable. A friend of mine was a sales rep for a big pharma, became a whistleblower over what they were having them do to get doctors to prescribe their drugs. Schering-Plough was fined over 500 million a few years ago because of manufacturing quality and compliance problems with Claritin. I worked for J&J for a long time, and there are stories there, too.

[Inkstain82]

Who flies to Australia for a life saving (insert your own word) transplant. They haven't even created their own octomom yet.

The problem with the American system isn't the life-saving treatments. It's the fact that so many people need them because they can't find or afford basic, preventative care.

[disneysteve]

My dog takes a human heart drug, Enalapril. I called several local and chain drugstores for the generic, got prices from $16 to close to $200.

I agree that this is a big problem, but you are blaming the wrong party here. If one pharmacy charges $16 and another charges $160 for the same drug, it isn't the fault of the pharmaceutical company but rather the fault of the pharmacy. The wholesale price is the same to both. It is the retail price that changes. That's why WalMart and Target and others are offering certain generics for $4 while other pharmacies are charging 2 or 3 or 6 times as much for the same pills.