usvi-on-line
Put Healthcare Money Into Cancer Research!!
Put Healthcare Money Into Cancer Research!!
Sorry... i just get so angry when I hear the pricetag and wonder if it can be going to finding CURES instead of TREATMENTS!!!
I appreciate being treated for my cancer, but I so want to wake up one day and find out there is a cure so that I can get my life off of the perpetual hold it's on.
This is not a "woe is me" post, just a vent!!
I think I'll go buy a new car....that will make me feel better....lol
I appreciate being treated for my cancer, but I so want to wake up one day and find out there is a cure so that I can get my life off of the perpetual hold it's on.
This is not a "woe is me" post, just a vent!!
I think I'll go buy a new car....that will make me feel better....lol
-
California Girl
Mr. B - I'm sorry to hear of what you're going through. All the best for a speedy recovery.
Obviously I completely agree that money needs to be spent on research. I'd love to see cancer and diabetes wiped off the map. We've made great strides in both. In diabetes in particular, they're now doing research on the beta cell in the pancreas that looks very promising...There's a real possibility for a cure for that terrible disease at some point in the next 10-15 years.
One thing that worries me, and I'll try to keep this as apolitical as I can, is the demonization of pharma/biotech. The federal government, as part of any healthcare initiative, will look to implement government mandated price controls - which in the long run will do nothing but hamstring research and development.
It takes years upon years, and failure after failure for these companies to come up with a novel molecule that is safe and effective. Most of the research conducted in the private sector is more or less thrown in the wastebasket, only after the company has spent millions and years on the research...Just the nature of the business. Many new drugs are found simply by "accident"...Take Viagra for example, which originally had been developed as a cardiovascular drug.
I hope your treatment goes well, Mr. B.
Obviously I completely agree that money needs to be spent on research. I'd love to see cancer and diabetes wiped off the map. We've made great strides in both. In diabetes in particular, they're now doing research on the beta cell in the pancreas that looks very promising...There's a real possibility for a cure for that terrible disease at some point in the next 10-15 years.
One thing that worries me, and I'll try to keep this as apolitical as I can, is the demonization of pharma/biotech. The federal government, as part of any healthcare initiative, will look to implement government mandated price controls - which in the long run will do nothing but hamstring research and development.
It takes years upon years, and failure after failure for these companies to come up with a novel molecule that is safe and effective. Most of the research conducted in the private sector is more or less thrown in the wastebasket, only after the company has spent millions and years on the research...Just the nature of the business. Many new drugs are found simply by "accident"...Take Viagra for example, which originally had been developed as a cardiovascular drug.
I hope your treatment goes well, Mr. B.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
Mr B you have every reason for a rant.
I think there are better solutions . It seems to me that government run health care will give us the kind of results that we get from a court appointed lawyer. They are overworked and underpaid and cannot devote their time in a way that will give their client the most optimal results. Most of the time the sharpest lawyers get their own practice so they can make the big bucks and choose their clients. Isn't that how doctors will react?? If patient A and patient B have the same problem and will require the same care, the doctor would chose to care for the person they will profit from the most. Where does that leave the person with restricted government insurance? My guess is that they will not be seeing the best doctors or getting quality care.
What about research? I don't think any company is going to put much money into research if the government is going to be restricting their profits.
Most of healthcare costs are due to preventable conditions. If Americans were more personally accountable and took better care of themselves, by eating better and moving more, there would be plenty of money to pay for research and care of genetic or accidental conditions. Imagine the surplus of resources we would have for research if we weren't spending so many resources on preventable conditions.
What I would love to see is insurance for catastrophic conditions, such as cancer. My family use to have insurance with a $5000 deductible. We didn't go to the doctor unless we really needed to. But our insurance was there if we needed it for something major.
Maybe the government should let us pay for all of our minor sicknesses, encourage us to be personally accountable, but be there for us if we do have something major happen. That makes sense, doesn't it??
Gina
I think there are better solutions . It seems to me that government run health care will give us the kind of results that we get from a court appointed lawyer. They are overworked and underpaid and cannot devote their time in a way that will give their client the most optimal results. Most of the time the sharpest lawyers get their own practice so they can make the big bucks and choose their clients. Isn't that how doctors will react?? If patient A and patient B have the same problem and will require the same care, the doctor would chose to care for the person they will profit from the most. Where does that leave the person with restricted government insurance? My guess is that they will not be seeing the best doctors or getting quality care.
What about research? I don't think any company is going to put much money into research if the government is going to be restricting their profits.
Most of healthcare costs are due to preventable conditions. If Americans were more personally accountable and took better care of themselves, by eating better and moving more, there would be plenty of money to pay for research and care of genetic or accidental conditions. Imagine the surplus of resources we would have for research if we weren't spending so many resources on preventable conditions.
What I would love to see is insurance for catastrophic conditions, such as cancer. My family use to have insurance with a $5000 deductible. We didn't go to the doctor unless we really needed to. But our insurance was there if we needed it for something major.
Maybe the government should let us pay for all of our minor sicknesses, encourage us to be personally accountable, but be there for us if we do have something major happen. That makes sense, doesn't it??
Gina
I couldn't agree more Mr. B. I'm happy you're doing well.
My sister worked at American Oncologic Hospital in Phila. (now Fox Chase) for many years. She dealt with nothing but cancer patients. The most frightening thing she ever told me is that the Dr's all agreed that they had developed a cure for cancer but the government would never release it because cancer is a means of controlling the population. That made me sick to hear that Dr's were saying that. And sadly I believe it to be true.
My sister worked at American Oncologic Hospital in Phila. (now Fox Chase) for many years. She dealt with nothing but cancer patients. The most frightening thing she ever told me is that the Dr's all agreed that they had developed a cure for cancer but the government would never release it because cancer is a means of controlling the population. That made me sick to hear that Dr's were saying that. And sadly I believe it to be true.
Three things:bevm wrote:I couldn't agree more Mr. B. I'm happy you're doing well.
My sister worked at American Oncologic Hospital in Phila. (now Fox Chase) for many years. She dealt with nothing but cancer patients. The most frightening thing she ever told me is that the Dr's all agreed that they had developed a cure for cancer but the government would never release it because cancer is a means of controlling the population. That made me sick to hear that Dr's were saying that. And sadly I believe it to be true.
1. Bev - did you steal MY tin foil hat (usually I am the one wearing one around here)?
2. As Chris Rock so famously said "The money ain't in the cure, it's in the treatment" (he was specifically talking about HIV).
3. As for population control, do some reading about John Holdren. He once advocated putting sterilants in the drinking water. He is O's "science czar". He has a truly scary past, and some crazy ideas.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
OK my turn…
I totally understand that you cannot exclude people and be selective in a group health plan that you get through your employer. The essence of those plans are that they are big enough to spread the risk out for everybody.
Nevertheless, it bugs me that my “employee contribution” cost is the same as the 300 lb co-worker who smokes while I make the effort to eat right, not smoke, and work out. This fire was stoked again for me when they released that recent study that quantified the additional health care costs that obese people are more likely to incur in their lifetime. That guy pays more for life insurance and health insurance on the open market, as well he should because he is a greater risk.
I know it will never happen, but maybe it would incentivize folks to live a healthier lifestyle if they were charged X dollars more for every .10 point their Body Mass Index (BMI) exceeds say 30 (the “official” level for obesity), even in a group health plan.
Likewise, let them (or anybody) in the plan get credits back if they lose weight and/or meet with a dietician on a quarterly basis and go to a gym X times a month, if say the cost for those services were subsidized by the company. Betcha in the long run that would benefit everybody and have a decent return on investment.
I know, I know - some may call this discriminatory or worse i.e. obesity may be a “disorder” or “genetic predisposition”; if you start doing that then what’s to stop you from excluding other pre-existing conditions; yada yada yada. Understandable points.
And sorry if this idea offends – it’s just the way my brain is wired from working in insurance and risk management for 25 yrs. End of possibly biased rant.
I totally understand that you cannot exclude people and be selective in a group health plan that you get through your employer. The essence of those plans are that they are big enough to spread the risk out for everybody.
Nevertheless, it bugs me that my “employee contribution” cost is the same as the 300 lb co-worker who smokes while I make the effort to eat right, not smoke, and work out. This fire was stoked again for me when they released that recent study that quantified the additional health care costs that obese people are more likely to incur in their lifetime. That guy pays more for life insurance and health insurance on the open market, as well he should because he is a greater risk.
I know it will never happen, but maybe it would incentivize folks to live a healthier lifestyle if they were charged X dollars more for every .10 point their Body Mass Index (BMI) exceeds say 30 (the “official” level for obesity), even in a group health plan.
Likewise, let them (or anybody) in the plan get credits back if they lose weight and/or meet with a dietician on a quarterly basis and go to a gym X times a month, if say the cost for those services were subsidized by the company. Betcha in the long run that would benefit everybody and have a decent return on investment.
I know, I know - some may call this discriminatory or worse i.e. obesity may be a “disorder” or “genetic predisposition”; if you start doing that then what’s to stop you from excluding other pre-existing conditions; yada yada yada. Understandable points.
And sorry if this idea offends – it’s just the way my brain is wired from working in insurance and risk management for 25 yrs. End of possibly biased rant.
When we come to place where the sea and the sky collide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
SJ - me thinks you are mixing apples and oranges. Of course if the 300lb dude drives 2 mi to work he should pay less for auto coverage than the skinny guy running a 100mi gauntlet on Rt. 1, who has lots more liability, physical damage, and bodily injury exposures other than just buying the farm within the realm of THAT policy coverage. Now if the 2 mi commuter is driving a 2010 Corvette and the 100 mi dude is driving a 10 yr old Hyundai, that might even things out a bit.
And lets say they arrive at work at different companies that are across the street from each other. The big guy is an office drone in XYZ Finance. The skinny guy makes widgets at ABC Factory. They probably pay similar rates for Group Healththe companies are a similar size, but the Workers Comp insurance that ABC Factory pays is a lot more than XYZ. And if ABC has a bad history of injury and illness, that rate is modified upward because it is a risk adjusted kind of policy. And that’s my whole point – maybe the time has come for some kind of risk adjustment within the group health scenario.
And lets say they arrive at work at different companies that are across the street from each other. The big guy is an office drone in XYZ Finance. The skinny guy makes widgets at ABC Factory. They probably pay similar rates for Group Healththe companies are a similar size, but the Workers Comp insurance that ABC Factory pays is a lot more than XYZ. And if ABC has a bad history of injury and illness, that rate is modified upward because it is a risk adjusted kind of policy. And that’s my whole point – maybe the time has come for some kind of risk adjustment within the group health scenario.
Last edited by jmq on Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When we come to place where the sea and the sky collide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide
Throw me over the edge and let my spirit glide