|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
In a recent email a childhood friend who moved to Canada years ago wrote: "I am very grateful for Canadian socialized medicine. We pay the first $1,500 for my meds then Canada covers for the rest of the year. I use about $800 in meds per month, so I am very blessed."
Another friend here in Flint who must take 40 pills a day talks about the co-pay on GM retiree benefits and is worried about changes in the contract coming up in September. This family is doing meds by mail now to try to save money.
Two brothers retired from GM take so many meds they're getting thick in the middle and feeling worse, and I can't help wondering if their problems are side effects of the meds.
I've heard so many horror stories about meds it makes me think we're all vulnerable to being guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry. |
|
|
Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:08 pm |
|
|
JBToolFist
F L I N T O I D
|
Here's my problem with socialized medicine..............
I'm blessed and thankful for my good health and I don't take it for granted because I realize it can be taken away at any moment....................but I also, watch what I eat, exercise vigorously and don't smoke..........................
Statistically, my chances of developing a life threatening illness is minimal...................so why should my tax dollars subsidize all the lazy, fat, undisciplined, spoiled Americans who have self-inflicted diabetes and/or lung disease and/or depression and/or alcoholism and/or congestive heart failure and/or............the list is endless.....................
I would estimate that greater than 50% of current medical expenses nationwide, are due to irresponsible lifestyles. WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE PEOPLE?
I pay enouch tax dollars as it is!
Michael Moore just made a movie bashing the healtcare system............yet he's a heart attack, diabetes case waiting to happen.............why should my tax dollars PAY FOR HIS FAT ASS! AND EVERYBODY LIKE HIM!
IF YOU SMOKE...........................F#$% YOU
IF YOU"RE FAT...........................F#@$ YOU
IF YOU"RE AN ALCOHOLIC..........F%$# YOU
IF YOU"RE ON WELFARE.............F*&^ YOU
I'm SICK AND TIRED OF PAYING FOR YOUR IRRESPONSIBLE SELF. |
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07pLGIgyfjw
"If you ain't from Flint, then it's like straight up F*&^ You!" - The Dayton Family
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiV_ue-PbL4 |
|
|
Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:47 pm |
|
|
lunchlady
F L I N T O I D
|
| Athletes have heart attacks, slim people get diabetes and people who have never smoked get lung cancer. People have accidents. I have a relatively healthy lifestyle and can't afford health insurance, it is a huge worry for me. You probably get insurance at work, if that is true then I am not surprised you feel the way you do. Not everyone is lucky enough to get that. |
|
|
|
Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:37 pm |
|
|
terrybankert
F L I N T O I D
|
In a thread titled Canadian Socialized medicine vs US Health Care “O” wrote
“I've heard so many horror stories about meds it makes me think we're all vulnerable to being guinea pigs for the pharmaceutical industry.”
What protection do we have in the US from the legal drug industry and how does this compare to Canada?
A pharmaceutical company, or drug company, is a commercial business whose focus is to research, develop, market and/or distribute Drugs most commonly in the context of healthcare.
They can deal in generic and/or brand medications. They are subject to a variety of laws and regulations regarding the patenting, testing and marketing of drugs, particularly prescription drugs. From its beginnings at the start of the 19th Century, the pharmaceutical industry is now one of the most successful and influential, attracting both praise and controversy....
Drug development progressed from a hit-and-miss approach to rational drug discovery in both laboratory design and natural-product surveys. Demand for nutritional supplements and so-called alternative medicines created new opportunities and increased competition in the industry. Controversies emerged around adverse effects, notably regarding
Vioxx in the US, and marketing tactics. Pharmaceutical companies became increasingly accused of disease mongering or over-medicalizing personal or social problems.
There are now more than 200 major pharmaceutical companies, jointly said to be more profitable than almost any other industry, and employing more political lobbyists than any other industry. Advances in biotechnology and the human genome project promise ever more sophisticated, and possibly more individualized, medications....
There have been increasing accusations and findings that clinical trials conducted or funded by pharmaceutical companies are much more likely to report positive results for the preferred medication.
Between 1980 and 1997, drug industry funding for academic research rose eight fold,[citation needed] as research costs rose, and the rate of federal support fell. Drug researchers not directly employed by pharmaceutical companies often look to companies for grants, and companies often look to researchers for studies that will make their products look favorable. Sponsored researchers are rewarded by drug companies, for example with support for their conference/symposium costs. Lecture scripts and even journal articles presented by academic researchers may actually be 'ghost-written' by pharmaceutical companies.[4] Some researchers who have tried to reveal ethical issues with clinical trials or who tried to publish papers that show harmful effects of new drugs or cheaper alternatives have been threatened by drug companies with lawsuits.[5][6].....
For the first time ever, in 2006, global spending on prescription drugs topped $600 billion, even as growth slowed somewhat in Europe and North America. Sales of prescription medicines worldwide rose 7 percent to $602 billion, according to
IMS Health, a pharmaceutical information and consulting company. The United States still accounts for most, with $252 billion in annual sales. Sales there grew 5.7 percent. Emerging markets such as China, Russia, South Korea and Mexico outpaced that market, growing a huge 81 percent.[8]
In 2004 the U.S. comprised roughly 45% of the pharmaceutical market worldwide, while Europe comprises about 25% (AMR Research). 2004 global dollar sales reached $550 billion, a 7% increase over 2003, which in turn represented a 9% increase over 2002. 2004 US sales grew to $235.4 billion, a growth rate of 8.3% compared with 11.5% growth from 2002 to 2003.[9] US profit growth was maintained even whilst other top industries saw slowed or no growth.[10]
...
There has been increasing controversy surrounding pharmaceutical marketing and influence. There have been accusations and findings of influence on doctors and other health professionals through drug reps, including the constant provision of marketing 'gifts' and biased information to health professionals;
[16][17] highly prevalent advertising in journals and conferences; funding independent healthcare organizations and health promotion campaigns; lobbying physicians and politicians (more than any other industry in the US;[18] sponsorship of medical schools or nurse training, with influence on the curriculum[citation needed]); hiring physicians as paid consultants on medical advisory boards.
There have been related accusations of disease mongering[citation needed]) (over-medicalising) to expand the market for medications. An inaugural conference on that subject took place in Australia in 2006.[19]
A 2005 review by a special committee of the UK government came to all the above conclusions in a European Union context[20] whilst also highlighting the contributions and needs of the industry......
A 1996 clinical trial conducted by
Pfizer used children to test Trovan without first obtaining the informed consent of participants or their parents”
for the above see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical
A rational drug policy is one based on drug use in which patients receive medications appropriate to their clinical needs, in doses that meet their own individual requirements, for an adequate period of time, and at the lowest cost to them and their community. Pharmaceutical companies make considerable money by selling drugs under their trade names, promoting the branded drugs as against those named generically. Doctors often prescribe branded drugs which are more expensive than generic drugs which have the same efficacy.
In the 1960s and 1970s Chile attempted to introduce a rational policy, based on a limited number of essential drugs. The Chilean pharmaceutical policy failed due to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry. In the 1970s Sri Lanka demonstrated that a state buying agency linked to a national formulary was a viable and powerful instrument for reducing drug costs without compromising quality, for saving foreign exchange, for rationalising drug usage and for supplying essential drugs at reasonable prices to the whole community. This was made possible by the formulation and implementation of an integrated national pharmaceutical policy.
The Sri Lanka experience became a model for the rest of the world......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_pharmaceuticals_policy
Should a US agency be able to buy drugs on the international market and force up the use of generic drugs and the cost down? I SAY YES! At the same time we have a drug industry dominated FDA that must insure quality. Ask your congressman about this?
TRB |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:27 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
| Is Canada's political system as corruptas the U.S.? It's easier to do national health care when you're drugs cost half as much. |
_________________
Adam Ford
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:11 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Prescription drugs aren't the only consideration in Canadian health care. This article shows a different side of Canadian health care than Moore depicts in Sicko. Kurt Loder references the short 2005 documentary "Dead Meat" by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg who interviewed Canadians put on long wait lists for necessary health care. It was too late for some.
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml
'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, by Kurt Loder - Movie News Story | MTV Movie News
Obviously, we don't want that problem but we do need a national health care system fair to everyone that will provide health care as and when needed. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2007 8:24 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
| Maybe the Canadians needs to trim a little more from their defense budget too. Easy enough if your true goal is protecting the lives of your citizens. |
|
|
|
Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:10 pm |
|
|
Biggie9
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
Maybe the Canadians needs to trim a little more from their defense budget too. Easy enough if your true goal is protecting the lives of your citizens.
even easier if your big uncle, Sam is nearby and on the job.
Same with Japan.
imagine if they had the primary responsibility for their own military/national interests in their region versus China & Russia [which still owns and disputes control with several historical Japanese islands seized at the end of WWII]. |
_________________
Biggie |
|
|
Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:00 am |
|
|
Ryan Eashoo
F L I N T O I D
|
I would vote for the Canadian System any day or the week that ends in "
Y".
|
_________________
Flint Michigan Resident, Tax Payer, Flint Nutt - Local REALTOR - Activist. www.FlintTown.com |
|
|
Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:28 am |
|
|
Biggie9
F L I N T O I D
|
do yo ureally, I mean really understand it? the details? the nuances?
I think the saying: "familiarity breeds contempt" operates here. We know our system, warts and all so well, that we tend to focus, naturally on its shortcomings..........so someone comes along and says this here NEW system doesn't have those shortcomings....so consequently everyone is enamored with it.
ah, but it probably has its own set of unique shortcomings, ones we don't/can't see until we implement it...then the question becomes. are we really better off?
I don't want our system replaced. I think it can be improved/tweeked where society wants to see improvements...primarily the issue is improved access.
but people who want to scrap whole systems that we've had for generations for something totally unknown, thats dangerous in my opinion.
you've never worked with large, complicated systems before. They are like battleships. They don't turn easily or quickly. There are tons of unintended consequences when you change things that weren't designed to operate in that fashion.
The problem with the previous attempt [Hillary, and for that I will never trust here again] was that it was the result of a secret conspiracy in its design & planning. NOTHING that our government wants to foist upon the citizens of this county, state or nation should be tolerated if it was designed in secrecy. NOTHING. |
_________________
Biggie |
|
|
Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:57 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:19 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
it's humorous to hear the hate and contempt those with "supplied" healthcare have for others who don't live like them. so toolfist, every
relative of yours who died because they didn't have healthcare fall
into your F===YOU category?  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Sun Jan 27, 2008 12:45 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Canadian Universal Healthcare is a Miserable Failure and why Michael Moore and his Film, “Sicko” are Wrong
If you want to find the real story of Canada’s failed Universal Healthcare system, look no further than America’s boarder cities. The Buffalo News just reported a story about, Lindsay McCreith, a 66 year-old Canadian retired auto body shop owner. This story, accurately reported by Henry L. Davis, demonstrates why Michael Moore’s new propaganda film, “Sicko” is patently misleading.
McCreith experienced seizures on Jan. 2, 2006, and was diagnosed with a benign tumor based on a CT scan. A physician at a Canadian hospital declined to order an MRI to rule out a malignancy. McCreith’s family doctor agreed to request the more-definitive scan, but McCreith was told he would have to wait over four months for the appointment.
According to McCreith, had he been patient and followed the Canadian system, he would have died. Instead, McCreith went to Buffalo to receive treatment the very next day. In Buffalo, he was told he had a malignant tumor, which required a biopsy. After trying the Canadian system again, he was told they would not allow the biopsy for another three months. McCreith, having a good friend die waiting for heart surgery, decided to see if the American private system could save his life. It did just that.
If you watched Michael Moore’s film, “Sicko” you will notice the irony immediately. Moore highlighted the fact that before care could be provided to patients, doctors had to deal with third-party insurance companies. Moore reasoned that because those third-party insurance companies care about profit, the system itself is flaw. Well, in this case, the third-party is the Canadian Government, and that third-party was going to allow a retired auto body shop owner die.
Evidently, this long waiting period is not uncommon. For instance, patients in Ontario wait an average of 22 weeks for cataract surgery and 34 weeks for a hip replacement, according to statistics from the Ontario Ministry of Health. Cities like Cleveland and Buffalo seem to be booming in those areas of medical care with Canadians coming across the boarder for treatment. If the Democrats running in the 2008 Presidential Election want a Universal Healthcare System, where are the Canadians going to go for treatment?
Instead of just accepting Canada’s Big Government policies, McCreith is going to take corrective action. McCreith’s will challenge the Canadian system in Court. He asserts that Ontario’s ban on private health insurance and private billing by physicians infringes on his constitutional right to life, liberty and security. McCreith followed up by demonstrating a clear understanding of economics: “I was in the auto body shop business,” he said. “If I gave you an appointment four months away, you would go somewhere else. Why should health care be any different?”
Related Editorials
Combating the Notion of Free Healthcare
Milton Friedman and Why Limited Government Helps the Poor
The Wall Separating Economics and State |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:11 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Canadian Universal Healthcare is a Miserable Failure and why Michael Moore and his Film, “Sicko” are Wrong
If you watched Michael Moore’s film, “Sicko” you will notice the irony immediately. Moore highlighted the fact that before care could be provided to patients, doctors had to deal with third-party insurance companies. Moore reasoned that because those third-party insurance companies care about profit, the system itself is flaw.
Mickie's nuts. My doctor doesn't have to deal with insurance companies before care is provided. She treats me, and sends the bill to my primary insurer, Medicare. Anything they don't pay is billed to my secondary insurer, Blue Care Network. Anything neither one pays for is billed to me. I never have to wait for any ok from any insurer before seeing either my doctor or a specialist.
A few years ago, my daughter had no job and no insurance. She fell & broke her leg. We took her to Hurley, where she got excellent treatment and all necessary follow up visits. They didn't deny her treatment because of a lack of insurance. She was billed a total of $15,000.00, and when she got a job she started paying them off. It took a while, but they got paid. At least around here, nobody is denied treatment because they don't have insurance. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:57 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Dave Starr schreef:
At least around here, nobody is denied treatment because they don't have insurance.
All insurance companies and health care policies in these United States are not the same. You have Medicare and Blue Care Network, and the doctor still has to have staff to do the paperwork so he can get paid, often much less than what he charges. I pay for individual Blue Cross coverage and there are certain things they cover and do not cover. My doctor's office can go ahead and do a procedure, or order one by another provider, and bill to Blue Cross but there's no guarantee of coverage unless they check with Blue Cross first. Then, as you say, I'll get billed for what is not covered.
There should be a goal to eliminate excessive paperwork and the insurance companies, and have all essential health care provided for everyone. |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
