RX, Healthcare, and the next President of the United States
November 4, 2007 – 1:16 amBefore I had insurance, I was able to acquire just about any prescription at no cost. Thanks to a few celebrities pushing the buttons when they found out what Rx medication cost, many drug manufacturers have begun providing free medication for folk without insurance. Not a bad deal all around. The cost of producing the medication is next to nothing. The real cost is in developing it. So by giving away medication to people who couldn’t afford it, all they are loosing is the tiny amount of money they spend making and distributing the stuff. That amount is greatly (maybe overly) offset by the money they save via a special tax write off the government created to encourage such programs. So, if you do not have insurance and your income is below a certain amount, you can have just about all of your Rx medication filled for free. Thank you Montel Williams.
Now some argue that not all medications are covered by this plan. That argument is valid. However, even the best insurance does not cover many medications. I know, because Aimee and I have acquired insurance after using that program about a year ago. Thank you Hillary Clinton.
Now right off the bat, there are some Rush Limbaugh types who would say that making use of these programs is unethical. That if you want your medication, you should pay for it or pay for the insurance that will cover it. Well Rush Limbaugh, I don’t think you could afford the medicine and medical treatment that I require and I doubt there is an Insurance Company in the world which wants to touch coverage for a preexisting brain injury. In fact, most insurance have a cap and a brain injury tends to go beyond that cap in the first few months.
But it occurs to me that there are many folk right smack in the middle of the drug issue. Folk who have insurance and thus can not benefit from the Montel Williams inspired fee Rx programs. But who can not afford to pay for their medications (or treatment) because even with insurance, the cost is staggering.
Consider the average Wal-Mart employee with benefits. What does one serious injury or illness do for that person? Let’s say his or her insurance covers 90% of everything (that is great insurance btw). One serious head injury will max that insurance in the first month (or even week) of treatment. Let’s low-ball the medical costs at $1,000,000.00. If anyone thinks that’s high, ask Psudopagan or Rabitchka about their medical costs. Now then, 10% of a million dollars is $100,000.00. Kind of a pretty penny for a Wal-Mart employee to come up with, and yet there it is built into our system.
It seems like the people this affects are those who are trying to make something of themselves. People who are trying not to live off the system. It seems the system is designed specifically to work against the working class, the people who simply can not afford to bare such a burden.
I am not sure who I am going to vote for in the next presidential elections. I am not even sure who is running yet. But I think maybe I should be looking at the candidate who is ready to promise some form of catastrophic health care coverage. After all, if such is not in place then working class folk will be forced to declare bankruptcy when they are overwhelmed by such events. The result of that is that all of their creditors are screwed when with a catastrophic health plan the only people being screwed are the insurance companies who screw everyone else. Hmmm.
Wow, my spellchecker knows the word Wall-Mart. Now that is scary.
11 Responses to “RX, Healthcare, and the next President of the United States”
Insurance companies have far too much power in this country. Then again, I feel most corporations have far too much power in this country, so that’s no great surprise.
As for who to support in the forthcoming elections, I’m at a loss as well. The more I hear of Barrak Obama, the more I like what I hear. We have a great opportunity to witness history. For the first time in history, a woman and an African American male are running on the Democratic ticket. So no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, we have a chance to see a minority elected to the White House.
Republican Choice: Some Old White Guy (Yawn! Same old, same old.)
Democratic Choice: A woman or an African American man. (Hmmm. Which way do I want history to go?)
And I want to say, I don’t endorse either Democratic frontrunner just because of the historical aspects, mind.
Hillary seems to want to solve some of the issues you bring up in your blog entry; limiting the power of insurance companies, making healthcare affordable for everyone (stopping short of socialized medicine.)
While Obama says he wants the samething. But his plan is slightly different.
I don’t know who I’ll support either. Probably the best one for my interests. Duh, right?
Enough longwindedness from me.
My best to Aimee and the Kids,
WonderGoon
By WonderGoon on Nov 4, 2007
We spend over $500 out of pocket for meds every month. Strafire had a medical benifits account that took X$ out of the pay so we wouldn’t have such a hard time coming up with the money for medical costs. With the insurance denying me chiropractic treatments because they do not think I need them because I am not getting better we used up all that money about 5 months ahead of time.
I know that this amount is nothing compared to your’s or many others, but it still hurts the budget.
Hillary Clinton had a chance to make a good healthcare system and failed.
Anyone can make promises, it is whether they follow through or not that counts.
We could vote for Montel!
By Rhiannon on Nov 4, 2007
Rhiannon - First let me be very clear that I don’t much like Clinton. Mainly because she didn’t boot Bubba to the head when he embarrassed her and this nation. Now if she would have smached the guy in the face a time or two on national TV, now there is a person I would vote for.
But I can not fault her for not establishing health care reform that is as wide reaching as she desired because she did manage to get it a great way towards the goal. I think she will try to take it further if she is in office. After all, look what she accomplished just by being the wife of someone in office. On her other politics, well I can’t comment because… well because she doesn’t seem to be commenting. In fact, she doesn’t seem to answer an questions about anything, but she does it so very well that nobody has really noticed.
I would LOVE it if Montel ran for office and would vote for him in a heartbeat. I think he’s good folk and I think it would do for us guys with no hair up top what President Clinton did for saxophone players.
Wondegoon – On Barrak Obama, yep some of the things that come out of his mouth make my ears happy. But some of the other things that come out of his mouth make my mouth go; Wha? Seriously, he is sometimes either entirely too highbrow or just runs off at the mouth saying nothing with some truly round about statements. Maybe it is just my aphasia, but the man confuses the hell out of me some times.
Republican choice same old white guys? Uh, dude da man from NY is running this time! Now I gotta share, I think I would have a hard time choosing between him and Montel (Rhiannon’s idea) and I really do like Montel. There is something about New Yorkers. BTW: That’s why I have to put so much damned work into being a Hill Billie. I was born in New York.
In about 4 years, I loose my health coverage. If the law suit has not settled I die (one way or another) unless something changes. I am hoping something changes.
By A.J. Drew on Nov 4, 2007
What you say is true, and Hillary did stand by her man. Clinton did a decent job once he got off his “playing” ass and had to work.
I think we may as well face it that the health care system is screwed and I don’t think anyone has a fix. Now if the government would realise that the pharmacys are charging way too much and step in that would help.
Do you know where the government goes to get their drugs for vets?
Take a guess.
By Rhiannon on Nov 5, 2007
The governement gets drugs for Vets? Where’s mines?
By A.J. Drew on Nov 5, 2007
Does anyone remember what Hillary said about Monica Lewinsky? I remember her blaming “THAT WOMAN”, it’s what her husband called Lewinsky also. I also remember some stuff about her being disappointed in her husband and the crack about ‘dealing with evil men’ on a debate. It bothered me a great deal that she blamed Lewinsky as much as she did, I’m sorry, but she was really just a kid who got conned by an older man using his power to get what he wanted. Nope, I don’t think Lewinsky is blameless, but I would have thought a lot more of Bill and Hillary Clinton if they’d kept the blame a lot more fair and if Bill had said something like “hey, she was just a kid, this is really MY problem, I lied to her etc. He could have salvaged some of her life. He’s gotten pretty far, he got to be President, twice. I wonder if she’ll ever reach HER potential. The press still would’ve had a field day with her, but her life is pretty much ruined. She can’t get a job without a great deal of difficulty and gee, what would YOUR mother think if you were a guy and you brought home Ms. Lewinsky? I don’t think too many parents would be thrilled to have her for a daughter in law. I just think it’s sad. Life is what you make it, but geez, for her it’s got to be especially difficult to live with.
By Suzume on Nov 5, 2007
You’re right about Obama making “round about statements,” so it’s not your aphasia. Obama and I see eye-toeye on a lot of things, like removing the constitutional ban on gay marriage, for example.
As for Gulianni (I’m assuming this is who you are talking about), I don’t think a platform of “I was the mayor of New York on 9/11″ will carry the Republican ticket. But, that’s my opinion. As far as I can tell, he’s just like every other Republican canidate; a Christian Conservative who’s out to make the Bible required reading.
As to the health care problem, you and I are in total agreement. The systems broke and it needs to be fixed.
I well and truly hope your health care problems work out and you get the medicines you need. I like ya and want to you around.
You may “only” be a blacksmith, but you are still a hell of writer, too!
Stay strong,
WonderGoon
By WonderGoon on Nov 5, 2007
AJ, it is true that coming up with new drugs costs a fortune. However most drug companies have totally abandoned finding new drugs. Instead, they do “copycat” drugs. They find a drug another company has created, make a tiny change to it (perhaps a molecule or two), test it, and market it for the same purpose. Currently, Viagra has at least two copycats.
Another thing drug companies are doing is combining drugs. They take two drugs they have patented and are having the patents run out, combine them, and give them a new name. They test it and get a new patent.
Most radically new drugs are created by and discovered by university research. Most of that is paid for by the government. Then, the university patents it and sells the rights to it to a drug company. So not only do you pay for it in your taxes, but you also pay for it from the drug companies.
By dmkraig on Nov 9, 2007
DM Kraig
Mmmmmm, Viagra. It makes for a great mix with Black Russians. I am a fond proponent to better living via chemistry. Here is a couple of links to my Great Teacher.
Doktor Kaboom - The Great Teacher
On Viagra, I think you are talking about Cialis and Levitra (I think that’s the spelling). Nope, the drugs have radically different effects on different people. I have experience with each and have discussed reactions to each with other men who have tried each. Yes, each improves a man’s erection (even if he is 20) but one works great in some men while others report only slight improvements. Then there are the side effects (or undesired effects of working too well) which can plague a patient of one medication which will not plague the same patient using one of the others. The same exact chemical responds completely differently when mixed with a different chemical, sometimes the patient’s own chemistry is the difference.
In short, charcoal doesn’t burn all that fast. Sulfur burns a little bit faster. Saltpeter burns even faster. But mix all three together in even the generalist proportions and you have primitive gunpowder. Ha, I got to talk about Viagra and Saltpeter in the same discussion!
There is a thread at Pagan Nation about imigration and the danger that it brings:
http://pagannation.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showthreaded/Number/72043#Post72043
I am confused about the danger discussed in the video because it seems as if an increase in citizens means an increase in the tax base. I think you comments on the government funding new drug research figures into my confusion on the claim that large scale immigration is a problem. Why doesn’t the US government profit from this research? Why does it not go into business and profit from imigration?
Now before you say ney, I know the challenges that such would face. Institution of government are not supposed to compete openly with the private sector. As a result, prisoners are inhibited from earning their keep, paying for their incarceration, and reimbursing their victims for such things as medical expenses because the prison system is not permitted to compete openly with the reportedly free economy. As a result, prisoners are only allowed to produce goods for the government itself, mainly for the prison system. I understand the concept. But they do grow food, produce uniforms, and I am sure you know about the license plates. Under the current rule of law, prisoners are allowed to produce virtually anything the government needs or desires.
So then, why not expand the concept? If the government of the United States feels the same way about the drug companies, that the government should not compete with the free market place, well then why not create jobs which do not compete with the free market place? Why not create jobs, which research, develop, and distribute the drugs, which are already being provided by the government? Not just jobs for prisoners, jobs for anyone. The US Government is the single largest consumers in the United States of America. Whenever my retired mother has a prescription filled, it is the government, which pays for the majority of that prescription in one form or another. Whenever a person below a specific income level has a prescription filled, it is the government, which pays for the majority of that prescription in one form or another. Hell, if you go to an emergency room in most states and you can not pay your bill, the government pays the bill in one form or another. I am not saying this is a bad thing, I am just remarking on the fact that drugs and medical care are a commodity that the government consumes when ever a person takes advantage of an entitlement.
Why doesn’t the government simply go into business? After all, if what you are saying is true then they are already funding the business of drugs. They are already attempting something similar with the prison system, why not do it with the health care system? Then the food stamp program. Then the education system. So on and so forth. We certainly do not have a deficit of workers coming to this country, why not put them to work? It does seem like that is what they desire, why else would they move here?
Eventually, maybe we could start exporting products to China.
By A.J. Drew on Nov 9, 2007
Dr. Kaboom is certainly correct about Cialis and Levitra being copycat drugs to Viagra. As I pointed out, they were created by making just a tiny change to the Viagra formula, enough to get a patent on their “new” drug. Indeed he is also correct that the tiny change is enough to make one work for one person and another not work at all.
Curiously, although we assume that most pharmaceuticals have high rates of achieving their goals, the truth is that many of them have a surprisingly low success rate. Better than a placebo, yes, but not all that much better is required to make millions.
By dmkraig on Nov 10, 2007
Doktor Kaboom commented on Cialis and Levitra here? Speaking as a member of the Kult of Kaboom, I think you missunderstood my reference. Someone so great as Doktor Kaboom would not possibly have time for the humble forum of this devoted follower, so I have no direct knowledge of his stance on either of these drugs as I do not know that he has addressed the issue publicly.
I could write him if you like.
By A.J. Drew on Nov 10, 2007