interesting survey

[eve]

ENOUGH ALREADY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[cthomas555]

????

Why are people reading this topic if it is upsetting to them?

There are plenty of other topics to explore or you can even start your own!

I find it very supportive and informative.

It’s very rude and irritating to tell other adults to shut up.

Chris

[Jerry]

To Patti especially …

My Dad taught me that if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I think it is a wise choice for you to take a break from the forum and reflect on it’s real mission. It is not a place for you to “push” Chinese medicine (or any herbal remedies) without knowing a great deal more about the individual’s condition than you do. I have seen times when you have indicated it is ok to take literally hundreds of pills a day. That may or may not be ok, but, in my opinion it is not for you to recommend over this forum.

Finally, and most importantly, Greg said something very important and I want to latch onto it as if I said it. He said, “Even though we may have disagreements, there is no disagreement that we want this disease to be stopped in its tracks, and I will always pull for all of you and your loved ones to defeat it.” I wish the very best to you Patti and hope that all of your personal demons are exorcised and that you live a long, happy and productive life. This will be my last post on this subject.

Jerry

[Bkwits]

Jack,

Here’s a Lutheran joke
A sixth grade teacher asked the children to bring a symbol of their religion.
l. A Jewish boy brought a pendant of the Star of David.
2. The Catholic girl brought a rosary.
3. The Lutheran boy brought a casserole.

It’s kind of an inside joke.

Barb

[Jack_dup1]

Barb,
I have to admit that my wife is a very good Catholic and I am a very poor Lutheran, I’m counting on her having a lot of influence when the time comes, she has lit enough candles on my behalf to power a small city.
I will share a true story about my Lutheran Minister, I’ll have to change a few words as not to offend someone.
My father and the Pastor were out collecting things for a church sale and they took my four year old son with them, I think they forgot he was in the car. When they returned home my son got out of the car, ran to my Mother and said “grandma, you know what Pastor —- said, look at the t–‘s on that chick.
Jack

[uno grasshopper]

I found Jack Jr’s response interesting. And although he makes some points that I agree with, I don’t agree with his contention that supply and demand do not apply to priceless things. Sure supply and demand involve goods, but it also involves services. So many people earn their living providing services–i.e. policemen, accountants, lawyers, laborers, doctors, and nurses, etc. When a construction worker builds your house, you pay him not only for materials, but for his service, which means his time and physical labor. The bigger demand is for housing, the more time and physical labor is supplied to make those housings. Likewise, doctors provide their time and knowledge, as well as surgical skills. And there is not an unlimited numbers of doctors, thus the more patient visits, the more valuable his time, and the office visit (commonly 10 minutes) increases in price. I would venture to say that most doctors and nurses don’t go to med school thinking that they will work for free and live in poverty or on donations for the rest of their lives. The pharmeceutical companies, Lord knows, certainly aren’t non-profit as we’ve seen drug prices and medical equipment costing us more than our lifetime incomes. It is well known that patents are essential to pharmaceutical companies for them to have exclusive rights to their “formulas.” And thus they don’t like to *waste* their time on natural, inexpensive remedies because naturally occurring foods can not be patented without first being purified or genetically modified somehow. Without a patent, it would be very difficult for them to recover expenses for pay for testing (clinical trials), and certainly not enough money for profit. If you look at the big picture, the pharmaceutical companies supply the materials, and the doctors supply the labor. The pharmaceutical companies are hugely profit motivated complete with stockholders. It is essentially a business, and all businesses revolve around supply and demand. If there were no sickness, then there would be no doctors, no pharameceuticals.

Regarding the worth of human life? Our country, as well as many other powerful countries, have sent thousands upon thousands of healthy young men and women to wars knowing fully well that they could likely die or become maimed for life. Babies are also aborted by the thousands year after year, healthy or not. What is the value of a young healthy son or daughter? Apparently, our government does not feel that it is priceless, nor our citizens who allow such things to take place. If healthy young people are essentially sacrificed, how valuable is the life of the average middle-aged ill American? We like to believe that life is priceless, but the facts show us that we easily *say* life is priceless, but turn around and just throw it away. So we must save the life of a diseased person at all cost, but not save the life of a war prisoner or an innocent baby.

How many people need to pay taxes for one sick individual? Is there a limit? Greg mentioned that government is for the greater good of our society, not for the individual. Yet here we argue that the collective taxes (taken from the many) should pay for the individual’s medical bills. (Realise that not all citizens develop a life-threaten illness). So the healthy must pay for the sick. Is there anything the sick provides for the healthy?

Greg mentions that he is not for socialised medicine, but from his posts, I get the impression he thinks that everyone should have free access to a regular doctor. How is that not socialised? And having more well-doctor visits will make the expense of medical services go down? But wait, we do have free clinics and county hospitals which are free of charge. There are already free services and facilities for the poor, yet they go to regular hospitals. I’m not clear what it is exactly that Greg proposes be done that isn’t already. Another thing to consider is compliance. Many people, rich and poor alike, are not all compliant with medical advice and prescriptions. I personally know of stories from the nurses at the transfusion center and family members in the medical field who discuss how many poor people use medical facilities like hotel rooms, coming in and out like as through a revolving door. Granted, not all poor people, but enough to place a large burden to medical staff and available beds. When explained how to care for their wounds, many times the appropriate care is not followed by the patient who returns with infections and even magot infestations in their wounds. I’ve read of stories from doctors themselves, one in particular who served at a VA hospital. Many had missing limbs and other health problems. Her original assumption was that their ailments were caused by war. She later found that their wounds were not war inflicted, but most of the conditions were preventable if they had taken care of themselves. I.e. many were drug abusers and alcoholics, non-compliant with some meds resulting in conditions like diabetes and subsequent limb amputations. What is the government to do for them? How much money do we need to pour into the service when the poor patients themselves will not care for themselves? Meanwhile, there are hardworking young families trying to make a living to provide for their families. Both mother and father leaving the home to work, paying taxes up the wahzoo. The family unit suffers.

As you can see, this debate can go on and on, so I’ll leave it here for now.

As a side note, today I’m celebrating! Today marks my 5 year anniversary since my last blood transfusion! Woo hoo! I’m gonna run out and see if any of my old nurses are hanging about, so I can give them another hug.

Take good care of yourselves,

Marla

[cthomas555]

Marla,

How would you suggest we ‘fix’ this?

Chris

[Bkwits]

Jack,

The story about the Lutheran pastor is really funny. It’s really great that your wife lights candles for you. We are a mixture of ethnic backgrounds and faiths too.

Marla,
Congratulations. I do hope and pray that you continue to improve.

Barb

[geebeebee]

Marla, I propose some type of national healthcare option. Keeping people out isn’t working, as we pay for them anyway. The problem isn’t the poor; they do have free care and Medicaid. The problem is the millions (and I’m talking many millions) of lower-middle and middle class people who make too much to qualify for aid, but not enough to pay for insurance, and their place of work doesn’t offer it. This is the core of the problem.

What I would propose is a reasonably-priced (meaning NON-PROFIT, obviously, but break even) government plan that is an option for everyone in the country. If you like your current plan, cool, stay with it. However, this plan would run on Medicare payment scales to doctors and hospitals, and with all of the insurance company profits stripped out, I feel (I know, we’re talking U.S. Government here) you could run it almost break-even AND make it extremely affordable for middle-class families, if it could be orchestrated even remotely properly.

Even if it cost the government, say, $100 billion a year to run it, it would be worth it. Look at what Americans are spending on healthcare, and what the government is spending on healthcare for its employees (I can get you info on that should you need it). Healthcare is an out-of-control monster that will someday kill our economy. It’s all in the numbers, and the growth in cost never stops, the way it is now. We’re talking trillions of dollars in only another decade or so.

As usual, I’m afraid Americans won’t wake up to this monster until it is on their doorstep, attacking them personally. I stick by my assertion that the government is for the entire society, not for individuals. And if America is ever going to conquer this problem, people are going to have to be less selfish, and attempt to help the whole of the country instead of just themselves. In a functioning society, you don’t pick-and-choose which functions you pay for. You don’t say,”I don’t have a special-needs child, so I won’t pay for that” or “I don’t have cancer, so I won’t pay for government research on that”. I think everyone would agree that is selfish, but that is exactly how Americans are behaving with healthcare. It is NOT simple economics of supply and demand, it is the lack of the general population to say that everyone, in a civilized country, should have healthcare, and it shouldn’t be based on how good of a job you have, or how much cash you have in your pocket.

[Bkwits]

Greg,
I was wondering when someone would zero in on the fact that it is mainly a middle-class problem. It’s growing every day. Large corporations, such as GM for example, are cutting back on healthcare for their retired workers. Healthcare impacts on so many other decisions we make. People feel compelled to take jobs or stay at jobs, that aren’t right for them because of health insurance. In my opinion, it crushes the entreprenurial spirit that Americans value.
Barb

[cthomas555]

Marla, I’ve been trying to follow your argument but find it very convoluted so I thought I would try to break it down for me to have a better understanding if you please.

You say: “So the healthy must pay for the sick. Is there anything the sick provides for the healthy?”

The sick provide a living known as employment for many, many healthy people. Healthy people are generally the ones hired to take care of the sick.

The healthcare industry is one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing industries. Consuming over 10 percent of gross domestic product of most developed nations, health care can form an enormous part of a country’s economy. In 2003, health care costs paid to hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, diagnostic laboratories, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers and other components of the health care system, consumed 15.3 percent of the GDP of the United States, the largest of any country in the world. In 2001, for the OECD countries the average was 8.4 percent with the United States (13.9%), Switzerland (10.9%), and Germany (10.7%) being the top three.The healthcare industry includes the delivery of health services by doctors and other allied health providers. Usually such services receive payment from the patient or from the patient’s insurance company; although they may be government-financed (such as the National Health Service in the United Kingdom) or delivered by charities or volunteers, particularly in poorer countries.

I think you oversimplify the complexity of healthcare. Your argument smacks of libertarianism which is not generally embraced in a democracy.

Chris

[seekay]

I think part of the answer to the health care crisis lies in restricting the amount of profit that doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical technology can make off their service/products. I see a lot of talk here about the “cost” of health care. It isn’t really the true “cost.” it’s the “price” we as consumers are forced to pay, often highly inflated because of the great demand for something (e.g., a drug) and the inability to find enough supply of it.

It borders on criminal to my mind that drug companies can command such high prices for certain drugs–the effect of this extortion is to drive up insurance rates, etc.

If “price-based medicine” became truly “cost-based medicine” then the ballooning spending on health care as a whole would drop significantly. I’m not getting into the whole issue of fee for service versus universal health care. I’m just sharing thoughts on what are the proper, ethical implications of providing a service or product relating to someone’s health: buying drugs should not be like buying an expensive pair of shoes or diamond ring.

[geebeebee]

Yes! Agreed.

That’s a little of what I was trying to hit on with a national coverage plan insurance-wise….if you strip away the profits of insurance companies and run it as break-even, it could be much more affordable.

But you’re absolutely right in reference to drug companies as well. What is really irritating is when the U.S. government pays for research that leads to a breakthrough, then the drug companies take it and run, and then make a huge profit from it, when taxpayers have already funded a large part of the research. Drug companies like to talk about R&D costs, but they don’t like to talk about how much of their R&D comes pre-supplied by the government.

[shirlsgirl]

Absolutely!

[uno grasshopper]

Seekay:

That is what was turning over in my mind as well, but was wondering how to drive the cost down without using government resources to do it. One thought was how about if the government removed the ability to patent drugs like there are no patents for food? Basically take away the profit incentive. Certainly *everyone* uses and needs food, yet the price of food is extremely attainable (especially to the middle classes) because the prices haven’t been artificially driven up by being patented and monopolized. If the patent on drugs were removed, then there wouldn’t be a monopoly of certain drugs where the drug company could charge whatever they wanted. Smaller companies could make the drugs, so there would be more available, and more choice for consumers to find a good/reasonable price. Removing the ability to patent drugs would not increase taxes either. Don’t know if it would work, but seems possible that it could.

Chris:

Frankly, I think your logic of sick patients providing jobs to the well as a *reason* to make being a terminally sick patient A POSITIVE THING, is twisted logic and falls in the same category of people wanting more wars to keep the economy running. More wars, more jobs for bomb building, and building other weapons and machinery to kill our neighbors or finding more poison chemicals to wipe out the enemy, etc. Imagine if there were less sickness? Then all those employed in washing bedpans, cleaning up vomit and sputum, etc. could work at other more enjoyable jobs like perhaps finding ways to improve world hunger, caring for the orphaned, more space exploration, finding ways to improve the decline of the earth’s resources, ways to fix things like the ozone layer problem, more time for more entrepreneurship etc. Seeing sickness as a positive thing contradicts the purpose of groups like this who want to find a cure for our diseases. In your world of sickness being necessary for the economy, then there is no incentive to find cures because the sick are needed. Could that be part of the reason we still have no cure? (Trust me, I certainly don’t want the job of being the sick invalid just so someone else has a job of wiping my behind or the drool off my face or pushing my wheel chair around for me). Less sickness would also drive the insurance rates down, not up, thus making insurance more affordable. Now please don’t misunderstand me and think I don’t appreciate caregivers! On the contrary, they are indispensible to us. But I imagine there are more enjoyable jobs to be had/created if sickness were not such a preoccupation. There would be more time to enjoy life, new discoveries to be made, less taxes to be paid, and more time for productivity.

Greg:

I see where you’re coming from. So long as they don’t have to increase taxes any further, it sounds promising.

Take care,

Marla

[Author]

Posts