Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Just another reason to NOT vote for Kerry (Edwards).

I think the high cost of health care and prescription drugs is a crucial issue.

Pharmaceutical companies are out of control. They fund vacations/perks/etc. for doctors and surgeons to entice them into prescribing their drugs. To me, it is not ethical to practice such behavior.

Secondly, many of the drugs on the market are chemical versions of something that exist naturally in organic form (plants, etc.). The drugs could be made from the organic versions for far less than the chemical version....but the big companies would rather make a chemical version for two reasons. 1. They can't patent a plant. 2. They can make a chemical version and claim they spent millions on R&D and justify the hefty price for the drug.

Look at the cost of AIDS medications or any other medication that is crucial to saving life (chemo drugs, etc.) It seems the more life threatening the disease, the more expensive the drugs. It is this way because people will do whatever it takes to stay alive and the pharmeceutical companies exploit that fact. I mean, either pay what they require or die. It just isn't right.

My Father just had a stint put in one of his arteries that was partially blocked. The operation is common place these days...go in through the thigh and feed the stint to the blockage. The surgery lasted 45 minutes and the hospital stay was overnight and part of the next day. The bill was over $30,000. The largest portion was attributed to the cardiologist (surgeon fees & 'consultation fees'). I understand cardiologists work hectic schedules, went to school for 8 or more years, etc.; but I don't think they should be paid 15k for roughly an hours work and maybe an hour of consultation. No doubt, some of the high cost is attributed to the malpractice insurance the cardiologist has to pay for....which is another facet that needs tob e dealt with.

While I won't dispute that the US has the best medical technology and talent in the world, it is not reason enough to justify the high cost of health care.

All it takes is one bad accident, and you might find yourself financially burdened the rest of your life. I guess there is always bankruptcy for extreme situations; but that also indirectly raises the cost of healthcare as well.

In reply to:

---

As far as the Bush religion thing goes... ya he probably shouldn't speak out on his religion as much as he does (Regean was as religious or even more so than Bush but ya wouldn't nessasarily know that because he didn't go preaching it) but I don't think he forces it on any person. Just because the man disagree's with abortion and gay marriage doesn't mean he's forcing you to believe the same and go to church like he does. Those are the things he believes. I don't subscribe to any religion but I believe abortion is wrong in every way....

---

How can you say that he's not trying for force his beliefs on us. Dude...he's trying to have the constitution of the United States ammended. How much more forceful in his beliefs does he need to get before you wake up and realize what he's doing. Maybe the next item he wants to add to the constitution will effect you directly. I'll bet you'll sing a different tune then.

Grrrrrrrrr..........

KC Mike, you make some valid points, but you also make a lot of assumptions which cannot be proven. Modern medicine has far surpassed what the witch doctors can do with their weeds.

Spiffnme, Bush's attempt to alter the Constitution to ban gay marriages was purely a political move. No doubt, he opposes gay marriages (as most Americans do), but it was an attempt to get the Democrats to either take a stand in favor of gay rights (and then get slammed at the polls for doing so) or abandon a far-left segment of their party. The Democrats chose the latter option.

In my opinion, the gov't should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Issue civil union certificates and leave marriage and marriage ceremonies to the churches.

In reply to:

---

In my opinion, the gov't should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses altogether. Issue civil union certificates and leave marriage and marriage ceremonies to the churches.

---

Absolutely. It'll likely never happen though. "Marriage" is a religious institution. The government has no business being involved. All of the governmental rights, and benefits that come along with "marriage" should be provided to all committed couples, regardless of sexual orientation, and should be done so as "civil unions". If these couples want to have a religious ceremony they can do so and become "married".

In reply to:

---

Pharmaceutical companies are out of control. They fund vacations/perks/etc. for doctors and surgeons to entice them into prescribing their drugs. To me, it is not ethical to practice such behavior.

---

This is false. There are no vacations or other expensive perks any more. There used to be, but they are a thing of the past. Occasionally they will offer a meal to accompany a sales presentation, but why shouldn't they? If I am going to commit some of my precious free time to them, why shouldn't I be compensated with a meal?

We have the strongest pharmaceurical industry in the world. Like it or not, the reason for that is that there is competition in the marketplace. The quest for profit in this case benefits us all. I hate it when people get all righteous about pharmaceutical companies engaging in activities that are acceptable from any other for profit corporation. Why is it unethical for pharmaceutical companies to offer promotional perks to customers? Because they make a necessary product? Hogwash! I would say that food, clothing, and shelter are much more important factors for preservation of life, but nobody complains about the promotional behaviors of Archer-Daniels-Midland. You think your congressman doesn't get perks?

It costs hendreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and a pharmaceutical company has only 17 years from the discovery of the compound (not 17 years on the market) in whichh to recoup their investment.

The reason pharmaceuticals cost more than natural compounds is one of law, not greed. In order to be a "drug", that is to claim the compound is effective in treating a given condition, studies must be done to prove safety and efficacy. These studies cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Who in their right mind would do hundreds of millions of dollars of research on a compound that is not patentable?

Dietary supplements may be cheaper than pharmaceuticals, but they are not regulated by any agency. They cannot claim to treat any condition, therefore they usually are marketed as substances which can "maintain (insert orgen here) health". No studies need to be done. Side effects are unknown. Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe.

As to drugs for serious conditions costing more, well what's your life worth? If anything in this life should be expensive, it's a lifesaving drug. Why do people think nothing of spending $30,000 for a car, and balk at spending $1000 for a lifesaving drug? If you are dying and need an expensive drug, who should pay for it other than you? Why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's lifesaving drug?

The answer is to scrap the FDA and let the marketplace regulate the cost of pharmaceuticals. Any unsafe drugs would be quickly identified and litigated out of existence (loser pays, of course to avoid frivoulous suits).

Mark

I am a totally agnostic areligious person, I am not homophobic, but I am against gay marraige. This is not a religious issue. It is about redefining a term that has been in existence for thousands of years against the wishes of the majority of Americans.

I am not opposed to the idea of a sanctioned civil union between same sex individuals, but to call it a "marraige" is disingenuous. To say that opposing gay marraige is a religious issue is equally disingenuous.

Mark

That was my point above. "Marriage" IS a religious institution. In the eyes of our government, it should not be. Civil unions for all - leave marriages for the church.

It's semantics. People have REALLY strong feelings about the word "marriage". Many, many people feel exactly as you do. They're totally fine with offering gays and lesbians "civil unions" which would come with all the rights and privilages of "marriage", they just won't let us call it "marriage". How can you explain that thought process? It's a word people - relax.

Here's a freaky website I found that is very anti-mixed marriage. It is speaking of whites and non-whites, but uses pretty much the same arguements as gay-marriage opponents. Kinda creepy. I guarantee 20 years from now people who are so anti-gay marriage now will seem as whacko as this guy does now.

i am tore on that issue too.. i have no probs with gays and lesbians, more power to ya.. but once again, as with most issues in america now, it comes down to changing a 'standard', to adapt to a small number of americans. its just a word, marriage, but why are we freaking out so much over it?? i dont know, i wish i did. but i do think the word represents a unity of man and woman.. i mean, really, it has been that way for , oh lets see, FOREVER. and now, to accomidate a very small group of the american public, we may have to change that definition. are we who oppose it being petty, maybe. but do we have the right to defend what has been our norm forever, yes we do.

i really hate that this has to even be an issue. i believe in gay/lesbian rights. i think that a gay couple SHOULD be able to make life decisions for their mates, and be able to have joint insurance coverage, and have the same benefits and rights of a married couple.. but, are they married, no.. should we make it a 'civil union', hell yes, by all means.

this is where i have inner conflict over this subject. i truly believe homosexual couples should have the same rights as married couples.. but , i dont think they should be called married, or have a marriage, in the classic sense of the word.

does that make me a hypocrit?? i dont know.. but i know thats how i feel, and i hope no one is offended.

PS- i kinda compare it to no more praying at high school football games.. SHORT STORY- here in texas, we say(or used to) a prayer before the start of every game on the stadium loud speakers. a few years a go, an islamic family that had a son playing football in houston, was appaled that they had to say a prayer to a god that they didnt believe in, and went to the state courts. long story short, they made it a state law that it is illegal to have a public prayer at a football game, so we dont 'offend' anyone.. ??? hello, so we had to change out heritage and tradition during friday night lights, just so we dont offend a very small group of people. thats just not right to me.

bigjohn