Do yourself a favor...............

[PackerBlues]

To the moderators of this site: I understand that this post is "off topic", and I apologize. After watching this film, I am simply trying to tell as many people about it as i possibly can.




Watch the Movie "Sicko".


Michael moore's new film "Sicko" is something that I recommend that everyone watch. If you are not disgusted with our government and the health care system in this country after watching this film, there is something wrong with you.

The movie talks very briefly about the number of Americans that do not have health insurance, but it mainly points out how bad our health care system is for people who actually do have health insurance.

There are so many examples in this film of how corrupt the insurance industry and health care in our country have become. Insurance companies actually have people on their payroll who's job, is to find any reason that they can come up with to deny your claim.
One example that had me disgusted, was a woman who racked up $8,000. in hospital bills. Everything should have been covered under her insurance policy, and in fact was at first payed for by her insurance. Until, her insurance company did some digging and found out that 7 years prior, she had had a yeast infection. A simple yeast infection that simply called for a tube of ointment. Since she had failed to disclose the yeast infection (again, from 7 years prior), the insurance company "dropped" her and she was left with $8,000. in hospital bills that should have been covered by her insurance.

The film shows one example after another of people who have health insurance, and yet find themselves in huge financial trouble because of the corruption in our health care system. Those are the lucky ones. The film also gives many examples of people who needlessly died because their insurance company refused to cover the illnesses that they were suffering from, or because their insurance would only work at, or with, certain health care providers. An example that I recall, was a mother who took her daughter to the nearest hospital, with a fever of over 104. Her insurance was no good at that particular hospital, and they refused to even look at her daughter. By the time that she managed to get across town to a hospital that did accept her particular insurance, her daughter died, and couldn't be revived.

Politically, the film gives you a few very good examples of how corrupt our government is when it comes to health care. Starting with recordings of Richard Nixon discussing heath insurance over the phone with another man. The part of the conversation that makes you say "Holy Shit", is where Nixon and this guy talk about how much profit there is to be made in the health care industry, if only more claims could be denied and less care given. The very day after this conversation, Nixon was on television pushing his new health care policy. Very disgusting.
Another example was of Republican Congressman Billy Tosman. He managed to get a bill put through congress that allowed the drug companies to charge whatever they wanted for drugs. In his speeches he kept repeating "nobody loves their mother any more than I love mine." He pushed the bill as a way to lower drug costs for seniors. It actually allowed drug companies to charge whatever they wanted, and made the drugs even more expensive. After the bill was passed, 14 congressional aides involved with getting this bill passed, quit their jobs on the hill and went to work for the health care industry. Congressman Tosman himself left congress to take a job as CEO of Pharma, the drug industry lobby, for a salary of 2 MILLION dollars a year. Blatant corruption slapping every single one of us in the face.

The film gives many many more sad examples of the corruption in our health care/insurance industry. Yet it becomes even sadder, when you take into consideration that compared to other countries, our country ranks 28'th in health care for its citizens. There are 3rd world countries with better health care than ours. In most countries, health care is totally free, paid for by taxes, just like police service, and fire fightingl, and the film does a great job of pointing that out with many many examples.

I could go on and on about the things that I learned in this film, but I think you should really watch it yourself. I am not the type of person to tell anyone else what they should or should not watch, but in this case, I have to make an exception, I cannot possibly reccomend that you watch this film enough.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If you realized it would be moved, then why didn't you just post it there in the first place?

I wouldn't watch a Fatty Hypocrite movie if it was the last on Earth. Apparently, his latest "documentaries" weren't the only ones that had blatant lies in them. Even his best work, Roger and Me, was based on blatant lies. Pretty hard to watch a "documentary" filmmaker who has proven to be untrustworthy. Personally, I want the truth about something--whether it supports or debunks my view. So, I won't be watching a guy whose goals in life are to fatten his wallet and support his political views by any means necessary.

[MTPackerfan]

I haven't seen the film but am equally disgusted with the health care issues. I work for a small private company and we have struggled with health care issues for the past several years, continually decreasing benefits but the costs continue to rise exponentially. It is criminal what the insurance companies get away with. Rising costs and poor coverage are increasing the number of people who aren't covered which in turn increases costs even more. It's a sad situation for a nation like ours, and I consider it a national crisis.

[MadtownPacker]

To the moderators of this site: I understand that this post is "off topic", and I apologize. After watching this film, I am simply trying to tell as many people about it as i possibly can.Nothing to apologize for. We talk about everything here at PackerRats. But OT threads have a place and that is the Romper Room (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewforum.php?f=9) which is where this thread is headed.

Check it out, you will likely find most of the current headlines, movies, and everything under the sun being discussed in the "RR".

[Freak Out]

If you realized it would be moved, then why didn't you just post it there in the first place?

I wouldn't watch a Fatty Hypocrite movie if it was the last on Earth. Apparently, his latest "documentaries" weren't the only ones that had blatant lies in them. Even his best work, Roger and Me, was based on blatant lies. Pretty hard to watch a "documentary" filmmaker who has proven to be untrustworthy. Personally, I want the truth about something--whether it supports or debunks my view. So, I won't be watching a guy whose goals in life are to fatten his wallet and support his political views by any means necessary.

Lying and fattening the wallet! It's the American way.

[PackerBlues]

If you realized it would be moved, then why didn't you just post it there in the first place?

I wouldn't watch a Fatty Hypocrite movie if it was the last on Earth. Apparently, his latest "documentaries" weren't the only ones that had blatant lies in them. Even his best work, Roger and Me, was based on blatant lies. Pretty hard to watch a "documentary" filmmaker who has proven to be untrustworthy. Personally, I want the truth about something--whether it supports or debunks my view. So, I won't be watching a guy whose goals in life are to fatten his wallet and support his political views by any means necessary.

The film is not politically motivated. Not at all. Yes, it does give a couple of examples of blatantly corrupt politicians, but it points to democrats as well as republicans. Example: Hillary Clinton was very big on a universal health care system. It got her the votes she needed. She seems to have lost her desire to push for universal health care, now that nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the health care industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
I find it amazing that you are so quick to assume that this film is "full of lies" without even watching it.

[MadtownPacker]

Sorry PackerBlues but Fatboy Moore has been caught slipping on many, many things and has lost major cred. I don't buy what he says anymore either and he is completely to blame for that.

[Freak Out]

Most folks don't need Moore to tell us how messed up our Healthcare system is.

[rpiotr01]

I'll never forgive Michael Moore for blowing up Team America headquarters. How could you do that?!? You bastard!


:shock:


:lol:

[PackerBlues]

Sorry PackerBlues but Fatboy Moore has been caught slipping on many, many things and has lost major cred. I don't buy what he says anymore either and he is completely to blame for that.

Thats your call, and I am not going to bash your opinion. This is however a different kind of film than you are used to seeing from Moore. The story that you posted of the woman dying in the hospital because they wouldnt treat her, was sad and disgusting. Moore's film is full of those kinds of stories. But whats even worse, the majority of the stories this film will tell you about, are about people that HAVE health insurance, but still cannot get treatment, simply because the health care industry in this country is all about making a profit. Again, I would point at the Nixon tapes, where Nixon is heard talking about how much profit could be made by denying more claims and providing less care to the insured.

It will not hurt you in the least to view this movie, if anything, it will open your eyes a bit.

[The Leaper]

There are plenty of things in this nation that are out of whack...including the entertainment industry that Moore hails from. I haven't seen any documentary yet contribute to anything more than window dressing some of the symptoms. The underlying cause...the denegrating morality of the society as a whole...rarely is brought up, especially by a guy like Moore.

If you want the insurance industry...or ANY industry...to be charitable and honest, you need people with morals working there. Our society has lost its wealth of morality...which is why we are quickly heading into the crapper, just as Greece and Rome did before us.

[MadtownPacker]

It will not hurt you in the least to view this movie, if anything, it will open your eyes a bit.I won't say I'm not gonna watch it cuz there is a good chance I will but I am saying that Moore isn't the beacon of truth he claimed to be.

But then again what public figure really is? :whaa:

[packinpatland]

When Moore does these 'to educate and inform" films, how much revenue is generated, and where, besides his pockets does it all go?

[PackerBlues]

In this film, Moore simply asks people to open their eyes, and compare our health care system to just about any other countries. We are the most powerful country in the world, and yet our health care system is a complete and total joke compared to even some 3rd world countries.

One story in the film was about an uninsured man who accidentally cut the ends off of two of his fingers with a table saw. He was told that it would cost $12,000, to re-attach the one finger tip, and $60,000 to re-attach the other. He went with the $12,000 finger and said fuck the other one.

Compare that to the guy in Britain, who lost all the fingers on one hand, yet didnt have to worry about insurance due to the universal health care system they have. He had every finger re-attached, and did not have to pay a dime for it.

Again, in many countries, health care is a service paid for through taxes just like Police protection, and fire departments.

[TravisWilliams23]

Packerblues wrote: trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
How old is this movie? Rick Santorum was voted out of office last November and has been replaced by a Democrat, Bob Casey Jr.

[MJZiggy]

I don't need a movie to tell me that. I've spent enough time in the ER to know what it's like and the movie will only depress me.

[PackerBlues]

Packerblues wrote: trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
How old is this movie? Rick Santorum was voted out of office last November and has been replaced by a Democrat, Bob Casey Jr.

Sorry, that bit of info is something that I googled, No intention of misleading you, it must have been an old article that I got that from. The film did however mention Hillary Clinton in the context that she did push for universal health care, only to drop it once she started recieving big money contributions from the health care industry.

The film took two years to make from what I understand. He interviewed a few cancer patients that were refused treatment because their health insurance would not cover it.........he then went on to tell you that this person that you just watch crying, died a year or so later. Many sad stories.

[BallHawk]

Moore does some good work, but he also does some garbage.

[oregonpackfan]

I don't need a movie to tell me that. I've spent enough time in the ER to know what it's like and the movie will only depress me.

MJZiggy,

Has your emergency room experience been for yourself or your children?

Most of my ER experience has been as a parent. My two daughters have had: 2 broken arms(1 severe), a laceration, a spider bite, and a spinal cord scare. Other than the excessive wait time and the persoanlapprehension, my experiences were favorable. The quality of care received varied from good to excellent

[MJZiggy]

The ER stuff was mostly for me. I've only had a kid in the ER once and that was when he was a baby and I don't know if it was because the doctor called ahead or not, but that was pretty good. I have had far more mixed results from decent care to not decent care. I've also seen what the waiting rooms look like at all hours of the day and night. I recommend if you're gonna need the ER, you should do so about 8 a.m.

[PackerBlues]

I am sure a person can get great health care here in this country........but at what cost?

During his "illegal" trip to Cuba, Moore took some people who worked at ground zero of 9/11 with him. They were denied treatment in the U.S. because they were volunteers, and not on the city payroll. One of those people with chronic lung problems from her volunteer work, was shocked to find out that the "inhaler"device that she now needs and pays $120. for, could be bought for roughly 5 cents in Cuba. She said she uses about 2 of them a month.

I also found it interesting that despite a stark lack of resources, laboratories in the impoverished suburbs of the capital Havana have made startling strides in developing revolutionary vaccines and antibodies against meningitis, hepatitis, and lung, breast, head and neck cancers.
But their use in other parts of the world has been hindered up to now by the Helms-Burton Act.

People in the United States were missing out on the treatment that could be given them by the groundbreaking work done in Cuba, simply because our government has deemed Cubans to be EVIL. I had read somewhere, that Cuban doctors shared these advancements with doctors in California. Just read it on a random website while googleing for more info on the subject. Not going to bother trying to find it again, anyone interested can start googleing it on their own.

Funny how its illegal to do business of any kind with Cuba, and yet Republican candidate Fred Thompson is not afraid to get on camera and flaunt his big old Cuban cigar openly. Just one more fat-assed republican blow hard.

[Partial]

Packerblues wrote: trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
How old is this movie? Rick Santorum was voted out of office last November and has been replaced by a Democrat, Bob Casey Jr.

Rick Santorum is a jackass. I love the piece the onion did on him.

[Partial]

If healthcare becomes nationalized (worst possible idea ever), all drug innovation will stop.

It costs 800,000,000~ USD to get a drug on the market. Without incentives and the ability to charge a good amount for it, where will the innovation come in?

Biochemists with their PhD's don't work for free, you know.

Self-righteous (yet a millionaire many times over) MM doesn't consider any of this, nor does he donate any of the proceeds from his flicks, and slants facts big time. He is an asshat.

[PackerBlues]

If healthcare becomes nationalized (worst possible idea ever), all drug innovation will stop.

It costs 800,000,000~ USD to get a drug on the market. Without incentives and the ability to charge a good amount for it, where will the innovation come in?

Biochemists with their PhD's don't work for free, you know.

Self-righteous (yet a millionaire many times over) MM doesn't consider any of this, nor does he donate any of the proceeds from his flicks, and slants facts big time. He is an asshat.

Again, just watch the damned movie. For fucks sake, what would it hurt. How much do you think those Cuban scientist were paid for their breakthroughs in fighting cancer?
As far as Moore being an asshat.........I could care less. If you have not seen this particular movie, then you are just assuming. Moore did seem pretty damned proud of himself for an "anonymous" donation that he made to a guy running the #1 "I hate Michael Moore" website. According to him, this guy had to shut down his website, because his wife was ill, and without good health insurance, the bills were getting to be more than he could handle. Moore supposedly sent the guy a check for $12,000 to cover his wifes doctor bills.

[Partial]

If healthcare becomes nationalized (worst possible idea ever), all drug innovation will stop.

It costs 800,000,000~ USD to get a drug on the market. Without incentives and the ability to charge a good amount for it, where will the innovation come in?

Biochemists with their PhD's don't work for free, you know.

Self-righteous (yet a millionaire many times over) MM doesn't consider any of this, nor does he donate any of the proceeds from his flicks, and slants facts big time. He is an asshat.

Again, just watch the damned movie. For fucks sake, what would it hurt. How much do you think those Cuban scientist were paid for their breakthroughs in fighting cancer?
As far as Moore being an asshat.........I could care less. If you have not seen this particular movie, then you are just assuming. Moore did seem pretty damned proud of himself for an "anonymous" donation that he made to a guy running the #1 "I hate Michael Moore" website. According to him, this guy had to shut down his website, because his wife was ill, and without good health insurance, the bills were getting to be more than he could handle. Moore supposedly sent the guy a check for $12,000 to cover his wifes doctor bills.

Nothing is discovered, tested, etc. in Cuba. It is almost all done in America (we have by far the best universities in the world). When is the last time you heard of any major medical break-throughs from a third world country? Hell, even other powerhouse countries like China, UK, etc. It is extremely rare.

Quite honestly, I don't really feel sorry for those people that don't have insurance. That is their own dumb faults. If they cannot afford it because there job doesn't pay enough, maybe they should work a little harder, better themselves, and get a better job.

[Freak Out]

Packerblues wrote: trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.
How old is this movie? Rick Santorum was voted out of office last November and has been replaced by a Democrat, Bob Casey Jr.

Rick Santorum is a jackass. I love the piece the onion did on him.

Are you talking about Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum? :lol: :lol: I would have to agree with you.

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

[PackerBlues]

Nothing is discovered, tested, etc. in Cuba. It is almost all done in America (we have by far the best universities in the world). When is the last time you heard of any major medical break-throughs from a third world country?

I believe that would have been when I just typed the words "cancer treatment" and "Cuba" into the Google search engine and got 1,140,000 hits. Give it a shot genius.



Quite honestly, I don't really feel sorry for those people that don't have insurance. That is their own dumb faults. If they cannot afford it because there job doesn't pay enough, maybe they should work a little harder, better themselves, and get a better job.

After reading this, I can only assume, that you are an ignorant, arrogant asshole. For you, its all about the "haves" and the "have-nots", you have, and therefore you could care less about anyone else. What a great fucking humanitarian you must be.

[Partial]

I believe that would have been when I just typed the words "cancer treatment" and "Cuba" into the Google search engine and got 1,140,000 hits. Give it a shot genius.

Find me one RECENT drug funded by, discovered, studied, tested, etc. in Cuba. Progress costs money. Lots and lots of it. The people that do this research spent 4 years of undergrad doing work, and up to 6 years of graduate work. That is 10 years of college. I think they deserve to make 200k if thats what they want.





After reading this, I can only assume, that you are an ignorant, arrogant asshole. For you, its all about the "haves" and the "have-nots", you have, and therefore you could care less about anyone else. What a great fucking humanitarian you must be.

I couldn't care less about someone elses problems. Everyone in America is looking for a handout. Call me a staunch conservative, a hard worker, whatever you would like. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is that I could not care less because johnny jerkoff works at McDonalds(a non-skilled position job that should only be occupied by high schoolers) because he didn't pay attention in high school and thought selling drugs was a better bet to make the big bucks versus going to college and putting in the hard work. If he did what it took to get ahead in life, he'd have insurance and wouldn't have to worry about footing expensive bills.

It all comes down to the cost of drugs. They are high in America because we have to not only pay for the drugs but for the testing, the manufacturing, the researching, etc.

[PackerBlues]

Wow, this is way to funny. Again, the film only talks briefly about uninsured people. The rest of the film talks about how people who have health insurance still go into debt because insurance companies will look for any reason they can find to deny coverage. The people that simply go into debt, are again, the lucky ones. Moore shows case after case of insured people who died, because of the excuses given by the insurance companies as to why they would not cover certain life saving operations or procedures.

The movie also does a great job of pointing out that America is ranked way lower (38th I believe it was) than even most 3rd world countries in quality of health care coverage, by the World Health Care Organization. Barely beating out Cuba.

[PackerBlues]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

#1 France

#2 Italy

#3 San Marino

#4 Andorra

#5 Malta

#6 Singapore

#7 Spain

#8 Oman

#9 Austria

#10 Japan

#11 Norway

#12 Portugal

#13 Monaco

#14 Greece

#15 Iceland

#16 Luxembourg

#17 Netherlands

#18 United Kingdom

#19 Ireland

#20 Switzerland

#21 Belgium

#22 Colombia

#23 Sweden

#24 Cyprus

#25 Germany

#26 Saudi Arabia

#27 United Arab Emirates

#28 Israel

#29 Morocco

#30 Canada

#31 Finland

#32 Australia

#33 Chile

#34 Denmark

#35 Doninica

#36 Costa Rica

#37 United states of America


#38 Slovenia

#39 Cuba


For being the richest most powerfull country in the world, you would think we would rank a little higher than 37th.

[MJZiggy]

My mom used to get all her drugs in Mexico because she could get them for less than her insurance copay was in the states.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.

#30 Canada
#37 United states of America

Too funny.

[Freak Out]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.

#30 Canada
#37 United states of America

Too funny.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: It's a barrel of monkeys funny.

[Partial]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.

#30 Canada
#37 United states of America

Too funny.

why's that?

[The Shadow]

I'm sure it's all Ted Thompson's fault.

[The Shadow]

Michael Moore perhaps should first worry about fixing himself.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.

#30 Canada
#37 United states of America

Too funny.

why's that?

These are three of the five criteria for their rankings:

Fairness of financial contribution
Distribution of Health in the Populations
Distribution of Financing

So, their rankings appear to be weighted more to these factors than quality of care. These aren't as important to me as quality of care. This means about as much as a Michael Moore documentary.

A major project I chose to do for a class at the U of M was to rank the 50 largest cities in the U.S. It took extensive research. It took more work than any class I had at the U of M--including programming classes. I determined the criteria to use (numerous factors, weighted). I tried to be as fair as possible. While researching other rankings, I realized just how flawed most other rankings actually were. A majority were outright biased. I learned fast how flawed most rankings are. Unless you can choose the criteria that are important to you, these are pretty worthless.

I'd say a large majority of people in the countries ranked higher than the USA would prefer the health care quality in our country. I could care less if some ranking states that our health care isn't as equitable as other countries. If their criteria will automatically favor, for example, a socialistic country where citizens don't have to pay for health care (but also don't get paid nearly as well as our citizens) over our system, it's flawed to begin with.

Health care CRISIS. Give me a break. It's another issue that prays on emotion that some like to exploit, but is much more complicated than that. It's like saying minimum wage should be raised. It's like saying all illegal immigrants should be shipped back home. It's like saying the NFLPA should pay more to the retired players. Lies, damned lies, and stats.

[Partial]

Harv everytime I read one of your posts about a life issue I realize that you're a very intelligent, well-rounded guy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Who here hasn't been able to receive health care in our country? The #1 complaint from everyone seems to be the increase in cost. Guess what, if health care is socialized, you'll see a larger increase in costs or a decrease in medical research (like partial said).

[PackerBlues]

Who here hasn't been able to receive health care in our country? The #1 complaint from everyone seems to be the increase in cost. Guess what, if health care is socialized, you'll see a larger increase in costs or a decrease in medical research (like partial said).

Yeah, well, sorry, but that argument was debunked in the movie also. Perhaps you should just put your egos aside long enough to just watch the film, then comment on how bad you think it is, or how many lies you think it is full of, after you have actually seen it. I have no doubt what-so-ever that you will change your "tune", if you actually watch the movie.

If your that damned worried about giving Moore your money, download a bit torrent program , and download the damned thing for free.

Again, I dont go around telling people about movies that I think are great. Everyone has their own tastes. This is a film that I do recommend however, and I really hope everyone takes the time to watch it.

[Partial]

Yeah, well, sorry, but that argument was debunked in the movie also. Perhaps you should just put your egos aside long enough to just watch the film, then comment on how bad you think it is, or how many lies you think it is full of.

How did Mr. Moore debunk this? He can have a theory, but he doesn't have any evidence. As I stated before, drugs are developed, tested, etc. in America primarily.

[packinpatland]

One of my main issues here, is the fact that Moore finds 'hot topic' issues, doesn't always present both sides, presents all as fact, and MAKES MONEY!!!
With the $$$ made, why not put up the cash , start some sort of trust-type program to help the uninsured?
If more of these hollywooders were like Mr. Paul Newman..........

[PackerBlues]

One of my main issues here, is the fact that Moore finds 'hot topic' issues, doesn't always present both sides, presents all as fact, and MAKES MONEY!!!
With the $$$ made, why not put up the cash , start some sort of trust-type program to help the uninsured?
If more of these hollywooders were like Mr. Paul Newman..........

You want more hollywooders to make salad dressing? :mrgreen:

[packinpatland]

Don't knock Mr. Newman.......................all profits go towards his 'camps'.
But, you knew that didn't you??? :wink:

[PackerBlues]

Nope, I didn't, but thanks for pointing it out. Newman already had enough "cool points" with me, just for starring in The Hustler, and The Color of Money. Two of the greatest movies ever made. :worship:

[packinpatland]

I think actors and athletes are alike. It's what you do off the screen/field that makes you a man or woman.

Once again, if Moore would just make some $$$ gesture to help the ones he is documenting. Just 'give back' in some way.
I might take him more seriously.

[PackerBlues]

I think actors and athletes are alike. It's what you do off the screen/field that makes you a man or woman.

Once again, if Moore would just make some $$$ gesture to help the ones he is documenting. Just 'give back' in some way.
I might take him more seriously.

Well, Moore did claim to have sent an "anonymous" check for $12,000. to the guy who had a website thats sole purpose was to "flame" Moore. The guys wife was sick, and he put a bulletin up on his website that said "due to financial problems from his wifes medical bills, he would not be able to keep the site going." Not sure I would have helped a guy that got his kicks by running a web site soley intended to flame me. If its true, I am sure it made Moore feel pretty damned good, if not slightly "holier than thou" to be able to help the guy. If nothing else, if its true, he got a few "Ying and Yang" points built up for it, lol.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sticking up for Moore is a No Win Proposition.

His picture is in the dictionary under asshat.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshat

[rdanomly]

Sticking up for Moore is a No Win Proposition.

His picture is in the dictionary under asshat.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asshat


Not at that link it isn't.. Is there a different url?

[Fosco33]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

[Freak Out]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

[MJZiggy]

:clap: :bclap:

[Tarlam!]

If you realized it would be moved, then why didn't you just post it there in the first place?

I wouldn't watch a Fatty Hypocrite movie if it was the last on Earth.


This is all I need to read, after the first two sentences of the initial post, to know all I wanna say is:

"What Harvey said."

I will add, I find Michael Moore a scumbag.

[Partial]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

Its all sort of the benefit package with the company. Those are all things people should look at in terms of total compensation from a company.

If a company is huge, insurance will likely be cheaper. It only makes sense.

You could get dirt cheap insurance in America and go without any new drugs or techniques for the next 1000 years, but that would be stupid and stunt progress.

[MJZiggy]

Since when do insurance companies fund drug research????

[Partial]

Since when do insurance companies fund drug research????

It is all inter-related. Somebody is funding the studying of new drugs. Some of it from tax dollars, some of it from insurance companies, some of it privately funded, etc. $800,000,000 doesn't grow on a tree, you know.

It is not necessarily direct funding. It is the reason that drugs are so ridiculously expensive here when under a patent.

My guess is a lot of international drugs are ripped off and "generic" because US patent laws don't apply to overseas. When someone has done all the research for you, done all the testing for you, and when another company is simply just manufacturing a product off of another companies "recipe", of course they can sell it for cheaper.

See Tylenol being 10 dollars a box when Wal-lenol is 2 dollars a box, for example. Tylenol's patent likely has expired, though I really have no idea.

[Freak Out]

JERRY AVORN
Rethinking research funding

By Jerry Avorn | May 7, 2007

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY Industry Organization is holding its annual mega meeting in Boston this week at a pivotal time in the industry's history. Medically, biotech is at the growing edge of therapeutics. Most older, conventional drug companies have become massive marketing engines with a dulled innovative edge -- only 18 new drugs were approved by the FDA in all of 2006. By contrast, many biotech companies retain their roots as research-based operations where the scientists' agenda can still compete with that of the sales department. Some of the most exciting new treatments for cancer, autoimmune diseases, and even vision loss are emerging from this creative new sector.

But amid the breakthrough findings, lavish entertainment, and self-congratulation that will fill the convention attendees' schedules this week, some important worries may not get the attention they merit. The first relates to costs. Not the cost of the luxury harbor tours and exorbitant meals that participants will enjoy in the coming days; I'm referring to what patients (or taxpayers) have to pay to get access to these wondrous discoveries.

Regimens that can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year per patient can cloud the moral judgment of those who purvey them. For example, a confluence of interests among biotech giant Amgen, for-profit dialysis centers, and kidney disease consultants seems to have led to substantial over prescribing of the company's flagship blood-building product, erythropoietin -- a lucrative practice that probably increases the risk of side effects and even death. Another dilemma: A new biotech product, Lucentis, can reverse the vision loss caused by macular degeneration, a devastating cause of blindness. But the drug costs $2,000 for each monthly injection. Many ophthalmologists are convinced that equally miraculous results could be provided to far more patients with use of a very similar biotech product, Avastin, at only $50 per dose. Yet Genentech, which makes Avastin, has not agreed to sponsor a clinical trial to study this possibility, which could also save Medicare hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming years. That's probably because Genentech makes both Lucentis and Avastin, and use of the more affordable drug would cut into the more expensive drug's expected profits.

Biotech has brought to market a number of important new cancer treatments. But pricing a lifesaving cancer regimen at over $50,000 is guaranteed to put that treatment beyond the reach of many patients. It doesn't cost anywhere near that much to produce these drugs. Rather, the industry argues that these sky-high prices are justified to fuel the expensive research it performs. But many biotech advances are heavily based on publicly funded research supported by the National Institutes of Health and by foundations. Current policies allow companies to charge whatever they want for a new drug, with no payback required for most of the indispensable, taxpayer-supported basic research that made it possible. With the federal deficit threatening to flatline the NIH budget for the first time in a generation, and venture capital speculators increasingly preferring to fund safer "late-stage" companies with nearly marketable products, savvy conventioneers this week must be worried about where the next decade's miracle cures will come from -- as we all should be.

The breathtaking five-figure prices that some biotech drugs command per course of therapy warrant a rethinking of this "trickle-down" approach to supporting science -- a strategy that amounts to the growing privatization of medical research. The example of biotech's older, flabbier siblings is not encouraging: Only about 14 cents of every dollar paid for Big Pharma's products makes its way back into research and development, according to the companies' own figures.

A safer course for the nation would be to take some of the billions the nation is paying for these expensive products and use it to rev up NIH funding, protecting the flow of scientific innovation on which new biotech products depend. The companies could then come in and do the hard work needed to bring those discoveries to market. They should be rewarded fairly, even handsomely for that important work -- but not at levels that will pauper the rest of us or the federal treasury. And we need a better way to provide reasonable compensation for the taxpayer-supported research on which breakthrough products are based. Public funding of university-based research, not extortionate drug prices, is the safest way to guarantee "the miracle cures of tomorrow." It might make for fewer luxury harbor cruises at future BIO conventions, but we can live with that.

Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, is author of "Powerful Medicines: the Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs."

[Fosco33]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

You could join a SBA and merge with other companies to leverage the amount you have to pay into the system. We, as consumers, have to spend more on goods/services because most of healthcare is either reimbursed by taxes or employers (who pass the buck along).

Ultimately, healthcare is somewhat a right (ER treatment) and a privilege. You have a choice to be self-insured or self-pay. Almost everyone that is disabled, young or very old as well as very poor is covered in this system. The remainder are working class/age people with access to insurance. With the new healthplans (high ded/OOP and lower premiums/co-pays), everyone can find a plan that fits their use of the system.

I can attest to the insane nature of gov't programs - filled with red tape (in some ways worse than private insurers) and inaccuracy.

Almost every hospital is willing to negotiate and write-off charges/portions of bills - as well as acting as a conduit to help patients and insurers. In actuality, hospitals aren't required to bill for patients - it's actually an additional service (which everyone supplies) - that alone accounts for a decent amount of budgeting for hospitals (at no/low cost to consumers). Most people are so confused about HC that they just get run over by greedy hospitals and insurers.

It's also very easy for people like Moore to point out things that are wrong with the US (or anything for that matter). It's much harder to change things. I chose the latter.

[packinpatland]

Drug companies have 7 years to re-coup their expenditures before a drug goes off patent. You are right, Partial, about some drugs costing in excess of $800,000,000, Pfizer just recently pulled the plug on one that had cost that much, will not make it to market.

[Partial]

That is a big waste of money to pull the plug at that point.

Anna worked in a lab studying the osteopontin gene and how it affected vitamin D within the human body. She would use antibodies like crazy(which cost 500 dollars a pop) and go through $100,000 worth of supplies in a month. This is just one person studying something as an undergrad in a lab of 15-20 people. Imagine the overall cost!

[packinpatland]

It was in the long run a savings, if you consider what could have happened if it had cost lives.

[Freak Out]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

Its all sort of the benefit package with the company. Those are all things people should look at in terms of total compensation from a company.

If a company is huge, insurance will likely be cheaper. It only makes sense.




:bs:

So if we all just worked for big Corporations everything would be fine. That's the answer.

[Freak Out]

That is a big waste of money to pull the plug at that point.

Anna worked in a lab studying the osteopontin gene and how it affected vitamin D within the human body. She would use antibodies like crazy(which cost 500 dollars a pop) and go through $100,000 worth of supplies in a month. This is just one person studying something as an undergrad in a lab of 15-20 people. Imagine the overall cost!

As a student or an employee?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I always love it when Partial, a student, talks about the real world. Come back when you've actually been in it.

Come back when you actually know something about the history of medicine within this country. Come back when you can tell me WHY we lead the world in research.

[Partial]

That is a big waste of money to pull the plug at that point.

Anna worked in a lab studying the osteopontin gene and how it affected vitamin D within the human body. She would use antibodies like crazy(which cost 500 dollars a pop) and go through $100,000 worth of supplies in a month. This is just one person studying something as an undergrad in a lab of 15-20 people. Imagine the overall cost!

As a student or an employee?

Stu

[Partial]

I always love it when Partial, a student, talks about the real world. Come back when you've actually been in it.

Come back when you actually know something about the history of medicine within this country. Come back when you can tell me WHY we lead the world in research.

I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies. In the example of the lady friend, she worked in the best vitamin d lab in the world.

I would say that in my 21 years of age I have worked enough, listened enough, read enough, and have experienced more than enough to have a good understanding of how the world is. I've read a lot of your posts and I don't think your vantage point is worth any more(or more correct or well-rounded) than mine.

Now I'm curious Tyrone, why is everything as it is? Since you have so much "real world experience", I am quite interested in hearing your response.

[HarveyWallbangers]

So if we all just worked for big Corporations everything would be fine. That's the answer.

Whether people realize it or not, it costs every working stiff money for healthcare. Just because your employer "pays for it," doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. Companies will often hire a contractor at a higher salary rather than hire a full-time employee--mainly to avoid paying the high health care cost for that employee. That employee chooses whether they want to buy health insurance or not. Plenty of people don't, but they are getting that higher salary because the company can avoid paying these types of benefits. It's up to you to choose which benefits package (salary, vacation, health care, etc.) means the most to you.

And damn those big corporations for providing such a benefit. Those evil bastards.

[Partial]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

Its all sort of the benefit package with the company. Those are all things people should look at in terms of total compensation from a company.

If a company is huge, insurance will likely be cheaper. It only makes sense.




:bs:

So if we all just worked for big Corporations everything would be fine. That's the answer.

Harv stated the point I was getting at more elegantly. The employer is footing some of the bill for your health care, and it is most likely built into your salary. If you are unhappy with your salary and amount of health care you have to pay, you should try getting a better deal elsewhere, or getting a higher paying job.

A big corporation(say 25k employees) will naturally get a discounted rate from the insurance company for buying in bulk. Say the company aims for 20% profit on each health insurance agreement they sell. Perhaps with that big company they settle on 18% profit to be the exclusive provider for that large corporation(with any employee not taking the corporate package to have to foot the bill themselves rather than having it through the company).

That is all I was saying by that.

[packinpatland]

"I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies."


Just for the sake of argument, where exactly did you find that these two schools are the best?

Sounds a tad juvenile. :roll:

[PackerBlues]

"I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies."


Just for the sake of argument, where exactly did you find that these two schools are the best?

Sounds a tad juvenile. :roll:

Ah, but he is 21, he has seen all that the world has to offer. Plus his lady friend worked in the best "vitamin D" lab in the world. :wow: :knll:

[HarveyWallbangers]

"I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies."

Just for the sake of argument, where exactly did you find that these two schools are the best?

Sounds a tad juvenile. :roll:

Cal and Wisconsin ranked #1 and #4 nationally in research among public institutions according to this ranking. Michigan, Minnesota, and UCLA were #2, #3, and #5, respectively.

http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf

[PackerBlues]

"I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies."


Just for the sake of argument, where exactly did you find that these two schools are the best?

Sounds a tad juvenile. :roll:

Ah, but he is 21, he has seen all that the world has to offer. Plus his lady friend worked in the best "vitamin D" lab in the world. :wow: :knll:






Quite honestly, I don't really feel sorry for those people that don't have insurance. That is their own dumb faults. If they cannot afford it because there job doesn't pay enough, maybe they should work a little harder, better themselves, and get a better job.

Wich would explain a lot. :taunt:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ah, but he is 21, he has seen all that the world has to offer. Plus his lady friend worked in the best "vitamin D" lab in the world. :wow: :knll:

I'm outta here. Going to watch the Crew vs. the Twins.

[Freak Out]

I thought that there was a "beating the head against the wall" emoticon?

[Partial]

"I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies."


Just for the sake of argument, where exactly did you find that these two schools are the best?

Sounds a tad juvenile. :roll:

If not the best they're up there. Those types of schools are where the majority of huge breakthroughs take place. MU is up there as Harv noted. I list those two because it seems like every time I open a paper its "a new compound discovered at cal" or "finally: efficient hydrogen fuel cell created at UW", etc, etc.

[PackerBlues]

Nothing is discovered, tested, etc. in Cuba. It is almost all done in America (we have by far the best universities in the world). When is the last time you heard of any major medical break-throughs from a third world country? Hell, even other powerhouse countries like China, UK, etc. It is extremely rare.

http://www.mltoday.com/Pages/Cuba/CancerDrug.html



U.S. Permits 3 Cancer Drugs From Cuba
By Andrew Pollack
New York Times, July 15, 2004


The federal government is permitting a California biotechnology company to license three experimental cancer drugs from Cuba, making an exception to the policy of tightly restricting trade with that country.

The company, CancerVax, had said late last year that it was trying to license the drugs and had been awaiting needed permission from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. That permission has been granted, and CancerVax is expected to announce it today.

CancerVax executives said that it was the first time an American biotechnology company had obtained permission to license a drug from Cuba, a country that some industry executives and scientists say is surprisingly strong in biotechnology for a developing nation. In 1999, SmithKline Beecham, a large conventional pharmaceutical company now known as GlaxoSmithKline, licensed a Cuban vaccine for meningitis B that it is testing in clinical trials.

"I think there are other product candidates and technology in Cuba that could be helpful to the
American people, not just the American people but people around the world," said David F. Hale, chief executive of CancerVax, a newly public company that does not yet have any drugs on the market. Mr. Hale said that he had been pursuing the Cuban drugs since he first saw a poster about the work at an American cancer conference three years ago.

A spokesman for the State Department, which helps rule on such licenses, said that the exception had been made because of the life-saving potential of the experimental Cuban drugs and that the license approval did not represent a relaxation of the trade policy.

"These three drugs are claimed to be revolutionary life-saving medications," said the spokesman, who agreed to comment only if not identified by name. "As such, upon review it was decided that the company should have an opportunity to further research and verify the claims about these drugs."

CancerVax, which is based in Carlsbad, Calif., plans to test the drugs in clinical trials and bring them to market if they pass muster. The first one, Mr. Hale said, which has already shown some promise in small trials, could reach the market in 2008 or 2009.

The licensing deal calls for CancerVax to pay $6 million over the next three years, during the
development stage. If products reach the market, the company would pay up to $35 million more.

As a government condition of allowing the license, payments to Cuba during the developmental phase would be in goods like food or medical supplies, to avoid providing the Cuban government with currency. Any payments after drugs reach the market, Mr. Hale said, could be half in cash.

The agreement comes shortly after the Bush administration put into effect new restrictions on
visits to Cuba and cash remittances by Americans.

The administration has also stated that it believes Cuba has at least a limited biological weapons research effort and that it has provided biotechnology to other "rogue states" that might be used either for medical purposes or in development of biological weapons. The Cuban government has denied it is developing such weapons.

Representatives from both parties had sent letters to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell urging that permission be granted on medical grounds.

One letter writer, Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Democrat from Connecticut, hailed the government decision as good news in a statement issued yesterday. "Saving lives shouldn't be a political issue," he said.

H. P. Goldfield and Richard A. Popkin, Washington lawyers hired by CancerVax to help win approval, said there had been no real opposition.

"At the worst, some officials in Congress did not support us but they did not in any way try to oppose the license," said Mr. Goldfield, who is with the firm Hogan & Hartson.

But Mr. Goldfield and Mr. Popkin, who is with the firm of Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, said the CancerVax approval was more difficult to obtain than SmithKline's license because of the Bush administration's tougher policy toward Cuba.

Cuba already sells some biotechnology drugs in countries other than the United States, said José de la Fuente, the former head of research and development at the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Havana. The drugs include a hepatitis B vaccine and a treatment for heart attacks called streptokinase.

Dr. de la Fuente, who is now a research professor at Oklahoma State University, said the move into biotechnology began in the early 1980's after Fidel Castro heard about interferons - immune system proteins that were viewed back then as potential cancer cures — during a visit to Cuba by the president of M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

More than $1 billion was spent over the years to build and operate research institutes on the west side of Havana staffed by Cuban scientists, many of them educated in Europe, Dr. de la Fuente said. But he said that the Cuban program has become weaker because the government had started to exercise more control over the scientists and because of economic pressures.

Still, John S. Kavulich II, the president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, a nonprofit
organization in New York, said Cuba had a few drugs that have interested other American companies.

He said one other drug-licensing deal had already been approved by Washington. An American company, that he said he was not at liberty to identify, had licensed a drug called PPG, derived from sugar cane, that was used to lower cholesterol and was also reputed to be the Cuban equivalent of Viagra for erectile dysfunction. The Treasury Department does not confirm or deny
licensing approvals.

The Cuban drugs that CancerVax is obtaining were developed by the Center of Molecular Immunology in Havana. They were first licensed to YM Biosciences, a Canadian company. YM Biosciences is transferring those rights to CancerVax. Mr. Hale said YM Biosciences had apparently decided to concentrate on some drugs that were further along in development. David G. P. Allan, YM's chief executive, did not return a call seeking comment.

The Cuban drugs in question are so-called cancer vaccines, which attempt to harness the body's immune system to fight tumors.

While the concept of cancer vaccines have excited researchers, the field has been littered with disappointments. CancerVax's own main drug is a melanoma vaccine that has been in development by an academic scientist for 40 years and is only now in the final phase of clinical trials.

The lead drug from Cuba aims to thwart epidermal growth factor, a protein in the body that can spur the growth of cancer cells when it binds to them.

The approach is different from the new cancer drug Erbitux, developed by ImClone Systems, which blocks the epidermal growth factor receptor, the docking port on cancer cells to which the growth factor binds.

The Cuban vaccine, instead of trying to block the receptor, links the growth factor to a bacterial protein, which is injected into the body. Doing so is supposed to stimulate the immune system to make antibodies that attack the growth factor.

The drug has already been tested in small clinical trials outside the United States. In one trial, according to data presented last month at the American Society for Clinical Oncology meeting, patients with advanced lung cancer who got the vaccine lived longer than those who did not receive the treatment.

Mr. Hale said CancerVax planned to put the drug into phase 2 trials, the middle stage of testing.

The second drug, which has not yet entered clinical trials, is a similar vaccine aimed at transforming growth factor-alpha, another protein that can stimulate cancer cell growth by binding to the epidermal growth factor receptor.

The third, also not in clinical trials, is aimed at stimulating antibodies to the receptor.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company


I love how it states that the Bush administration claims that Cuba may be making biological weapons. :whaa: Pay em in food, so as not to provide them with cash.........whata fuckin joke. :bs: If I were one of these Cuban scientists, I would tell the U.S. to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Freak Out]

That is a big waste of money to pull the plug at that point.

Anna worked in a lab studying the osteopontin gene and how it affected vitamin D within the human body. She would use antibodies like crazy(which cost 500 dollars a pop) and go through $100,000 worth of supplies in a month. This is just one person studying something as an undergrad in a lab of 15-20 people. Imagine the overall cost!

As a student or an employee?

Stu

So where does the $$ come from to fund her work? NIH? Venture Capital? Big Pharma?

[Partial]

That is a big waste of money to pull the plug at that point.

Anna worked in a lab studying the osteopontin gene and how it affected vitamin D within the human body. She would use antibodies like crazy(which cost 500 dollars a pop) and go through $100,000 worth of supplies in a month. This is just one person studying something as an undergrad in a lab of 15-20 people. Imagine the overall cost!

As a student or an employee?

Stu

So where does the $$ come from to fund her work? NIH? Venture Capital? Big Pharma?

Professor at a university. I have no idea where he gets his funding, though. She was a research assistant for 3ish years.

[Freak Out]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

Its all sort of the benefit package with the company. Those are all things people should look at in terms of total compensation from a company.

If a company is huge, insurance will likely be cheaper. It only makes sense.




:bs:

So if we all just worked for big Corporations everything would be fine. That's the answer.

Harv stated the point I was getting at more elegantly. The employer is footing some of the bill for your health care, and it is most likely built into your salary. If you are unhappy with your salary and amount of health care you have to pay, you should try getting a better deal elsewhere, or getting a higher paying job.

A big corporation(say 25k employees) will naturally get a discounted rate from the insurance company for buying in bulk. Say the company aims for 20% profit on each health insurance agreement they sell. Perhaps with that big company they settle on 18% profit to be the exclusive provider for that large corporation(with any employee not taking the corporate package to have to foot the bill themselves rather than having it through the company).

That is all I was saying by that.

So it is ok in your view to screw a small business person and maximize profit. Once again it's profit over people. The insurance industry has all the power.

[packinpatland]

"I don't think it takes a genius to see that the University of Wisconsin and the University of California are the best scientific research universities in the world. They get the best professors, who attended the best schools and got the best grades, and who work the hardest and are sponsored with the big bucks to do research for pharmaceutical(or whatever field) companies."

Just for the sake of argument, where exactly did you find that these two schools are the best?

Sounds a tad juvenile. :roll:

Cal and Wisconsin ranked #1 and #4 nationally in research among public institutions according to this ranking. Michigan, Minnesota, and UCLA were #2, #3, and #5, respectively.

http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf



I'm ok with this. Substantiation is good. It does seem odd that Tufts, Harvard, Yale, wouldn't be up there.

[Partial]

I don't think Harvard, Yale, etc. are science schools. Seems to me that they're more liberal arts/law/history schools.

Public universities are normally the big boys for science.

I don't think its necessarily fair to small businesses. I am just saying that is why it is. Keep in mind what I referenced was a 2% discount. Not a huge deal on a per person basis. I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

[Fosco33]

Being an 'expert' in heathcare industry and insurance administration, I'll be able to watch this movie w/ a dif't point of view. Lots of the things mentioned (insurance staff looking for denials) is being mitigated by staff in hospitals ensuring things will be paid before service.

Personally, I've fixed some of the largest health systems in the country (and my company overall has saved hospitals BILLIONS of dollars over the last decade). Things are pretty screwed up - that's just obvious.

Its not screwed up for you, its not screwed up for Harvey but it is screwed up. My wife works for a large company with thousands of employees and pays a very small monthly premium for very good coverage. Good for her and myself (was good for our kids :) ) , but I'm self employed and if I was not married to her I would have to pay a pile of $$$ a month for the same kind of coverage. What is the GOOD reason for that? My friend who is a Engineer for the State has to pay a bit more than her for his family but makes less $$$. Look at the plans all Federal employees and Congress get to take part in. Why should they get to use those plans when other Americans are denied access? I like my Doctor and Dentist and nurses and all the admin, all these folks are worth what they get paid I'm sure....but American health care is all about profit over people now and that is wrong. Insurance companies that "manage" our health care should not be trying to return dividends to share holders but should be doing all they can for the people they serve.

Its all sort of the benefit package with the company. Those are all things people should look at in terms of total compensation from a company.

If a company is huge, insurance will likely be cheaper. It only makes sense.

You could get dirt cheap insurance in America and go without any new drugs or techniques for the next 1000 years, but that would be stupid and stunt progress.

It's not about screwing anyone... when I studied SBM - one of the items discussed was HC costs (and rules after growth).

Again, employers providing HC benefits charge more for goods/services - so there's no profit really (just a passage of monies). If your SB wanted to provide benes, you'd charge more (if you could) to pay for it....

[packinpatland]

I went to that site and this is what I found for top 25 research schools.

Top 25
Nationally
Private Columbia University 9 0 468,484 21 406,576 11 5,190,564 6
Private Harvard University 9 0 454,495 24 399,764 12 25,473,721 1
Private Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9 0 543,448 10 427,552 9 6,712,436 5
Private Stanford University 9 0 671,046 8 541,667 3 12,205,000 3
Private University of Pennsylvania 9 0 596,756 9 435,343 7 4,369,782 10
Private Johns Hopkins University 8 1 1,375,014 1 1,229,426 1 2,176,909 22
Private Duke University 8 0 520,871 13 347,896 15 3,826,153 14
Public University of California - Berkeley 8 0 525,598 12 268,830 25 1,774,200 25
Public University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 8 0 769,126 3 521,339 4 4,931,338 7
Private Yale University 7 2 422,828 27 330,837 16 15,224,900 2
Public University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 7 1 515,061 15 308,369 20 1,968,930 23
Public University of Washington - Seattle 7 1 713,976 6 625,218 2 1,489,924 31
Public University of California - Los Angeles 7 0 772,569 2 461,145 6 668,338 78
Private Cornell University 6 3 406,341 30 224,828 35 3,777,092 15
Private Washington University in St. Louis 6 2 489,565 18 371,043 14 4,268,415 11
Public University of Wisconsin - Madison 6 1 763,875 4 434,423 8 1,000,857 51
Public University of California - San Francisco 6 0 728,321 5 418,944 10 343,646 135
Private University of Chicago 5 3 272,390 49 229,102 34 4,137,494 13
Public Univ of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 5 3 416,727 28 304,204 21 1,486,147 32
Public University of California - San Diego 5 2 708,690 7 465,629 5 211,178 209
Public Univ of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 5 2 506,041 17 275,896 24 791,787 63
Private Princeton University 5 1 188,373 81 111,435 75 11,206,500 4
Private Northwestern University 4 5 358,947 32 230,593 33 4,215,275 12
Private University of Southern California 4 5 426,665 26 312,589 19 2,746,051 19
Public Ohio State University - Columbus 4 4 518,088 14 284,675 22 1,726,007 26
Public University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh 4 4 461,693 22 394,444 13 1,529,884 29
Private Vanderbilt University 3 5 318,335 37 261,484 27 2,628,437 21
Private California Institute of Technology 3 4 261,098 52 244,187 28 1,417,931 33
Public University of Florida 3 4 447,146 25 221,898 37 835,698 60
Public University of Texas - Austin 3 4 343,886 34 235,281 31 1,351,158 36
Public Penn State University - Univ Park 3 3 540,125 11 313,196 17 866,788 55
Public Texas A&M University 3 2 456,809 23 173,705 51 4,567,265 8
Private Brown University 3 1 130,741 104 84,126 99 1,843,904 24
Private Emory University 2 6 311,685 43 243,248 29 4,376,272 9
Public University of Arizona 2 5 478,680 19 283,956 23 393,400 128
Public University of California - Davis 2 5 511,757 16 221,937 36 400,837 125
Public University of Virginia 2 5 228,532 66 188,121 47 3,219,098 18
Private New York University 2 4 259,333 53 181,441 49 1,548,000 28
Public Purdue University - West Lafayette 2 3 365,779 31 144,090 59 1,340,536 38
Private Baylor College of Medicine 2 2 476,075 20 312,669 18 1,008,261 50
Private Dartmouth College 2 2 173,266 83 123,109 68 2,714,300 20
Private Rice University 2 0 60,872 153 51,157 130 3,611,127 17
Public Univ of Texas SW Medical Ctr - Dallas 1 5 314,403 39 200,888 42 724,188 72
Public University of Maryland - College Park 1 4 325,648 35 180,943 50 NR
Public Michigan State University 1 3 325,438 36 143,473 61 906,342 54
Public University of Colorado - Boulder 1 3 236,666 61 211,643 39 256,186 183
Private Rockefeller University 1 2 192,222 79 82,535 100 1,556,945 27
Public University of California - Irvine 1 2 257,024 55 150,995 56 169,152 248
Public University of California - Santa Barbara 1 2 151,325 96 92,248 94 80,830 383
Private University of Notre Dame 1 2 74,255 144 48,650 134 3,650,224 16
Public Univ of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Ctr 1 1 353,034 33 150,529 57 263,643 178
Research Private

[packinpatland]

I don't think Harvard, Yale, etc. are science schools. Seems to me that they're more liberal arts/law/history schools.Public universities are normally the big boys for science.

I don't think its necessarily fair to small businesses. I am just saying that is why it is. Keep in mind what I referenced was a 2% discount. Not a huge deal on a per person basis. I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

I think there are alot of Dr's out there that might disagree.

[Partial]

I went to that site and this is what I found for top 25 research schools.

Top 25
Nationally
Private Columbia University 9 0 468,484 21 406,576 11 5,190,564 6
Private Harvard University 9 0 454,495 24 399,764 12 25,473,721 1
Private Massachusetts Institute of Technology 9 0 543,448 10 427,552 9 6,712,436 5
Private Stanford University 9 0 671,046 8 541,667 3 12,205,000 3
Private University of Pennsylvania 9 0 596,756 9 435,343 7 4,369,782 10
Private Johns Hopkins University 8 1 1,375,014 1 1,229,426 1 2,176,909 22
Private Duke University 8 0 520,871 13 347,896 15 3,826,153 14
Public University of California - Berkeley 8 0 525,598 12 268,830 25 1,774,200 25
Public University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 8 0 769,126 3 521,339 4 4,931,338 7
Private Yale University 7 2 422,828 27 330,837 16 15,224,900 2
Public University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 7 1 515,061 15 308,369 20 1,968,930 23
Public University of Washington - Seattle 7 1 713,976 6 625,218 2 1,489,924 31
Public University of California - Los Angeles 7 0 772,569 2 461,145 6 668,338 78
Private Cornell University 6 3 406,341 30 224,828 35 3,777,092 15
Private Washington University in St. Louis 6 2 489,565 18 371,043 14 4,268,415 11
Public University of Wisconsin - Madison 6 1 763,875 4 434,423 8 1,000,857 51
Public University of California - San Francisco 6 0 728,321 5 418,944 10 343,646 135
Private University of Chicago 5 3 272,390 49 229,102 34 4,137,494 13
Public Univ of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 5 3 416,727 28 304,204 21 1,486,147 32
Public University of California - San Diego 5 2 708,690 7 465,629 5 211,178 209
Public Univ of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign 5 2 506,041 17 275,896 24 791,787 63
Private Princeton University 5 1 188,373 81 111,435 75 11,206,500 4
Private Northwestern University 4 5 358,947 32 230,593 33 4,215,275 12
Private University of Southern California 4 5 426,665 26 312,589 19 2,746,051 19
Public Ohio State University - Columbus 4 4 518,088 14 284,675 22 1,726,007 26
Public University of Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh 4 4 461,693 22 394,444 13 1,529,884 29
Private Vanderbilt University 3 5 318,335 37 261,484 27 2,628,437 21
Private California Institute of Technology 3 4 261,098 52 244,187 28 1,417,931 33
Public University of Florida 3 4 447,146 25 221,898 37 835,698 60
Public University of Texas - Austin 3 4 343,886 34 235,281 31 1,351,158 36
Public Penn State University - Univ Park 3 3 540,125 11 313,196 17 866,788 55
Public Texas A&M University 3 2 456,809 23 173,705 51 4,567,265 8
Private Brown University 3 1 130,741 104 84,126 99 1,843,904 24
Private Emory University 2 6 311,685 43 243,248 29 4,376,272 9
Public University of Arizona 2 5 478,680 19 283,956 23 393,400 128
Public University of California - Davis 2 5 511,757 16 221,937 36 400,837 125
Public University of Virginia 2 5 228,532 66 188,121 47 3,219,098 18
Private New York University 2 4 259,333 53 181,441 49 1,548,000 28
Public Purdue University - West Lafayette 2 3 365,779 31 144,090 59 1,340,536 38
Private Baylor College of Medicine 2 2 476,075 20 312,669 18 1,008,261 50
Private Dartmouth College 2 2 173,266 83 123,109 68 2,714,300 20
Private Rice University 2 0 60,872 153 51,157 130 3,611,127 17
Public Univ of Texas SW Medical Ctr - Dallas 1 5 314,403 39 200,888 42 724,188 72
Public University of Maryland - College Park 1 4 325,648 35 180,943 50 NR
Public Michigan State University 1 3 325,438 36 143,473 61 906,342 54
Public University of Colorado - Boulder 1 3 236,666 61 211,643 39 256,186 183
Private Rockefeller University 1 2 192,222 79 82,535 100 1,556,945 27
Public University of California - Irvine 1 2 257,024 55 150,995 56 169,152 248
Public University of California - Santa Barbara 1 2 151,325 96 92,248 94 80,830 383
Private University of Notre Dame 1 2 74,255 144 48,650 134 3,650,224 16
Public Univ of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Ctr 1 1 353,034 33 150,529 57 263,643 178
Research Private

I really don't think that matters anyway. The point I was implying was the best universities in the world are in America. They have the best professors and the best researchers. Sure, another country might have one or two very good schools, but I am saying in general. USA high school education does not rank that highly, but their universities are at the top.

[PackerBlues]

Ya, kinda funny. Moore's film also pointed out that quite a few of these countries with universal health plans also had free schooling. Including a college education.

[packinpatland]

Ya, kinda funny. Moore's film also pointed out that quite a few of these countries with universal health plans also had free schooling. Including a college education.

So what's your point? What countries?

[PackerBlues]

Ya, kinda funny. Moore's film also pointed out that quite a few of these countries with universal health plans also had free schooling. Including a college education.

So what's your point? What countries?

Mwa ha ha ha ha........watch the film.




sorry, lol. I am thinking it was France and Britain. Dunno, I would go back and watch the movie again to tell ya, but I am gettin ready to go shoot some pool. Paul Newman is such an inspiration. :mrgreen:

[Partial]

Ya, kinda funny. Moore's film also pointed out that quite a few of these countries with universal health plans also had free schooling. Including a college education.

So what's your point? What countries?

Mwa ha ha ha ha........watch the film.




sorry, lol. I am thinking it was France and Britain. Dunno, I would go back and watch the movie again to tell ya, but I am gettin ready to go shoot some pool. Paul Newman is such an inspiration. :mrgreen:

I don't think it would be Britain because many of my friends on another forum I post at live in the UK. Cost of living is very high over there in comparison to compensation from jobs, and cost of college, etc.

[Freak Out]

I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

Fuck! My cancer is back! God damn property taxes are due! Who do I pay?

[Partial]

I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

Fuck! My cancer is back! God damn property taxes are due! Who do I pay?

How much are you guys paying? Earlier in my education when I F'd up some classes I had to get insruance. It was like 99 a month with a 1k deductible. It seemed like a solid coverage plan.

My mom paid 250 for 3 people before. I am not sure what she pays now.

[Freak Out]

I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

Fuck! My cancer is back! God damn property taxes are due! Who do I pay?

How much are you guys paying? Earlier in my education when I F'd up some classes I had to get insruance. It was like 99 a month with a 1k deductible. It seemed like a solid coverage plan.

My mom paid 250 for 3 people before. I am not sure what she pays now.

It was a joke Partial...as I said earlier I have great coverage because of my wife. I'm self employed and make good money but without her I would be paying out the ass. I could afford it, I've carried just catastrophic before and paid cash for everything. But things could be much better under a single payer system.

[Partial]

I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

Fuck! My cancer is back! God damn property taxes are due! Who do I pay?

How much are you guys paying? Earlier in my education when I F'd up some classes I had to get insruance. It was like 99 a month with a 1k deductible. It seemed like a solid coverage plan.

My mom paid 250 for 3 people before. I am not sure what she pays now.

It was a joke Partial...as I said earlier I have great coverage because of my wife. I'm self employed and make good money but without her I would be paying out the ass. I could afford it, I've carried just catastrophic before and paid cash for everything. But things could be much better under a single payer system.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I am not at all saying the system is good. I am just saying why it is the way it is. I don't think nationalizing health care is the answer either. I have no idea what the answer is.

Fos, what should we as a country do?

[Fosco33]

I think its very expensive, but I also think that like gasoline, it is something you need to adapt your spending habits around.

Fuck! My cancer is back! God damn property taxes are due! Who do I pay?

How much are you guys paying? Earlier in my education when I F'd up some classes I had to get insruance. It was like 99 a month with a 1k deductible. It seemed like a solid coverage plan.

My mom paid 250 for 3 people before. I am not sure what she pays now.

It was a joke Partial...as I said earlier I have great coverage because of my wife. I'm self employed and make good money but without her I would be paying out the ass. I could afford it, I've carried just catastrophic before and paid cash for everything. But things could be much better under a single payer system.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I am not at all saying the system is good. I am just saying why it is the way it is. I don't think nationalizing health care is the answer either. I have no idea what the answer is.

Fos, what should we as a country do?

That's a huge question, Partial. You could look at it a number of ways....

I'll share some things that we've been investigating which fundamentally changes the approach to insurance processing for private payers. That really looks at 1 of the 3 issues (second being gov't assistance and third being hospital requirements).

A few years ago, a former (and possibly future client) client contacted us because a large insurer had contacted them with an idea. See, I work for hospitals - and we make the insurers profits diminish. We analyzed the processing breakdowns for the payer (w/ limited access) and determined that both sides (payer/provider) have an opportunity (in terms of processing time, manual intervention and net financial gains) to collaborate. So - we helped create a coined term called payer-provider collaboration. If payers give very clear rules about what would be paid w/o review and what would be denied w/o review, the hospital would follow certain guidelines (authorizations mainly). Both sides were able to save FTE cost in processing/administering claims (thus making healthcare costs reduce).

While that saves some cost - it's yet to be seen whether that model could work for all payers/providers (and if the money would be credited back to employers/subscribers).

Within a hospital, the actual process of correctly identifying/billing for goods/service is very archaic. We call it 'charge capture/entry'. The pricing models for hospitals, called a chargemaster, is basically a pre-contract rate guide. If consumers had more information (e.g., I could get an MRI at Hospital Y for $1000 OR for $850 at another facility), free market drivers would push the overall cost lower. Even sharing the chargemaster, though, will not fix the spiraling cost though (lots of factors play out here). Generally, the unknown for consumers, is that contracted payers are given a large adjustment for their members fee (so, my insurer would only have to pay like $450 for the MRI and I'd pay like $100 in coins). The 'cash factor' rate for many hospitals is razor thin (and follows reimbursement by Medicare). More to follow in the next point...

To points 2 and 3, as Congress attempts to manage the deficit, they often make guideline changes to Medicare. Hospitals/Payers will follow suite with actual reimbursement. States like California, Maine and Massachusetts have been leading the way in self-pay reform. Basically, if you don't have insurance in Cali but you make 3X's the guideline for poverty OR have 20% of your AGI as medical expenses, you get a discount that is the same as patients who have Medicaid.

Hospitals (non-profit) generally have to 'give back' 5% of gross revenue yearly to charity care in order to skip out on taxes. Years back, some hospitals were not great about following this rule (state/local driven). That all changed when a nationwide series of lawsuits nearly forced hospitals into a corner. In theory, that 5% is used for patients who really need charity - while the very old, young, and disabled are covered by the gov't and the rest by employers.

Hospitals can also improve internal access to care (efficiency in patient care processing in ER, OR and Inpatient stays). Reducing wait times or length of stay improves everyone's ability to use healthcare and lowers the cost.

There are lots of other things like mandating an electronic medical records, reforming frivolous medical lawsuits (and MD insurance), paying MDs by performance (quality), providing quality report cards on hospitals, looking at additional changes to HSAs/other high ded plans, and requiring large/medium sized employers (the WalMark scenario) to provide some form of insurance.

It's a combination of those above items, with an investment by everyone, that will change the cost/quality of care in the US.

Simply changing to a universal payer would not change the COST aspect or ACCESS aspect - but only how something gets PAID. Allowing the gov't to drive healthcare would be a huge mistake in my opinion. And all of those factor into the general state of the US system.

[PackerBlues]

To simplify things,


If you watch Moore's film, you get to listen to the tapes of Nixon discussing Kaiser Insurance, and how its all for profit. The less care you give people, the more profit you make. The next day, Nixon was on TV pushing the kaiser health plan.

There is nothing hard about this people. Our health care coverage.......our health insurance.......is run by people out to make a profit. Even if you have health insurance, just hope you never need to use it, because they are trying to make a profit, and if that means denying your claim.......they will come up with any reason they can to do so.

[packinpatland]

To simplify things,


If you watch Moore's film, you get to listen to the tapes of Nixon discussing Kaiser Insurance, and how its all for profit. The less care you give people, the more profit you make. The next day, Nixon was on TV pushing the kaiser health plan.

There is nothing hard about this people. Our health care coverage.......our health insurance.......is run by people out to make a profit. Even if you have health insurance, just hope you never need to use it, because they are trying to make a profit, and if that means denying your claim.......they will come up with any reason they can to do so.


I'd like to simplify things also. Can you name any business, any corporation that is not trying to make a profit? Even 'non profits' have employees to pay. Why would you be in buisness if not to make a profit?

Second, and I am not defending the insurance companies, but without the scams, the fraudulant claims, false charges($), maybe more claims would not get rejected initially. We have alot of dishonest folks out there.

Third, instead of trying to find a drug(s) to cure all that ails us, why don't we, meaning the U.S., try to become a healthier nation. Diabetes, skin cancer, high blood pressure, obesity etc................are a few of the 'controlables'. Why do we lead the word in obesity and all the ills associated with it? Why do we continue to lay in the sun?

Jamie Dukes was on NFL channel the other night complaining about how hard it is for a man of his 'size' to get health insurance. He weighs in excess of 300lbs! He's been out of the league since '95!, He and alot of people carry too much weight, and wonder why they pay so much for insurance.

[Fosco33]

Many non-profit hospitals make money - that is very true. But do you know their profit margin or what they plan to do with that cash? Do you know the future plans of that hospital for the community? Do you have hospitals in your area making new facilities, wings, buying new equipment and getting better clinicians? Do you know how much money hospitals never collect due to people not having insurance (or not even being citizens)?

If you don't, it's probably best that you stop complaining about how much profit they are making.

You guys are right that we, as a nation - and as individuals, need to look at preventative medicine - the largest factor in the cost increases over the past decade is increased use of healthcare.

[Iron Mike]

You guys are right that we, as a nation - and as individuals, need to look at preventative medicine - the largest factor in the cost increases over the past decade is increased use of healthcare.

I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a misunderstanding about terms utilized here.

It seems to me that some of the posters here are making an invalid assumption, that being insurance company profit issues=healthcare crisis. That's comparing apples and oranges, IMO.

For example--I have automobile insurance on my vehicle. I understand that the reason I am insuring my vehicle is to protect my finances should something calamitous happen to my vehicle--e.g., were I to be involved in an accident where my vehicle is "totalled," I don't have to shoulder the financial burden of replacing my vehicle by purchasing a new one (irregardless if the previous one is payed off or not.) Also, were my vehicle to need repair, again I don't have to shoulder the whole financial burden of repair costs--by paying a certain portion of the costs--in terms of a "deductible" I cover a certain portion of the costs and the insurance company pays the rest of the costs. Now, I don't deny that the automobile insurance makes a huge profit. I'm guessing that the idea is that whatever I pay in premiums is probably greater than the amount I utilize in replacing vehicles that I wreck, or health care costs for people that I strike with my vehicle (ignore the sarcasm inherent here....I'm trying to make a point.) I'm guessing were that to happen, the insurance company would go out of business.

Now.......since I pay approximately $240 every three months for automobile insurance, does that mean that I should be able to go to a car lot and purchase a vehicle for a fraction of what a person without automobile insurance pays?? Really?

And since I pay for automobile insurance, shouldn't I also have to pay less for gas than someone without automobile insurance? You know...they pay $40 to fill up their 13-gallon tank, I pay $15 and insurance covers the other $25??? And if it's unfair for those without automobile insurance, can't they buy gas in Mexico, where it's cheaper??

What about those that drive and can't afford automobile insurance?? I'm sure there are more and more of those people, but is Michael Moore doing a documentary about the automobile insurance crisis? Do you realize that they can manufacture an automobile in Yugoslavia for about $3000.00 and the insurance is only about $.25/month??? Why are our vehicles so much more expensive???


The point I'm trying to make is that insurance companies and healthcare delivery systems are separate things. Inter-related yes, but very different systems with different ideologies and different value systems. An insurance company that is maximizing profits does not mean that the healthcare delivery system is broken.

Let me make one more observation. A previous poster stated that they took one of their children for a visit to the Emergency Department for a spider bite. Now I might not know all of the details, but since when is a spider bite an emergency??? OK, I worked in healthcare for over fifteen years. The Pediatrics Department in the clinic where I worked routinely had one physician available to take calls that came in that day, rather than scheduled appointments. That means were my child to have a spider bite, I would have the option to schedule an appointment with an available pediatrician.....or, take my child to a walk-in clinic.......or, take my child to the Emergency Department. Guess which one of these is most expensive???
Now, if I continue to utilize the most expensive options for my healthcare, can you guess what is going to happen to my insurance premiums??? And if I am part of a group which purchases insurance for the entire group, guess what will happen to ALL of our premiums??? Sometimes it's the insurance company and sometimes it's the healthcare choices we make.

Again, I pay for home insurance.......but that doesn't mean I should get natural gas, electricity, water and cable t.v. at a discounted rate for having it.

I pay for automobile insurance.....but that doen't mean I should get vehicles, gas, oil and car washes at a reduced rate because I have it.

Health insurance should be looked at upon in the same way, IMO. I'm guessing that was the original intent.....to prevent a financial burden upon a family (or, better worded--an employee) rather than make sure they can have a child delivered for a $50 co-pay.

[Freak Out]

Half of all personal bankruptcies in the US last year were because of illness or injury.

[Fosco33]

You guys are right that we, as a nation - and as individuals, need to look at preventative medicine - the largest factor in the cost increases over the past decade is increased use of healthcare.

I'd also like to point out that there seems to be a misunderstanding about terms utilized here.

It seems to me that some of the posters here are making an invalid assumption, that being insurance company profit issues=healthcare crisis. That's comparing apples and oranges, IMO.



I agree with your post for the most part. There's a lot more than cost when looking at evaluating healthcare in the US.

I mean - in the US - you could be walking in a park, driving your car or just sitting in your home and have a medical emergency. In a matter of minutes you have a fully trained team of urgent responders at your beckon call. They rush you straight to a local hospital (6,000+ in the US) where you get immediate treatment of your condition. If you have a form of sponsorship, you often actually pay for a 10th of the cost (or less) of that service.

As I stated earlier, healthcare is somewhat of a privilege (and sometimes a right). That question needs to be answered by everyone prior to judging the payment aspect. The access and quality of care are huge facets of a successful delivery system.

The very old, young, poor and disabled are often covered by the gov't (taxes) to maintain a quality of life for society. While having auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes, car washes and maintenance, the gov't does cover the equivalent of these services for citizens in the above demographic. If you're poor/young/old, there are social services (welfare, social security, etc.) that is available with or without a component of healthcare coverage.

Insurance is a risk business. Most people are risk averse - meaning they'll pay money into coverage as a back-up plan and an increased peace of mind. Hospitals don't operate as a risk business - they are a service to the community and have a completely different mission. Most hospitals in the US are non-profit - and operate at about 3-4% margin.

The ideas above (elec med recs, elec RXs, pay for performance (MDs) and quality/cost report cards (hospitals)) will address the quality of care. The access question is also somewhat controllable by consumers as Iron Mike mentioned (going to the appropriate source) and hospitals (being more efficient).

[GrnBay007]

People get frustrated with all the loop holes the insurance companies seem to use. The constant questioning of any claim. I suppose it's understandable with all the fraud and lawsuits now.

A co-worker of mine is still trying to fight this unpaid medical bill: We generally have 2 or 3 insurance plans offered to us. A new one popped up 2 yrs ago in which the employee paid nothing per month toward the coverage. I was skeptical and didn't switch as I wanted to watch for a year or so to see the kind of coverage the people that did switch received. At least 3 people had serious problems in which the insurance company would not pay the cost and they all resulted in this type of situation: This plan had certain participating physicians you had to use. All 3 people went to the doctor for a problem...a participating physician, and all 3 ended up with a huge bill a month or so later. Seems even though they went to the proper physician for the initial visit, tests were order...blood work, etc and it seems the charges came from the doctor that read the test, a non-participating physician...in the same office, in one example. There were a couple other of that nature that were much more expensive. So here's a case that the 'insured" had absolutely no control what happened after that initial contact with the participating physician. They fought the bill until the threatening letters started to appear about sending it to collections and then paid it as they were building a home and didn't want to take the chance of having their credit damaged.

[swede]

I like the idea that there is a distinction between health care insurance and other kinds of insurances. In auto, home, life, etc. you simply do the math and find a trustworthy vendor.

I am one of those lucky enough to have good health insurance. Most of the people I work with have better coverage than I do because they are so desperately poor that most of their health care is free, and whatever costs they might incur will eventually be written off as uncollectable and passed on to those of us with insurance or the ability to pay.

The neighbor across the street is an administrator at the local clinic, a building that is as lavishly appointed as a five star hotel and is ever-expanding to add new offices and new centers for specific functions such as MRI scans and orthopedic injury rehabilitation. He was happily showing off his new Lake Michigan battle cruiser, a boat whose cost easily eclipsed my annual salary.

He is a good guy, a captain in the health care industry. But he doesn't do a thing to make people get better.

The health care in this country is just like the American people: amazing; excellent; constantly making nearly miraculous advances because of brilliant men and women.

But, health care systems in this country are also just like the American people: greedy; self-serving; dysfunctional; bloated and grotesque bureaucratic parasites that outgrew their function and now take a vicious skim from companies and workers alike.

I like my chiropractor. He charges me 25 bucks in cash. He gives me paperwork to submit directly to the insurance company. He encourages me to behave in a manner which will improve my health and wellness. He helps me feel better and live with less pain. He recommends medical attention from other sources whenever my health issues require it.

Our country would be better off if every time every one of us went to the doctor we paid the costs out of pocket. Competition for quality and cost would return to health care.

If you argue that such a thing would cost us too much money when it self-evident that it would cost less then we must all ask ourselves who is presently paying for Taj Mahal hospitals and clinics and the tens of thousands of employees in "health care" who never actually contribute to anyone's health or care.

Oh...and Michael Moore is still an asshat...I simply do think that the American health care systems are a mess while American health care rocks.

[PackerBlues]

Its kinda funny, the way some web-sites can post certain videos that you wouldnt think that they could legally post. However, one of my other favorite sites besides this one, "Spiked Humor", has a 6-part copy of the movie "Sicko". I dont think the movie has even been released in theaters yet.
Below is a link to the first of the six parts. You can also watch clips of all the talk shows that have done pieces on the film. Bill Mahr, Oprah, whatever, at the same site.

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/110903/Sicko.html


By the way, if you do go to this site to watch a clip, and it starts out with a stinkin ad that you dont want to watch........just hit your "refresh" button.