# Corporate death panels



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Make no mistake about it, death panels are alive and well. My elderly friend is with a Medicare Advantage provider, which is basically privately administrated Medicare. Once again, we've been turned down for a prescribed medication solely on the basis that it's expensive.

This time the Dr prescribed Cymbalta. I first sent it off to be filled at the Walgreens mail order pharmacy, but they sent a latter saying that insurance refused to cover for mail order. I took it to the local Wallgreens today, but they said we need to go through an authorization process, which the Dr needs to initiate.

I already know how this will play out. I'll order it from overseas and the insurance company will be completely off the hook. We're already doing it for Evista and Boniva, so I'll just have to add Cymblata to the list.

I sure wish she was back on government administrated Medicare, but she won't hear of it. She loves the idea of an HMO.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Someone has to be the bad guy there is only so much health care money out there. That means someone has to decided how that money is spent.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

All government healthcare does this as well as private insurances. They will not pay for some expensive medication if there is a cheaper one that does the same thing unless your doctor says this is the only one that will work for some reason.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Why, are you surprised. It is you that is saying we are in a depression. And if what you are saying is true then yes there will have to be some way to be frugal and still take care of every one.
Ask the doctor if there is a good less expensive alternative.

I know dh gets his meds from the VA and they used to send every thing in a timely manner. Now he has to call every time he runs short and that is even with the web site they set up for meds.

The new health care bill didn't give us more goverment health care, it gave us corporate health care, with rationing. So you may as well get used to it.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

i remember very clearly poppy insisting that his insurance pays for absolutely everything with no limitations on drugs or choice of doctors. good thing i didn't believe it.


nevada, don't let the hmo off the hook. they are being well paid for not caring for your friend.

when you go to the doctor, take the formulary, the list of drugs they WILL pay for. if they didn't give you one it should be available online. ask the dr. to prescribe from that list. 3 things will happen. 1. a cheaper drug the insurance company will pay for will work just fine. 2. if it doesn't work, or your doctor feels she needs the other drug the doctor has to call the insurance company, tell them why it failed or why he thinks she needs another drug. you may have to stay after them to do this. 3. 9 times out of 10 they will then pay for the other brand name drug.

it's all about being aggressive in taking charge of your health care. i'm here to tall you that it is going to get worse before it gets better. now they will "reward" those with "good" behavior with lower premiums. they will still be higher than today but lower than those who continue to smoke or don't lose weight. let me be perfectly clear- this is NOT the new HC plan. it's the greedy insruance companies bleeding people before the gov't enacts the new regulations. this is similar to the CC companies jacking everyones rates in the months before their new regs began.

so many people whine and fret over a new health care plan when they fail to understand that what they already have is just as bad if not worse than what will be in the future.

and yes, hmo's do effectively have death panels, to use those words. the workers get bonuses for denying care. read that twice. it doesn't matter if the care will save a life. the bottom line is the only thing that matters. it's cheaper to let someone die than to pay for end of life care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Just for the record, we didn't have this problem when she had straight Medicare Part D. Sometimes the copays were high, but she was never denied what was prescribed.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

SquashNut said:


> Why, are you surprised. It is you that is saying we are in a depression. And if what you are saying is true then yes there will have to be some way to be frugal and still take care of every one.
> Ask the doctor if there is a good less expensive alternative.
> 
> I know dh gets his meds from the VA and they used to send every thing in a timely manner. Now he has to call every time he runs short and that is even with the web site they set up for meds.
> ...


you do know the HC bill hasn't really taken effect yet? the only parts that start right away are the end of lifetime limits and the 6 month pre-existing condition clause in most current plans. the rest will be slowly phased in over the next several years.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Just for the record, we didn't have this problem when she had straight Medicare Part D. Sometimes the copays were high, but she was never denied what was prescribed.



it's the hmo system that was put into place after the clinton HC bill was shot down. imo we should all have a plan similar to medicare but oh well. maybe someday.

eta: your friends dr really should be more familiar with what her insurance will pay for. after all, he signed a contract with the ins. co. maybe he thinks she's still on medicare??


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Nevada, I am actually not going to even "go there" with the refusals to pay, death panels, etc. What I AM gong to say is, I truly hope you get this situated quickly for your friend's sake. 

Is this the same one who fell in the hospital?

By the way, Cymbalta is one of the meds they gave me for Fibro, I HATED the stuff. Knocked me on my tail feathers, so out of it and woinky; I preffered the pain.

That reminds me, sometimes an insurance will pay for meds for one purpose, but not for another. For instance, Wellbutrin is covered as Welbutrin for psych issues, but change the name to Zyban and try to prescribe it for the side affect of stopping people from smoking, and it isn't covered.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

marvella said:


> when you go to the doctor, take the formulary, the list of drugs they WILL pay for. if they didn't give you one it should be available online. ask the dr. to prescribe from that list. 3 things will happen. 1. a cheaper drug the insurance company will pay for will work just fine. 2. if it doesn't work, or your doctor feels she needs the other drug the doctor has to call the insurance company, tell them why it failed or why he thinks she needs another drug. you may have to stay after them to do this. 3. 9 times out of 10 they will then pay for the other brand name drug.
> 
> it's all about being aggressive in taking charge of your health care.


Actually, I discussed this with the Dr after I got turned-down by the mail order pharmacy. I suggested that zoloft & lortab would serve a similar purpose for depression and chronic pain, but the Dr insisted that Cymbalta was what she wanted her to be taking. I accepted right then that I may be getting it from overseas.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Actually, I discussed this with the Dr after I got turned-down by the mail order pharmacy. I suggested that zoloft & lortab would serve a similar purpose for depression and chronic pain, but the Dr insisted that Cymbalta was what she wanted her to be taking. I accepted right then that I may be getting it from overseas.



cymbalta is used for depression with the side effect of sometimes helping chronic pain. ask him to call the insurance company.

i don't blame him for not wanting to go down the lortab path. it not only has serious side effects and the potential for addiction but it also reaches tolerance pretty quick.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

marvella said:


> cymbalta is used for depression with the side effect of sometimes helping chronic pain. ask him to call the insurance company.
> 
> i don't blame him for not wanting to go down the lortab path. it not only has serious side effects and the potential for addiction but it also reaches tolerance pretty quick.


Oh, we're already on the Lortab path. She gets all she wants.

The thing about these expensive meds is that even if the insurance company approves payment the copays are a lot more than I can get them from overseas. For example, if they approved Evista the copay would $30/month, but I get get it for $11/month overseas. That's just fighting a losing battle.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

marvella said:


> i remember very clearly poppy insisting that his insurance pays for absolutely everything with no limitations on drugs or choice of doctors. good thing i didn't believe it.


Your history of understanding what you read is very poor.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

The corporations have the legal authority to be involved in the decision via the contractural agreement they have with the patient. The government on the other hand, does not.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

marvella said:


> eta: your friends dr really should be more familiar with what her insurance will pay for. after all, he signed a contract with the ins. co. maybe he thinks she's still on medicare??


I'm really suprised, as a healthcare worker, that you don't know that insurance companies review and change their formularies yearly - depending upon what cheap contract they can get with the pharmaseudical company. To expect every Doc to know every formulary with every insurance company he contracts with is silly.

If I need a less expensive drug, I've gone in with the $4.00 formulary...For me, with the meds I take daily, it's cheaper to pay the $4.00 than go through my insurance. 

It's all in how you play the game these days, Nevada. So sorry to hear of your plight.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Whew, another refreshing thread of how the government will save us! YAY!


----------



## tamsam (May 12, 2006)

I have been taking Lortab since 1989 and am not addicted or had side effects other than at time I get a little gooney. Also I take other pain meds to kick it up when it doesn't help my gall bladder. If people take it for the thrill of taking it yep they get hooked on it. Due to my copd the docs doesn't want to put me under to remove my gall bladder. It has given me a fit for the last 3 days and I am taking the lortab and tramadol 4 times a day. When I was in the hospital 35 days I took lortab and morphine 4 times a day with no side effects. If I don't take the lortab I get to where I can not breathe, I will go for a week without taking it just to make sure I am not hooked on it. 
Havwe you tried calling the drug company to see if they can help? Good luck. Sam


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

tamsam said:


> Havwe you tried calling the drug company to see if they can help?


No reason to. Overseas drug manufacturers are more help than I could ever hope American drug companies to be.


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

I don't know that much about the health care bill they are forcing on us.
But I do know about the health care provider I have.For the last fifteen years,they have been increasing the cost I pay for health Insurance every year.

About every other year, they raise the deductible I have to pay.Also they have been giving me the run around with what drugs me and my wife take.They say the drugs are too expensive, and have even tried to get my Dr to prescribe less costly drugs.

And if that ain't bad enough,they also require my Dr to treat me according to their guide lines.

Example,About eight years ago,I started having a problem with my right knee hurting real bad.Went to the Dr,he said he thought it was arthritis,so he xrayed it,it was.He then sent me to an orthopedic surgeon to check it out for a possible knee replacement.Didn't need it,he controlled it with drugs.
Fast forward to last year,I had it again,but in the left knee this time.So back to my regular Dr I go,expecting him to prescribe the same meds the surgeon prescribed seven years ago.

Nope,he could not do that,he had to follow the guide lines my insurance insisted on.He had to start out prescribing the cheapest arthritis drugs that were on the market.No x rays until the meds run their course,and if I was no better,then the Dr could Xray and only if the x ray showed arthritis,could the Dr put me on the next cheapest arthritis meds.

Only after this last med had not helped,could he send me back to the surgeon.He did and the surgeon prescribed the very same meds he did seven years ago,and in less than a week my knee was not hurting any more.

It would seem to me there ought to be a law against insurance companies controlling a person,their Dr,and what kind of treatment the Dr thinks is needed.

If the Dr thinks a certain drug should be prescribed to a patient,but the insurance company forces him to prescribe a less effective and less expensive drug.If that person dies and the Dr thinks the more expensive drug would have saved the persons life,that insurance company,should be charged with manslaughter.

NEVADA,do you have a link to that overseas drug supply??I might just stop sending my money to an insurance company that would rather I die than to pay for my treatment.

Like I told my homeowners insurance company,when a flood caused us to file a claim.Don't be giving me the run around trying not to pay the right amount.They should have given me the run around when I was buying the policy.That way I would have kept that premium i been sending in every year.But nooo,all they were saying then is look how much you gunna get if anything happens.

I did look,and I better get every cent I was looking at,when they were shoving them danged ink pens in my face, while I was straining my poor eyes trying to read that small print,making sure I won't getting the shaft.

That said,all you insurance companies out there,that try to take advantage of folks, by poor mouthing and trying to get us to except a lesser amount with them sob stories.Do everybody a favor and shut up and write the check.If you can't afford to pay no hassel claims,then you need to get out of the insurance business.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Here's a story out today about how the new healthcare bill will affect emergency rooms. Yep, longer lines and longer waits. Wasn't the opposite supposed to happen?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_he_me/us_med_er_crowding


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Make no mistake about it, death panels are alive and well. Who are you and what have you done with Nevada?...... Cymbalta has vastly helped with my migraines, and nerve damage in my back.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Oh, we're already on the Lortab path. She gets all she wants.
> 
> The thing about these expensive meds is that even if the insurance company approves payment the copays are a lot more than I can get them from overseas. For example, if they approved Evista the copay would $30/month, but I get get it for $11/month overseas. That's just fighting a losing battle.


you can tell i am not familiar with buying meds overseas. my copays are $360 for a 3 months supply plus another $40/ month for otc meds. maybe i should look into buying overseas too.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

poppy said:


> Here's a story out today about how the new healthcare bill will affect emergency rooms. Yep, longer lines and longer waits. Wasn't the opposite supposed to happen?
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_he_me/us_med_er_crowding



there's that crystal ball again. isn't it kind of dusty??


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

marvella said:


> you can tell i am not familiar with buying meds overseas. my copays are $360 for a 3 months supply plus another $40/ month for otc meds. maybe i should look into buying overseas too.


PM which meds you take and I'll make some suggestions for inexpensive vendors. It may take more than one vendor to get the best deal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

EDDIE BUCK said:


> NEVADA,do you have a link to that overseas drug supply??I might just stop sending my money to an insurance company that would rather I die than to pay for my treatment.


PM your med list and I'll recommend one or more vendors.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

marvella said:


> there's that crystal ball again. isn't it kind of dusty??


I figured you would know more than the author of the article.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I figured you would know more than the author of the article.


No one knows what health care will look like in 2014, since no one knows what legislative changes will be made between now and then. You can bet that this will evolve.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Evolve :sob: About like a dead skunk in the middle of the road :cowboy::help:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

deaconjim said:


> The corporations have the legal authority to be involved in the decision via the contractural agreement they have with the patient. The government on the other hand, does not.


Why can't the government enter into a contractual agreement with individuals? Military recruiters do it all the time.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

poppy said:


> I figured you would know more than the author of the article.


it's called commons sense and looking into issues for oneself. i suggest you try it sometime instead of depending on someone elses opinion.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

marvella said:


> it's called commons sense and looking into issues for oneself. i suggest you try it sometime instead of depending on someone elses opinion.


Okay, let's apply common sense. More people on Medicaid is part of the healthcare bill. Anyone working in an ER will tell you Medicaid members are a primary user of ER's for everything from a sore finger to a headache. Now, does common sense tell you more or fewer people will be showing up at ER's?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Just got final word. Insurance isn't going to cover Cymbalta. They say there are less expensive alternatives available. The Dr gave me enough samples today to make it until the overseas order gets here.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

poppy said:


> Okay, let's apply common sense. More people on Medicaid is part of the healthcare bill. Anyone working in an ER will tell you Medicaid members are a primary user of ER's for everything from a sore finger to a headache. Now, does common sense tell you more or fewer people will be showing up at ER's?


please provide some kind of proof of your second sentence.

your third sentence is not borne out by fact or by my experience.

hence, your entire argument is false. you've been taking lessons from glenn beck, it seems.

where most opinions go wrong is usually in the very early stages.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Just got final word. Insurance isn't going to cover Cymbalta. They say there are less expensive alternatives available. The Dr gave me enough samples today to make it until the overseas order gets here.


just curious- what does the insurance think is an acceptable alternative?

and how does the US cost compare to the overseas (country?) order?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

marvella said:


> just curious- what does the insurance think is an acceptable alternative?
> 
> and how does the US cost compare to the overseas (country?) order?


I'm not sure. I got the verdict second-had from the nurse at the Dr's office. I'll probably get something in the mail eventually. I suspect that they want her to take something like generic zoloft & a pain pill of some sort as an alternative.

US cost is $3 to $4 per pill, while I'm paying about $1 per pill.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Evolve :sob: About like a dead skunk in the middle of the road :cowboy::help:


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just got final word. Insurance isn't going to cover Cymbalta. They say there are less expensive alternatives available. The Dr gave me enough samples today to make it until the overseas order gets here.


Nevada, is this what you are calling "Death Panels"? Are you trying to make an analogy? Are you saying that ins. denial of a drug but offering many others that are similar is the same as a "death panel"? B/c if that's the case, you're no where near comparing apples to apples.

"Death Panel" refers to the GOVERNMENT having a group determining what care someone should/should not get. No angioplasty/knee replacement/cancer trreatment b/c you're to old. 
Like when your friend fell in the hosp. No hip surgery for you! Seems you're old & demented!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Thanks Tricky Grama :bow: Though that was something I thought everyone could relate to . It stinks to high Heaven and gets worse ever hour :smiley-laughing013::smiley-laughing013:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> "Death Panel" refers to the GOVERNMENT having a group determining what care someone should/should not get. No angioplasty/knee replacement/cancer trreatment b/c you're to old.


Why is it OK for a private insurance company to determine these things but not a government insurance program?



Tricky Grama said:


> Like when your friend fell in the hosp. No hip surgery for you! Seems you're old & demented!


Just for the record, the Medicare government death panel authorized her hip surgery. But after this Cymbalta thing, how do I know that the private insurance company would have done the same?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> "Death Panel" refers to the GOVERNMENT having a group determining what care someone should/should not get. No angioplasty/knee replacement/cancer trreatment b/c you're to old.


So-called "death panels" (insurance authorization committees) assure that requested medical procedures make sense. Those panels are not intended to decide who gets procedures and who doesn't, they are only intended to prevent abuse of benefits through unnecessary procedures. Those panels are critical for keeping costs under control, and no one has objected to medical authorizations in the past.

Concern over "death panels" has been propagated by the likes of Sarah Palin, who extrapolated the intent of insurance authorizations to include the denial of medical services to certain classes of people, purportedly for the purpose of allowing people in those classes to die-off. While those concerns have struck a chord with the American people, there's no reason to believe that insurance authorizations will ever be used for any other purpose than to prevent abuse of benefits, regardless of whether the insurance is administrated by the government or a private corporation.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sometimes I wonder, Nevada, if you type just to see how badly you can irritate others.

You've asked "why is it ok for ins. co. to determine these things & not the gov't?" 'HUNDREDS' of times so go look up all the answers. Or just trust me, you never should trust your gov't to do this.

Medicare is run by the gov't and very poorly, otherwise it wouldn't be bankrupt. Ins. Co.s seem to be doing ok, making 4% profit or so.

Folks were up in arms over the clause in the HC bill regarding 'end of life decisions', not over meds that ins. co.s deny. 

But continue on w/your non-analogies, your over&over&over agian same questions.

I'm hoping that ins doesn't deny your pre-senile dementia meds.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Medicare is run by the gov't and very poorly, otherwise it wouldn't be bankrupt. Ins. Co.s seem to be doing ok, making 4% profit or so.


So your problem with the "death panels" is that they let too many people live?. Why exactly is Medicare run poorly then?



Tricky Grama said:


> Folks were up in arms over the clause in the HC bill regarding 'end of life decisions', not over meds that ins. co.s deny.


No, NO, *NO!* False, wrong, and not even true. The end of life counseling provision was a separate issue from Palin's death panels.

The end if life issue came from a provision where it was authorized for doctors to bill insurance for end of life counseling. Palin objected to having authorization panels review care for victims for chronic diseases, such as her Down Syndrome baby. She accused democrats of wanting death panels for the purpose of eliminating (i.e., letting them die through lack of care) Americans who might be unproductive and expensive to care for. Here, read about it for yourself.

Palin: Obama's "Death Panel" Could Kill My Down Syndrome Baby
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html

But then you knew that, didn't you. You were just trying to mix issues to confuse readers into thinking that you were correct. Has it occurred to you that the use of deception leaves people with the impression that you don't have a good case?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So-called "death panels" (insurance authorization committees) assure that requested medical procedures make sense.


The insurance companies refusal to pay for a specific drug "makes sense" to them.



> Has it occurred to you that *the use of deception *leaves people with the impression that you don't have a good case?


Found that "yellowcake wasn't yellowcake" link yet?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The insurance companies refusal to pay for a specific drug "makes sense" to them.


I'm sure it does, but you have to admit that this is a deviation from the intent. A doctor prescribing an expensive medication is not abuse of the system. In fact, that's precisely what insurance is for.

For the insurance company to refuse to pay for a prescribed medication on the basis that it's expensive defies logic. After all, if all the insurance company had to pay for is inexpensive generics then why would anyone carry insurance?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> After all, if all the insurance company had to pay for is inexpensive generics then why would anyone carry insurance?


To cover the costs of the generics, obviously, as well as the Dr and Hospital bills
Drs often prescribe drugs based on THEIR kickbacks rather than on what is "best" for the patient.

There should be a generic Cymbalta out sometime in the next year, so they would probably approve that version


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2010)

poppy said:


> All government healthcare does this as well as private insurances. They will not pay for some expensive medication if there is a cheaper one that does the same thing unless your doctor says this is the only one that will work for some reason.


And if there is not cheaper alternative they'll pay for the expensive one. 

My son is on medicade. When you adopt an older kid out of foster care you automatically get it. I'm glad they do as he needs about $450 worth of medication each month and we would not have been able to adopt him without it. 

One of his meds is Concerta. It's for ADD. This kid tests off the charts when it comes to ADD and ADHD. Other meds have been tried on him, but they make him sick or they just don't work. He needs the maximum dosage of Concerta. There isn't a generic of Concerta. His medicade pays about $200 for 30 pills. 

Foster kids are automatically on medicade. We've never had a problem with it. We've had kids in casts, kids who need in home therapy, in school therapy and all sorts of odd little things. Never once in the past 9 years have we been denied care. We've goten to chose our doctor, too. Granted, we were given a list and the doc we loved happened to be on that list so we were lucky. Even after we moved to another state and got switched to that state's medicade we've never had a problem. 

Now DH and my private insurance...it's supposed to be 'one of the best', but coverage is spotty and they are very picky about what they'll pay for. Considering how much $$$ Dh's company pays for it....it's not really worth it. We keep it because it's better than nothing.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> "Death Panel" refers to the GOVERNMENT having a group determining what care someone should/should not get. No angioplasty/knee replacement/cancer trreatment b/c you're to old.
> Like when your friend fell in the hosp. No hip surgery for you! Seems you're old & demented!


Aren't both making life and death decisions based on money?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There should be a generic Cymbalta out sometime in the next year, so they would probably approve that version


I've already ordered a generic from overseas. I can get them for $30/month.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sigh.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sigh.


Could you elaborate?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Tonya said:


> And if there is not cheaper alternative they'll pay for the expensive one.
> 
> My son is on medicade. When you adopt an older kid out of foster care you automatically get it. I'm glad they do as he needs about $450 worth of medication each month and we would not have been able to adopt him without it.
> 
> ...


Very true. I find it hard to blame either Medicare or private insurance for wanting people to use the cheaper drug if it works. That's the logical thing to do and the same decision most of us make on products every day. Nevada said he could apply for a waiver to get the more expensive drug by having the doctor fill out some papers. Apparently he didn't want to bother. It is irrational to bash the drug companies as greedy and then want insurance to buy every high price med that comes along when there are alternatives.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> So your problem with the "death panels" is that they let too many people live?. Why exactly is Medicare run poorly then?
> 
> Medicare is bankrutp. A result of gov't stupidity. Not talking death panels here.
> 
> ...



Of course the baby w/Down's played a part. But the end of life care was what most were objecting to. If you had a mind you'd recall the discussions here as well as in the news. (NOT what huffy wants to report) 

B/c you cite one article does NOT mean that is ALL of the discussion on "DEATH PANELS". Did you ever read "The Complete Lives System"??? Ever read the writings of John Holdren-science czar? Sunstein? Afraid to comment on either of these? Check out the folks who helped write the HC bill & what they believe in.

I'll give you a hint: you'll get beliefs of sterilization drugs in drinking water. Forced abortion. The belief that only those who are/can be PRODUCTIVE in society will be given HC. I'm not saying its in the bill now, but its a dream for the people who believe it. Those who are vigil will not be led to gov't intervention & PAYING A DOC to advise end of life care (his license, pay, etc will depend on the way he advises)

Here's a challenge to anyone on this board: Refute/deny/defend any of the writings/beliefs of these guys.

Explain to me how I MIX ISSUES & use DECEPTION!!! BWHahahahaha.
I consider that calling me a liar, Nevada.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Very true. I find it hard to blame either Medicare or private insurance for wanting people to use the cheaper drug if it works. That's the logical thing to do and the same decision most of us make on products every day.


I don't blame insurance companies for wanting doctors to prescribe less expensive drugs, but in the end it has to be physician preference. No two drugs are exactly the same with respect to benefits & potential side effects, and the physician ultimately assumes responsibility for the care of the patient. The physician really has to have the last word. If the insurance company can refuse one medication while recommending a less expensive medication, then the insurance company is getting the last word on prescription selection.

If insurance companies get into the business of telling physicians which drugs to prescribe for which illnesses, then insurance companies are clearly practicing medicine, so therefore should be subject to being sued for malpractice if anything goes wrong. Are insurance companies really willing to accept that kind of liability?

Insurance company civil liability could be potentially serious. Let's say, for example, that insurance companies start refusing Plavix to heart patients, on the basis that Plavix costs $3/pill while baby aspirin accomplishes the same thing. If a patient on baby aspirin dies of a heart attack, who is to say that Plavix wouldn't have prevented it?

It seems to me that insurance companies becoming involved in prescription drug selection is opening a can of worms that would have been wise to leave alone.



poppy said:


> Nevada said he could apply for a waiver to get the more expensive drug by having the doctor fill out some papers. Apparently he didn't want to bother. It is irrational to bash the drug companies as greedy and then want insurance to buy every high price med that comes along when there are alternatives.


Evidently I didn't make myself clear. I did pursue the authorization for Cymbalta, but a nurse at the Dr's office said it was denied. What do you want me to do; go to the insurance office and beat them up?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I don't blame insurance companies for wanting doctors to prescribe less expensive drugs, but in the end it has to be physician preference. No two drugs are exactly the same with respect to benefits & potential side effects, and the physician ultimately assumes responsibility for the care of the patient. The physician really has to have the last word. If the insurance company can refuse one medication while recommending a less expensive medication, then the insurance company is getting the last word on prescription selection.
> 
> If insurance companies get into the business of telling physicians which drugs to prescribe for which illnesses, then insurance companies are clearly practicing medicine, so therefore should be subject to being sued for malpractice if anything goes wrong. Are insurance companies really willing to accept that kind of liability?
> 
> ...


But doctors are not experts at which meds to prescribe. No way they can keep up with all the new ones. They depend on the drug reps and pharmacists for their info. While all meds are slightly different, there is also a wide variation in how a certain med will affect a particular person. IMO, you should have tried the cheaper one first. If it did not solve the problem, look for an alternative. There is a long list of drugs that do what Cymbalta is supposed to do and many of them are generic. Some work for some people but not others. Others work for different people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> But doctors are not experts at which meds to prescribe.


That's not relevant to the argument. The fact is that physicians are licensed to prescribe medicine, while insurance companies and drug company representatives aren't licensed. This isn't a question of who might know more, it's a question of who takes responsibility for the consequences of the prescription.

An example is seasonal allergy medicine. Yes, there are lots of medications that are inexpensive and available without a prescription, and the insurance company insists that their patients take those. I had my friend on Claritin, and it seemed to control the symptoms just fine, but her physician insisted that we switch her to prescription Clarinex. Why? Because Claritin has the nasty side effect of irritating the lining of the lungs. Since my friend is susceptible to pneumonia her physician thought it was a good idea to avoid Claritin. While the insurance company won't pay for Clarinex, I can get it overseas for about the same cost as Claritin (15 cents per pill).

https://www.alldaychemist.com/195_Clarinex-5mg

So let's say I ignored her physician's advice and gave her Claritin, as the insurance company recommended. Let's also say that my friend came down with pneumonia as a result. Would the insurance company be willing to take responsibility for the consequences of pneumonia? No, I suspect that they would be quick to point-out that they are not licensed to practice medicine and therefore are not responsible. But how can a physician really practice medicine when the insurance company is telling him what to prescribe?

The fact is that a lot of people in their mid-80s don't live with someone as web-savvy and resourceful as I am about these things. In that case they have to take only the medicines that the insurance company recommends. Is that good medical practice?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

poppy said:


> But doctors are not experts at which meds to prescribe. No way they can keep up with all the new ones. They depend on the drug reps and pharmacists for their info. While all meds are slightly different, there is also a wide variation in how a certain med will affect a particular person. IMO, you should have tried the cheaper one first. If it did not solve the problem, look for an alternative. There is a long list of drugs that do what Cymbalta is supposed to do and many of them are generic. Some work for some people but not others. Others work for different people.


Es verdat.
There've been independent studies showing some old drugs work as well if not better than newer million $$ ones. 
There's studies that show some generics are not as close to the origianals as they should be. Try this w/anti-arrhythmics that delicately affect the heart.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> There's studies that show some generics are not as close to the origianals as they should be.


While I've never seen such a study, to be completely accurate I don't normally order generics from overseas. More often I order a name brand from a foreign drug manufacturer. For example, instead of Clarinex I order Deslor, a name brand manufactured by Sun Pharma (India) containing the same medicine and dosage.

https://www.alldaychemist.com/195_Clarinex-5mg

The fact that it's inexpensive does not make it a generic.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That's not relevant to the argument. The fact is that physicians are licensed to prescribe medicine, while insurance companies and drug company representatives aren't licensed. This isn't a question of who might know more, it's a question of who takes responsibility for the consequences of the prescription.
> 
> An example is seasonal allergy medicine. Yes, there are lots of medications that are inexpensive and available without a prescription, and the insurance company insists that their patients take those. I had my friend on Claritin, and it seemed to control the symptoms just fine, but her physician insisted that we switch her to prescription Clarinex. Why? Because Claritin has the nasty side effect of irritating the lining of the lungs. Since my friend is susceptible to pneumonia her physician thought it was a good idea to avoid Claritin. While the insurance company won't pay for Clarinex, I can get it overseas for about the same cost as Claritin (15 cents per pill).
> 
> ...


your last paragraph says it all- the insurance companies would far rather someone die than for them to have to pay the costs for end of life care. period. it's where they make the most of their profits. and one of the more compelling reasons to take the profit margin out of health care.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's not relevant to the argument. The fact is that physicians are licensed to prescribe medicine, while insurance companies and drug company representatives aren't licensed. This isn't a question of who might know more, it's a question of who takes responsibility for the consequences of the prescription.
> 
> Who does take responsibility for the consequences of the prescription? Watch all the law firms advertise on tv and you will notice NONE of them are wanting to sue doctors. They go after the drug companies. Ever read those papers that come with any prescription? Doctor licensing for prescribing medicine is a joke. You would have better outcomes if the doctor only found out what was wrong with you and a pharmicist prescribed your meds.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Who does take responsibility for the consequences of the prescription? Watch all the law firms advertise on tv and you will notice NONE of them are wanting to sue doctors. They go after the drug companies. Ever read those papers that come with any prescription? Doctor licensing for prescribing medicine is a joke. You would have better outcomes if the doctor only found out what was wrong with you and a pharmicist prescribed your meds.


If the doctor prescribed an inappropriate medication for a condition then he can be sued for damages, or worse. Michael Jackson's doctor is facing criminal charges for prescribing inappropriate medication.

Yes, drug manufacturers are sued all the time, but for different reasons. When a drug company concealed information about a drug, such as adverse side effects, then the drug company is responsible for any resulting damages.

But honestly now, you knew that, didn't you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I still find it strange we automatically expect someone else to pay for our medical care. Its this which has helped get us into the fix we are in now.

Think how much car insurance would cost if it covered oil changes and tires. Most people who currently change their own oil wouldn't if they could get it done "for free". If you "weren't paying for it" would you have them put a $100 40,000 mile tires that ride a little rough on your car or would you have the mechanic 'prescribe' $300 60,000 mile tires that feel like you are ridding on a silk road?

Also when someone else is paying the bills they have full right to tell you what they are going to buy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I still find it strange we automatically expect someone else to pay for our medical care.


Well, when someone buys medical coverage, why do you find it "strange" to expect that coverage to pay for medical care? That's what the coverage is for, isn't it?

In this case we're talking specifically about prescription coverage. My friend's insurance includes prescription coverage, and since she's on this program she's no longer eligible for Medicare Part D prescription coverage. That puts here in a bad position. They won't cover meds if they are expensive, and she doesn't qualify for other coverage.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> If the doctor prescribed an inappropriate medication for a condition then he can be sued for damages, or worse. Michael Jackson's doctor is facing criminal charges for prescribing inappropriate medication.
> 
> Yes, drug manufacturers are sued all the time, but for different reasons. When a drug company concealed information about a drug, such as adverse side effects, then the drug company is responsible for any resulting damages.
> 
> But honestly now, you knew that, didn't you.


Silly argument. We are talking about your friend's doctor. There are a number of meds, most with generic equivalents, that do the same thing Cymbalta does. You gripe because Medicare doesn't want to pay for the expensive one. Very likely you can get one of the generics from Walmart on their $4.00 list. Instead, you pay $30.00 to buy the drug overseas and think it is a good deal. I would have tried the $4.00 one first. And, no, doctor's don't get sued all the time for the meds they prescribe. Doctor's can even go off label and prescribe drugs for diseases they are not even listed for. They only get sued successfully for grossly incompetent acts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Silly argument. We are talking about your friend's doctor. There are a number of meds, most with generic equivalents, that do the same thing Cymbalta does. You gripe because Medicare doesn't want to pay for the expensive one. Very likely you can get one of the generics from Walmart on their $4.00 list. Instead, you pay $30.00 to buy the drug overseas and think it is a good deal. I would have tried the $4.00 one first.


We made an office visit specifically to discuss this, after the first mail order pharmacy turn-down. Her physician said it was being prescribed for depression and chronic bone pain (multiple compression fractures of the spine). My suggestion was to try Zoloft for depression, then just use the pain meds she normally takes for chronic pain. Her physician said that she believed my friend's quality of life would improve with Cymbalta do to the pain benefits, which Zoloft wouldn't help.

I'm willing to work along with the Dr & insurance company on these things, but when the Dr insists on a medication the way she is insisting about Cymbalta, I'm not going to go against that advice. I'm not willing to sacrifice my friend's quality of life just to save a few bucks. We can afford it, the doctor thinks it's best, so that's what we're going to do. I'm willing to reevaluate after 6 month or so, but I'm not going against Dr's orders when the Dr insists.

I trust her Dr. If I didn't trust her we would be looking for another one. We pay a lot for that advice, so it would be foolish not to follow it.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

marvella said:


> i remember very clearly poppy insisting that his insurance pays for absolutely everything with no limitations on drugs or choice of doctors. good thing i didn't believe it.
> 
> 
> nevada, don't let the hmo off the hook. they are being well paid for not caring for your friend.
> ...


Just for the record tjhere is no such thing as private Medicare its her supplemental insurance is that what you are saying the real medicare regular refuses certain meds as does Tricare and any other Governmental Insurance....Dont try to confuse the issue with half truths and inuendos....all medical government or civilian tries to screw the patient.....governmental is worse because you have no recourse....for the private policy at least you can change policy providers.....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bigkat80 said:


> Just for the record tjhere is no such thing as private Medicare


Yes, there is private Medicare. It's provided through the Medicare Advantage system. Medicare Advantage is a federal program that allows private industry to compete with traditional Medicare services. In this case, a Medicare Advantage service called Senior Dimensions can replace traditional Medicare with an HMO for residents in the Las Vegas area (and a few others) who want it.

http://www.seniordimensions.com/

The way it works is that you continue to pay your Medicare Part A & B premiums just like you always have, but Medicare turns those premiums over to Senior Dimensions. Your Part A & B contributions take care of all of the Senior Dimension premium, so it doesn't cost you any more than traditional Medicare. You can also drop your Medicare Part D, since prescription coverage is included with Senior Dimensions. You are no longer eligible for standard Medicare benefits once you sign-up with Senior Dimensions, since Senior Dimensions will provide all of your medical benefits after that.

The big advantage to Senior Dimensions is that it is an HMO (Health Maintenance Organization), so your share of medical care cost is paid for with small copays. Here are some examples of Senior Dimensions copays.

Primary care physician visit: $10
Specialist physician visit: $20
Urgent care center visit: $25
Emergency Room visit: $50
X-ray clinic visit: $5
Lab visit (blood work, etc.): $5
Physical Therapy visit: $10

This is not Medicare supplemental insurance, since Senior Dimensions administrates all medical services for their subscribers.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada, It's possible Insurance will pay for Cymbalta if there is more than 1 health issue that the cymbalta would work on. I could have just a less expensive anti-depressant for my migraines, until a Dr. noticed my records on my back issues, he changed me to Cymbalta. It works for 2 issues, and am able to funtion without all the surgerys.Cheeper by far, for the ins. co.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

A short lesson on generics.

Generics are allowed a 'window' of accuracy-20% IIRC. And there are several manufactuers of the same med, usually.

Lets say you need 80 mg of solitol. (a critical dose of a med that prevents your heart from going into life-threatening arhythmia-'erratic beats, if you will)

Its generic & practically impossible to get the name brand-Betapace.

One month you get a generic that is 20% MORE that the 80mg. What would that be? 96mg?
And say, you do fine. Next month you get a generic from a different co. And its legally 20% LESS than the 80 mg. That would be 64mg, OK?

You are getting 32mg LESS drug and your ol' ticker can't take it & poof, you're in V-tack & dead. Big price to pay for less expensive drug.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> A short lesson on generics.
> 
> Generics are allowed a 'window' of accuracy-29% IIRC.


That's close. It's actually in the specific range of 80% to 125% (Plus 25% or minus 20%).

_"The FDA requires the bioequivalence of the generic product to be between 80% and 125% of that of the innovator product."_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

Note the use of the term "bioequivalence" instead of drug strength. That because a generic doesn't have to contain the same chemical substance for the active ingredient, nor does it have to contain the same inert ingredients. The drug itself can be a different chemical (i.e., it could be a different salt of the same parent chemical), as long as it's therapeutically equivalent.

_"Bioequivalence, however, does not mean that generic drugs must be exactly the same (&#8220;pharmaceutical equivalent&#8221 as their innovator product counterparts, as chemical differences may exist (different salt or ester &#8211; a &#8220;pharmaceutical alternative&#8221."_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sorry, corrected another typo. Should be 20% not 29%-as evidenced in the math in my post.
:ashamed:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry, corrected another typo. Should be 20% not 29%-as evidenced in the math in my post.
> :ashamed:


But in practice that doesn't happen.

******
_This value range is part of a statistical calculation and *does not mean that FDA lets generic drugs differ from the brand name counterpart by up to 25 percent.* FDA recently evaluated 2,070 human studies conducted between 1996 and 2007. These studies compared the absorption of brand name and generic drugs into a person&#8217;s body. These studies were submitted to FDA to support approval of generics. *The average difference in absorption into the body between the generic and the brand name was 3.5 percent and is comparable to differences between two different batches of a brand drug* _
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Sorry to inform you that in fact "in practice" it does happen...I cannot know the % that drugs differ, only a case by case basis would do that, if supeoned or subject to lab tests, etc.

But I DO know that folks ended up in ERs across the country over the generic sotilol I cited in my post. Common knowledge among cardios that the dose of this med it critical-they hospitilize folks & monitor them when they are 1st perscribed it and/or dose is adjusted.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry to inform you that in fact "in practice" it does happen...I cannot know the % that drugs differ, only a case by case basis would do that, if supeoned or subject to lab tests, etc.
> 
> But I DO know that folks ended up in ERs across the country over the generic sotilol I cited in my post. Common knowledge among cardios that the dose of this med it critical-they hospitilize folks & monitor them when they are 1st perscribed it and/or dose is adjusted.


I did fire/rescue work for 9 years and never saw that, but with no references I guess I'll have to take your word on it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, when someone buys medical coverage, why do you find it "strange" to expect that coverage to pay for medical care? That's what the coverage is for, isn't it?
> 
> In this case we're talking specifically about prescription coverage. My friend's insurance includes prescription coverage, and since she's on this program she's no longer eligible for Medicare Part D prescription coverage. That puts here in a bad position. They won't cover meds if they are expensive, and she doesn't qualify for other coverage.


I'm sure if you read the contract she signed you will find the limits and restrictions in there. You should read contracts and understand them completely before signing. 

A completely different matter when you are talking about the government. It can, and does, change the rules when ever it wishes. After all what are you going to do, call your congress critter?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I'm sure if you read the contract she signed you will find the limits and restrictions in there. You should read contracts and understand them completely before signing.


I have. It's spelled-out in the formulary. This is a drug where prior authorization is required, the quantity is limited, and the copay is $35 for a 31-day supply. As harsh as all that is, I still don't see any reason why it should be flat-out denied.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm not willing to sacrifice my friend's quality of life just to save a few bucks


Actually ir seems to me you are since you're buying illegal drugs from an unknown source based only on the price


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I did fire/rescue work for 9 years and never saw that, but with no references I guess I'll have to take your word on it.


I called on cardiologists for nearly 20 yrs. Sold the drug-Betapace. Heard about it every day after it went generic.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually ir seems to me you are since you're buying illegal drugs from an unknown source based only on the price


Why is it illegal? As it happens, we have a prescription in hand that I was trying to get filled at Walgreen's.

But it's not really an unknown source. I'm buying a product called Symbal, which is manufactured by Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Torrent Pharmaceuticals happens to be a very well known company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrent_Pharmaceuticals

As you can see in the link above, Torrent Pharmaceuticals operates in more than 50 different countries around the world, including the USA.

By the way, Cymbalta is more than I thought it was. I'm reading that most pharmacies charge $200 to $250 for a 30-day supply without insurance. Ouch!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why is it illegal? As it happens, we have a prescription in hand that I was trying to get filled at Walgreen's.
> 
> But it's not really an unknown source. I'm buying a product called Symbal, which is manufactured by Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Torrent Pharmaceuticals happens to be a very well known company.
> 
> ...


Just FYI, I see nothing wrong w/buying cymbalta as you are doing. 
Have friends who's family is in the valley (TX) & they cross the border at least once a yr for prescription meds-same co.s/same drugs.
As long as we have lobbyists, etc, for big pharma (& I worked for one) as well as the mindset of these companies, we'll have expensive drugs & other countries won't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Why is it illegal? As it happens, we have a prescription in hand that I was trying to get filled at Walgreen's.


Didn't you say you were ordering it online?



> I'm buying a product called *Symbal*


That's not a legal product in THIS country is it?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not a legal product in THIS country is it?


Nah, but it doesn't matter. It is cheap and he isn't the one who has to take it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not a legal product in THIS country is it?


The fact that the product is not FDA approved, or that producing it domestically might violate US patent law, does not make it illegal to import or possess. It just makes it illegal to sell in this country. The fact is that I bought that product in Delhi, India.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It just makes it *illegal* to sell in this country


So , like I said, you're buying illegal drugs from an unknown source.
For all you know some guy named Punjab packages it in his back room



> It is *a felony* to import drugs into the United States and ship to a non-DEA registrant.


http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/consumer_alert.htm


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> For all you know some guy named Punjab packages it in his back room


Actually, drug manufacture and distribution is regulated in India.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, drug manufacture and distribution is regulated in India.


The same thing can be said about the US but some people don't follow those regulations. Especially when there is next to no chance of being caught. As when mailing drugs out of the country. BTW, is it allowed under US drug (and postal) regulations to import from a foreign country?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> BTW, is it allowed under US drug (and postal) regulations to import from a foreign country?


Yes, it is "allowed", since customs officials no longer seize prescription drugs that individuals import from other countries. I believe that the laws are still on the books, and I'm sure they still reserve the right to enforce those laws, but as a matter of practice they allow those drugs to enter the country.

******
_In a move that cheered buyers of overseas medications, U.S. customs officials told members of Congress they will no longer seize prescription drugs that individuals import from other countries._
http://www.inhousepharmacy.com/border_seizures.html


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Yes, it is "allowed", since customs officials no longer seize prescription drugs that individuals import from other countries. I believe that the laws are still on the books, and I'm sure they still reserve the right to enforce those laws, but as a matter of practice they allow those drugs to enter the country.
> 
> ******
> _In a move that cheered buyers of overseas medications, U.S. customs officials told members of Congress they will no longer seize prescription drugs that individuals import from other countries._
> http://www.inhousepharmacy.com/border_seizures.html


Ain't it sort of like Illegal aliens?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Ain't it sort of like Illegal aliens?


The point is that it's the least distasteful of my options:



Pay $200 at Walgreens.
Go against Dr's orders with alternate medication.
Skirt the law by getting it overseas.

But I suspect that you see a bigger crime here; not tithing to the corporate gods.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The point is that it's the least distasteful of my options:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What meds you buy for the old lady to take is up to you. I personally would not be buying something made in a foreign country unless I had it tested to make dang sure it was the exact same thing. You say India has tough regulation of drugs and if that satisfies you, go ahead. I'll just point out that China has tough regulations on things too. In fact, they have been known to execute people for breaking regulations. However, we still get tainted Chinese products all the time. As to corporations, I have no love or hate for them. They are businesses, period. It is difficult to invent a medicine in your garage, produce it using high quality control standards, test it on animals and humans for quite a while, etc. The meth makers around here try to, but they burn down a lot of houses in the process.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> It is difficult to invent a medicine in your garage, produce it using high quality control standards, test it on animals and humans for quite a while, etc.


Are you suggesting that new drug development is the sole province of USA pharmaceutical companies?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that new drug development is the sole province of USA pharmaceutical companies?



Nope, but I am suggesting that many things made overseas are of inferior quality. This isn't fleas meds for your dog we are talking about. These chemicals change the chemical balance of your BRAIN. I personally do not like taking ay meds, but if I do I want them to be the best available.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Nope, but I am suggesting that many things made overseas are of inferior quality.


That's the myth, but the fact is that many of the drugs manufactured in India are imported into the USA with FDA approval. Some of those companies have been in business for many decades. For example, Cipla has been operating for over 70 years now. Those companies are accustomed to our standards.

Moreover, are you aware that many drug companies that we see the names of every day in the USA operate in India? Yes, companies like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Wyeth, Parke Davis, PFIZER, Merck, ELI Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and others manufacture drugs in India for legitimate North American & European markets.

The idea that foreign drugs are not safe is a myth that was propagated when Bush was pushing for Medicare Part D. But the issue was never safety, it was always about lining the pockets of domestic drug companies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That's the myth, but the fact is that many of the drugs manufactured in India are imported into the USA *with FDA approval*


But not the one you're buying, so the others are moot


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, it is "allowed", since customs officials no longer seize prescription drugs that individuals import from other countries. I believe that the laws are still on the books, and I'm sure they still reserve the right to enforce those laws, but as a matter of practice they allow those drugs to enter the country.
> 
> ******
> _In a move that cheered buyers of overseas medications, U.S. customs officials told members of Congress they will no longer seize prescription drugs that individuals import from other countries._
> http://www.inhousepharmacy.com/border_seizures.html


Hum. . .ever wonder if the regulating power in India might just look the other way at drugs not being sold in country much as ours does at the importation of drugs?

Why would they bother spending money on something like that?


I don't know if they do or if they don't but knowing human nature as I do I have to wonder.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The point is that it's the least distasteful of my options:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So to save money you are "out sourcing" to a foreign country. Sending your business and money overseas to save the almighty dollar rather than spend it here in the US to keep those Walgreen jobs here. Don't you get upset when the "corporate gods" do the same thing to save money?

I'll thank you to never again bring it up any time a US company sends its business overseas to save money.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> So to save money you are "out sourcing" to a foreign country. Sending your business and money overseas to save the almighty dollar rather than spend it here in the US to keep those Walgreen jobs here. Don't you get upset when the "corporate gods" do the same thing to save money?
> 
> I'll thank you to never again bring it up any time a US company sends its business overseas to save money.


If they were competitively priced I would be happy to buy domestically. They are overpriced to the point where there's no real choice. Considering how critical some of the meds they gouge people on are, I find it to be completely immoral.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> If they were competitively priced I would be happy to buy domestically. They are overpriced to the point where there's no real choice. Considering how critical some of the meds they gouge people on are, I find it to be completely immoral.


I have to tell you, I've enjoyed reading this thread.

I am always amazed at how anti-big government, pro-capitalism you become when it's YOUR dollar that's being spent.

LOL.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> If they were competitively priced I would be happy to buy domestically. They are overpriced to the point where there's no real choice. Considering how critical some of the meds they gouge people on are, I find it to be completely immoral.


But you have no idea how much it costs them to develop a new drug and get it through the approval process. Assuming the drug you buy from India is the exact same drug in this country, who developed it? It is rather inexpensive to chemically break down a medicine and copy it. Generic drug makers do it all the time. That saves the maker of the copy drug MANY millions of dollars. Just like it is easy to make knockoffs of movies and other things and sell them much cheaper.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> But you have no idea how much it costs them to develop a new drug and get it through the approval process. Assuming the drug you buy from India is the exact same drug in this country, who developed it? It is rather inexpensive to chemically break down a medicine and copy it. Generic drug makers do it all the time. That saves the maker of the copy drug MANY millions of dollars. Just like it is easy to make knockoffs of movies and other things and sell them much cheaper.


Maybe it's easier and less expensive to copy drugs than to develop them, but that's not really my problem. Besides, I notice that they keep developing them despite the copying.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If they were competitively priced I would be happy to buy domestically. They are overpriced to the point where there's no real choice. Considering how critical some of the meds they gouge people on are, I find it to be completely immoral.


You ignored the point, once again. The point is you are hurting your neighbors by not buying American products at an American store. This is the same thing the people on the left are always yelling about when a company takes its business overseas. Yet you have no problem with it at all when it hits *YOU POCKET BOOK.*

BTW, I'm sure if American production cost were "competitively priced" companies would be happy to manufacture in the US. But they aren't. A company can manufacture a produce overseas and pay to ship it to the US and *still* sell it for less than if they had paid US rates.

What's good for Nevada should be good for a US company, don't ya think?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You ignored the point, once again. The point is you are hurting your neighbors by not buying American products at an American store.


When Bush1 shortlisted immigrants who had ChemE degrees for the purpose of driving engineering salaries down, he created a market glut for my discipline. That's when I figured it out -- we're all on our own.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> When Bush1 shortlisted immigrants who had ChemE degrees for the purpose of driving engineering salaries down, he created a market glut for my discipline.* That's when I figured it out -- we're all on our own.*


If only you believed that, you wouldn't support the assault on the constitution of THIS administration and continue to blame everyone else for your troubles in life... well, everyone named Bush.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> If only you believed that, you wouldn't support the assault on the constitution of THIS administration and continue to blame everyone else for your troubles in life... well, everyone named Bush.


Sorry. You want me to say Clinton did it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> When Bush1 shortlisted immigrants who had ChemE degrees for the purpose of driving engineering salaries down, he created a market glut for my discipline. That's when I figured it out -- we're all on our own.


So you ARE admitting making/keeping as much money as possible is a good thing. Thanks.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> So you ARE admitting making/keeping as much money as possible is a good thing. Thanks.


Not exactly. It just seems that you want me to fell sorry for big pharma, and I'm not buying it.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Not exactly. It just seems that you want me to fell sorry for big pharma, and I'm not buying it.


No one wants you to feel sorry for anyone. Go back and read the thread to see who seems to be looking for sympathy.

(ps, go back to the bread and butter and use some words like "corporate death panels" for some sort of attempt at the moral high ground)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> No one wants you to feel sorry for anyone.


That's good, because when I'm taking care of an 84 year old woman who can't afford the medications she should be taking, I don't have a lot of left over sympathy. I'm doing what I have to do, but I wonder about the elderly who don't have someone like me to order meds from overseas for them.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> That's good, because when I'm taking care of an 84 year old woman who can't afford the medications she should be taking, I don't have a lot of left over sympathy. I'm doing what I have to do, but I wonder about the elderly who don't have someone like me to order meds from overseas for them.


Well, believe it or not I lean more to your side as far as buying the meds from the cheapest source... I just can't get over the irony that it's a result of your "bigger is better government" that you can't afford them in this country.

You try to paint it as a "big bad pharm" and "corporate death panels" but it's really collusion of big government steered by greed with a liberal dose of corporate favoritism.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's good, because when I'm taking care of an 84 year old woman who can't afford the medications she should be taking, I don't have a lot of left over sympathy. I'm doing what I have to do, but I wonder about the elderly who don't have someone like me to order meds from overseas for them.


I can assure you they are doing fine. I used to be a mail carrier and delivered mail to many old people. I never once noticed a medicine package from overseas and I saw the old folks out and about and doing well. I'm sure they found alternative meds and didn't need a drug runner or bootlegger to get by.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I can assure you they are doing fine. I used to be a mail carrier and delivered mail to many old people. I never once noticed a medicine package from overseas and I saw the old folks out and about and doing well. I'm sure they found alternative meds and didn't need a drug runner or bootlegger to get by.


I hope you're right, and I hope they don't have to take baby aspirin instead of Plavix.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I hope you're right, and I hope they don't have to take baby aspirin instead of Plavix.


Where did Plavix come from?

I'm serious here.

If something makes our lives better, do we have a right to it? Does that extend to your personal ideas, thoughts, goods, etc?


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

This thread is great. I have enjoyed reading it very much...lots of telling posts.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Where did Plavix come from?
> 
> I'm serious here.
> 
> If something makes our lives better, do we have a right to it? Does that extend to your personal ideas, thoughts, goods, etc?


Access to Plavix isn't a quality of life issue, it's life or death. In short, if you need it and don't get it, you'll die.

Plavix is $3 to $4 each in the USA. Get them for 23 cents overseas.

https://www.alldaychemist.com/697_Plavix-75-mg

Plavix will go generic next year, but they aren't letting up on price. It is the 2nd largest selling medication in the world. Global sales are over $6 billion per year, with nearly $4 billion just in the USA.

_Plavix is marketed worldwide in nearly 110 countries, with sales of US$6.6 billion in 2009. It had been the 2nd top selling drug in the world for a few years as of 2007 and was still growing by over 20% in 2007. U.S. sales were US$3.8 billion in 2008._
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clopidogrel

Think they've made their R&D money back yet?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Think they've made their R&D money back yet?


Maybe, maybe not.
It takes 10-15 years to bring a drug to market, and that doesn't always count all the research that goes into the development.
That time starts when clinical trials start.

The average cost is $800 million, That's JUST to get it developed and approved.
That doesn't include raw materials and production costs.

You're big on *accusing* companies of excessive profits, when most of the time it's easily proven their margins are no more than any other business

http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jul2002/DrugCompanyProfitsvsResearch.html



> Pharmaceutical companies must make a profit to stay in business. Some charge that drug companies make significantly more profits than companies in other industries. In fact, the profitability of drug companies is in line with other major industries. The research-based pharmaceutical industry also pays more taxes than other industries and reinvests more of its profits in research and development than other industries.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Access to Plavix isn't a quality of life issue, it's life or death. In short, if you need it and don't get it, you'll die.
> 
> Plavix is $3 to $4 each in the USA. Get them for 23 cents overseas.
> 
> ...


So are you suggesting that after your "needs have been met" with whatever you own, possess, or think up that everyone else has a right to it?

It's a simple question really. Do you REALLY believe that, or do you live by a double standard?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

seedspreader said:


> So are you suggesting that after your "needs have been met" with whatever you own, possess, or think up that everyone else has a right to it?
> 
> It's a simple question really. Do you REALLY believe that, or do you live by a double standard?



Are you saying you think all copyrights and patent rights should last forever? Perhaps we should be paying the decendents of Og, who invented the wheel, royalties yet today? Or the decendents of Mozart, etal.... for music written centuries ago?

How would you determine when a creation becomes public domain?

So far corporations like Disney have been able to lobby congress effectively to protect even their ealiest works. Should drug companies do same with their patents. 



> The problem was that salicylic acid was tough on stomachs and a means of 'buffering' the compound was searched for. The first person to do so was a French chemist named Charles Frederic Gerhardt. In 1853, Gerhardt neutralized salicylic acid by buffering it with sodium (sodium salicylate) and acetyl chloride, creating acetylsalicylic acid. Gerhardt's product worked but he had no desire to market it and abandoned his discovery.


Perhaps you think we should all pay $500 for a bottle of asprin so all the descendents of Gerhardt can get their due? After all if he was the true originator of asprin, shouldnt he (and his estate) inherently have right to percentage of any profits whether he personally marketed it or not....


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's the myth, but the fact is that many of the drugs manufactured in India are imported into the USA with FDA approval. Some of those companies have been in business for many decades. For example, Cipla has been operating for over 70 years now. Those companies are accustomed to our standards.
> 
> Moreover, are you aware that many drug companies that we see the names of every day in the USA operate in India? Yes, companies like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Wyeth, Parke Davis, PFIZER, Merck, ELI Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and others manufacture drugs in India for legitimate North American & European markets.
> 
> The idea that foreign drugs are not safe is a myth that was propagated when Bush was pushing for Medicare Part D. But the issue was never safety, it was always about lining the pockets of domestic drug companies.


A lot of folks have more respect for drug companies than they deserve. However, it is sooooo like you to blame Bush. :hammer:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> A lot of folks have more respect for drug companies than they deserve. However, it is sooooo like you to blame Bush. :hammer:


Sorry for singling Bush out, but he's the only president I'm aware of who has tried to make us believe that Canadian drugs are anything less than safe. If you know of another president who has done that please correct me and I'll be more than willing to eat those words, but in the meantime here is part of what Bush said:

******
_I havenât yet [decided to ban importation of Canadian drugs.]. I just want to make sure theyâre safe. When a drug comes in from Canada , I want to make sure it cures you and doesnât kill you._
http://www.edrugsearch.com/edsblog/...drugs-brought-to-you-by-big-pharma-lobbyists/


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

So, are you suggesting no other POTUS has our interests at heart?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> So, are you suggesting no other POTUS has our interests at heart?


Get serious. Bush didn't really believe that Canadian drugs were unsafe. He had the drug companies' interests at heart when he said that.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not exactly. It just seems that you want me to fell sorry for big pharma, and I'm not buying it.


Please explain to me how I'm wrong. 

You can buy American made drugs from a American company but because the cost are too high you are going to send your business and money overseas.

A company can build wigits in American plants with American workers but because the cost are too high they send their business and money overseas.

Is that not EXACTLY what is happening?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Access to Plavix isn't a quality of life issue, it's life or death. In short, if you need it and don't get it, you'll die.
> 
> Plavix is $3 to $4 each in the USA. Get them for 23 cents overseas.
> 
> ...


Maybe for that drug but what all all the R&D money they spend on the other dozens (hundreds) of drugs which never make it to market?

But what does that have to do with the fact you are going to outsource your medical needs?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Are you saying you think all copyrights and patent rights should last forever? Perhaps we should be paying the decendents of Og, who invented the wheel, royalties yet today? Or the decendents of Mozart, etal.... for music written centuries ago?
> 
> How would you determine when a creation becomes public domain?
> 
> ...


Why not? They are the ones who took the risk why should they not be the ones to have the rewards? 

Should you lose the rights to your house and land after you have owned it for a period of time?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Get serious. Bush didn't really believe that Canadian drugs were unsafe. He had the drug companies' interests at heart when he said that.


Actually it was a political statement. There's NO WAY Canada is going to allow massive exports of their drugs because it would increase the price of the drugs (that pesky supply and demand) and cost the Canadian government money.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You can buy American made drugs from a American company but because the cost are too high you are going to send your business and money overseas.


That's true sometimes, but not all the time. I take Allegra for seasonal allergies, and it's the name brand Allegra manufactured by Aventis. But I still order it from India. Evidently they're getting their cut.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Actually it was a political statement. There's NO WAY Canada is going to allow massive exports of their drugs because it would increase the price of the drugs (that pesky supply and demand) and cost the Canadian government money.


That's absurd. In the first place Canadian drugs are made by the same manufacturers that make USA drugs. Second, the fact that they are supplied through Canada does no increase demand, since a fixed number of people take those drugs. Finally, Canada does not subsidize drugs that US citizens order.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> Why not? They are the ones who took the risk why should they not be the ones to have the rewards?
> 
> Should you lose the rights to your house and land after you have owned it for a period of time?


Because granting unlimited rights to a creation for generations prevents others from improving and building on that invention.

IT STIFLES PROGRESS. The idea behind copyrights and patents was to give the original inventer/creator of a work in his lifetime the benefits/rewards from his creativity, but to allow others to build upon that work and not lock it away for heirs of the creator to live on without productivity from their own work. 

You never own house and land outright, the king always wants his yearly tribute for granting you the right to occupy and hold title. Dont believe me, try not paying your property taxes and see how long you retain title to your property. Even worse many govts now extend this right of kings to foreclose to homeowners associations. Many places they dont even have to go to court. So tell me again about not losing your rights to your land and house......


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> Companies that chase cheap labor are in long term shooting themselves in the foot because if a majority of companies do this, there is nobody left back home that can pay the price. Same with drug companies that get too greedy. People just go elsewhere when they cant afford the demanded price.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's true sometimes, but not all the time. I take Allegra for seasonal allergies, and it's the name brand Allegra manufactured by Aventis. But I still order it from India. Evidently they're getting their cut.


Huh? This just proves my point better. Here you have the same product produced by the same company yet it can be produced and sold cheaper overseas and the company still make a profit. Maybe the extra cost isn't higher profit but higher operating cost. Cost such as labor cost, taxes, legal cost and government regulation. What do you think?

Why is it when a clothing or car manufacturer does this people HOWL but when its meds they just say "C'est la vie"?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Because granting unlimited rights to a creation for generations prevents others from improving and building on that invention.
> 
> IT STIFLES PROGRESS. The idea behind copyrights and patents was to give the original inventer/creator of a work in his lifetime the benefits/rewards from his creativity, but to allow others to build upon that work and not lock it away for heirs of the creator to live on without productivity from their own work.


I do believe if you come up with an improvement on a patented product you can patent your improved product. This is specifically to allow for progress.





HermitJohn said:


> You never own house and land outright, the king always wants his yearly tribute for granting you the right to occupy and hold title. Dont believe me, try not paying your property taxes and see how long you retain title to your property. Even worse many govts now extend this right of kings to foreclose to homeowners associations. Many places they dont even have to go to court. So tell me again about not losing your rights to your land and house......


But the rules currently say as long as you pay your rent to the government you and your family can keep the property. Unlike the patent and copyright laws there's nothing which puts a time limit on your rental agreement.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Huh? This just proves my point better. Here you have the same product produced by the same company yet it can be produced and sold cheaper overseas and the company still make a profit. Maybe the extra cost isn't higher profit but higher operating cost. Cost such as labor cost, taxes, legal cost and government regulation. What do you think?


How do you know that it wasn't produced in the same manufacturing facility that drugs in the USA were produced in?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Companies that chase cheap labor are in long term shooting themselves in the foot because if a majority of companies do this, there is nobody left back home that can pay the price. Same with drug companies that get too greedy. People just go elsewhere when they cant afford the demanded price.


Not really. As the workers in the cheap labor countries work they are able to buy more goods which creates its own market. Look at China, even under the communist. It was a very, very cheap labor market so companies started building factories there. When the factories were first built the workers could barely afford to buy enough food to eat. But after a few years the workers now can afford to buy a car. Who knows what it will be like there in 10 more years.

As for the drugs the price is and will continue to be driven by the government. Who is the number one buyer of drugs? The government. What incentive is there for the government to cut its cost? Nothing, its not their money they are spending, its OURS.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Are you saying you think all copyrights and patent rights should last forever? Perhaps we should be paying the decendents of Og, who invented the wheel, royalties yet today? Or the decendents of Mozart, etal.... for music written centuries ago?
> 
> How would you determine when a creation becomes public domain?
> 
> ...


See, that's the problem with illogical leaps, they don't allow you to jump into conversations and make any sense.

1) The argument was that if something is "vital for life or death" that we should ignore the current laws... which already DO have expirations and allow generics.
2) Furthermore, the idea that generics aren't always the exact equivalent was being argued... "but the generic isn't as good". Doesn't matter... No one has a right to KFC's recipe except the Colonel. No one has a right to Mamma's apple pie secret ingredient, except Mamma who developed it. Who she shares it with is HER decision.
3) If Gerhardt is still making aspirin that no one else has been able to make as effectively, then yes... his family can charge what they want.

You don't have a RIGHT to other people's hard work, great ideas and investments. You do have the capability of buying into them though to share the benefits they give.

Does that seem "unfair" to you? My guess is you've never created, built, or made anything that was of any value to anyone if that's the case.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Does that seem "unfair" to you? My guess is you've never created, built, or made anything that was of any value to anyone if that's the case.


You'll find that most engineers are in favor of intellectual property laws, even left-wing engineers like myself. But we're mixing concepts here. Corporations don't care how fair something is, they only care about the legalities. Similarly, liberals only care how moral something might be.

When people have to die to preserve corporate profits, we've got a moral issue to deal with. I'm sure we can do better, particularly in this country.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> I do believe if you come up with an improvement on a patented product you can patent your improved product. This is specifically to allow for progress.


You might be able to patent an improvement on a currently patented product, but you can not then manufacture the original product with the improvement without an agreement with the current patent holder of the original product. And simularly he cant use your improvement on his product without your consent. 

As patent holder you have absolute rights to your invention for a certain amount of time. Or at least the right to go chasing around the world trying to protect your patent in various courts. Good luck with that.







watcher said:


> But the rules currently say as long as you pay your rent to the government you and your family can keep the property. Unlike the patent and copyright laws there's nothing which puts a time limit on your rental agreement.


My point is you dont own your house and property outright, its an illusion. As you state, you purchased a rental agreement with the government. So you really own nothing except the right to buy and sell that rental agreement to some other sucker. You do own exclusive rights to your patent for a set number of years.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

seedspreader said:


> See, that's the problem with illogical leaps, they don't allow you to jump into conversations and make any sense.
> 
> 1) The argument was that if something is "vital for life or death" that we should ignore the current laws... which already DO have expirations and allow generics.
> 2) Furthermore, the idea that generics aren't always the exact equivalent was being argued... "but the generic isn't as good". Doesn't matter... No one has a right to KFC's recipe except the Colonel. No one has a right to Mamma's apple pie secret ingredient, except Mamma who developed it. Who she shares it with is HER decision.
> ...


You just ignored your own argument that ownership should extend forever. If that was so then Gerhardt's family should own total rights to asprin forever.

Good luck trying to patent a recipe, new combinations of ingredients are rarely given a patent. Now if you have a new non-obvious way of preparation, perhaps such as in a new innovative way some processor produces his food in a cheaper more efficient manner. 

Also gotta wonder your "illogical leaps" if you consider the Colonels recipe or Mamas secret ingredient a medicine? My example was asprin which is a medicine. And you ignored my question of whether you would be willing to pay $500 for a bottle of asprin so Gerhardt's family could continue to profit for as long as there is demand for asprin? You were wanting the rights of the inventor to go on forever. I was arguing the for current patent system that limits rights of inventor after so many years. You have yet to address this issue. Calling names and declaring the topic not what you intended is just ignoring the true issue. Do you favor giving inventor of a medicine perpetual rights to that medicine forever?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> You just ignored your own argument that ownership should extend forever. If that was so then Gerhardt's family should own total rights to asprin forever.
> 
> Good luck trying to patent a recipe, new combinations of ingredients are rarely given a patent. Now if you have a new non-obvious way of preparation, perhaps such as in a new innovative way some processor produces his food in a cheaper more efficient manner.
> 
> Also gotta wonder your "illogical leaps" if you consider the Colonels recipe or Mamas secret ingredient a medicine? My example was asprin which is a medicine. And you ignored my question of whether you would be willing to pay $500 for a bottle of asprin so Gerhardt's family could continue to profit for as long as there is demand for asprin? You were wanting the rights of the inventor to go on forever. I was arguing the for current patent system that limits rights of inventor after so many years. You have yet to address this issue. Calling names and declaring the topic not what you intended is just ignoring the true issue. Do you favor giving inventor of a medicine perpetual rights to that medicine forever?


Uh, no... I never said anything about forever... that was YOUR statement. I said we already have LAWS about how long intellectual property is handled and also how drugs and generics are handled. The rest is your silly tangent.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> You'll find that most engineers are in favor of intellectual property laws, even left-wing engineers like myself. But we're mixing concepts here. Corporations don't care how fair something is, they only care about the legalities. Similarly, liberals only care how moral something might be.
> 
> When people have to die to preserve corporate profits, we've got a moral issue to deal with. I'm sure we can do better, particularly in this country.


What planet do you live on? 

If someone creates a medicine they are creating it to solve a problem/disease that exist.

The fact that you have that disease doesn't entitle you to the right to have it. Just like, even though I need to travel to various locations, I don't have the right to a car.

I do have the OPPORTUNITIES that everyone else has to buy a car... but I can't afford the same one that everyone else does. 

If you want to eliminate the creativeness, the risk taking, ground breaking, research and investment, eliminate the reward by claiming you, or anyone else has a RIGHT to something that someone else created.

What moral authority do have to claim the right to something that belongs to someone else "Mr. Morality"?

By the way, did the people who owned your house have the right to stay there? I mean, they had hard times, in a rough economy, were probably taken advantage of by their evil corporate finance company... and then comes you.

Sorry I don't buy your fabricated justification and skewed morals that claims that you and yours have RIGHTS to other people's goods, and then you displace a poor family from their home.

For the record, because of the laws, I actually believe you had the right to purchase your house but just want to point out how inconsistent your purposefully misstated ideology falls apart under any scrutiny.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> If someone creates a medicine they are creating it to solve a problem/disease that exist.
> 
> The fact that you have that disease doesn't entitle you to the right to have it.


That way of thinking is changing rapidly in this country.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That way of thinking is changing rapidly in this country.


That doesn't mean it's right.
It just means people are greedy


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't mean it's right.
> It just means people are greedy


No, it means we're catching-up to the rest of the world.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> No, it means we're catching-up to the rest of the world.


You mean laying claim to what's not ours. Basically theft in the name of "humanity" all the while enriching a certain group of elite people?

Congratulations... you've arrived.

You're only hope and ability to support such is that you (currently) are too low on the food chain to steal from. 

Don't worry, they'll get around to you eventually.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> No, it means we're catching-up to the rest of the world.


Oh sure, first the "re-education" camps and then, wow, we'll have our very own Treblinka - yep, we're catching up because that way of thinking is changing rapidly in this country.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That way of thinking is changing rapidly in this country.


That's because more and more people are becoming parasites on fewer and fewer host. At some point the infestation will kill the host. Then what are the parasites going to do?

A person has no right to take the property nor service of another.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> That's because more and more people are becoming parasites on fewer and fewer host. At some point the infestation will kill the host. Then what are the parasites going to do?


Can you give me some examples of countries where public health care programs have caused that to happen?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> No, it means we're catching-up to the rest of the world.


*Most *of the world doesnt get anything at all.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Most *of the world doesnt get anything at all.


And if they do it is our tax money sending the help an money free to them higher tax to us


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Most *of the world doesnt get anything at all.


OK, we're catching-up with the rest of the *industrialized* world.

******
_All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage._
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/opinion/12sun1.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> OK, we're catching-up with the rest of the industrialized world


Yes, our taxes are beng raised to make us as enslaved as they are, while removing our freedom to choose the type of care we want, and how we prefer to spend our money

Most other countries have a lower standard of living, so why would anyone want to "catch up " with them?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, our taxes are beng raised to make us as enslaved as they are, while removing our freedom to choose the type of care we want, and how we prefer to spend our money
> 
> Most other countries have a lower standard of living, so why would anyone want to "catch up " with them?


What about the American lives that will be saved? Isn't that a good thing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What about the American lives that will be saved? Isn't that a good thing?


There's no proof any lives will be saved since the Govt tends to screw things up so badly.
Lots of people with unlimited healthcare resoucres *still die*

More people die each year from *medical MISTAKES *than from firearms
You're just resorting to emotional rhetoric now.

Next you'll say "It's for the children"


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no proof any lives will be saved since the Govt tends to screw things up so badly.


There was no proof that invading Iraq would save any American lives either, but spending $1 trillion on Iraq still seemed like a good idea to conservatives.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There was no proof that invading Iraq would save any American lives either, but spending $1 trillion on Iraq still seemed like a good idea to conservatives.


LOL You've run out of arguments so you go back to the old script
You remind me of PD 
Same predictable ending on every topic.


The End


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

So what is the current arguement??? Let's be like GB? At least that's what the new head of medicare/medicaid wants. (Brewick-whatshisname?)

Then we can have prostate cancer death rates 600 Xs higher than here in USA! Yay!
We can wait many Xs longer for a specialist! Yay!
Our cancer death rates will be as high as GB! Yay!
Can't wait!
Just where is the: "more lives wil be saved", Nevada?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada's arguments all go the same way.

Year ago: We shouldn't be spending a Trillion Dollars on...

Now: Well George Bush did it.

Look if it was wrong then, it's wrong now... 

I allow that people change their mind. So there are either 1 of 3 things happening here:

1) You endorse what GWB did back then, because you endorse what BHO is doing now.
2) You think they are both wrong.
3) You argue that there is a difference between the two, which then negates arguments 1 and 2.

Otherwise, it's all a bunch a false arguments. I personally opt for #2.

And you can always tell a party-liner who will take up the argument of their party because they will always use the... "So and so did it and YOU didn't say anything". BOTH sides do this regularly... and both sides have the same agenda just from different angles.


----------

