GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I was just curious which of these plans do you feel are the best way to deal with Senior Citizen Prescription drug problems. Currently the FDA mandate has banned importation of drugs from foregn countries. However people still get them from canada and others are being more dangerously creative such as buying twice the dose and then splitting the pills in half. Which is just dumb because drug itself (not the pill) is not evenly distributed through out the pill. So here are some possible solutions:
1) Subsidize drug costs for Senior Citizens or maybe all drugs in general that are prescription.
pros: Defintily Cheaper, companies can still maintain their profit margins if slightly lower but still high enough to stay in business
cons: taxes will need to be inevitably raised (though by fixing the welfare system you can lower the amount it needs to be raised by), however we Americans like our government to miracliously create thigns from nothign and never raise our taxes :-P
2) Re-import drugs-purchase drugs from countries and set up special government pharmacies. Despite federal mandates several states have done this already.
pros: taxes don't change...yet, drugs will be far cheaper
cons: Drug companies maintain a 10%-15% profit margin. If this occurs their margins will drop to almost nothing. They will be forced to cut R&D costs less thorough testings will be done we will have more incidents liek vioxx in the market smalelr pharma companies will fold or be bought out, less innovative drugs will be pumped out, new drug discovery rates will drop like a rock, government will be forced into subsidizing the companies is morelikely and taxes wil eventually raise anyways
3) Improve the HMO and medicare systems-Force insurance companies to offer a better plan for senior citizens to make sure all or most of their drug costs are covered.
pros: negates the other two factors of higher taxes and damaging the healthcare industry.
cons: insurance companies will take a hit, not all drug costs will still be covered in some cases.
4) My made up strategy-take Social security raise the age at which you retire (From 65-68 or 70) take that money saved and pro-rate the social security checks so the more drugs you take the more money you get. Or use that money to subsidize drugs in general for Senior Citizens.
pros: Temporary fix should give us plenty of time to carefully think out how to deal with this issue
cons: Still only a temporary fix social security is a mess and needs to be fixed as well
Thats all I can this of
Last edited by stabile007; 10-07-2004 at 08:08 AM.
while i hate higher taxes, the current could work if these are fixed...problems lie with lawsuits, liability, and the insane cost of health care (my sister got charged $16 for a bag of ice once.) everyone is trying to make money of healthcare instead of providing care....enter john edwards and the like..p)
John kerry and john Edwards are supporting the importation of Prescription drugs. They have not yet mention (as to my knowledge feel free to crrect me) any way to fix the current mess of laiblity lawsuits, insurance issues and how horrible medicare and HMO's are.
For some reason I don't think government interference is going to help. I think it's because of other countries interference that our prices are so high. Basically we are paying for other countries price controls in the US.
Subsize drugs: Increased taxes. What happens to people without insurance (between jobs, working at small companies that don't offer insurance)? Not only do they get stuck with paying the higher price they have to pay the extra taxes. You're not a senior citizen, you can roll over and die, Granny needs her pills.
Re-import drugs: Do they have looser quality controls outside the US? Who are you buying the drugs from? What if that country desides to subsidize their programs with taxes on exported drugs? What if the drug maker only will supply X amount to that company.
Force insurance companies to offer better plans for seniors: How about forcing auto companies to offer cheaper cars to teens, builders to offer cheaper houses to newlyweds, Force fast food places to offer cheaper salads to fat people?
Interesting article: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/L...22_canada.html
Here's a question I have from the article: Why is the drug $500 in Italy and $2,400 in the US?
What would happen if the US came out and said you can only sell the drug for up to twice the price of the cheapest in this list of 12 countries? Let's just say the drug maker said we can't recover our R&D costs because then we could only sell the drug for $1000 instead of $2400 so instead of offering it in Italy for $500 we will raise the minimum price to $700 or stop selling it in Italy?
What happens when the drug company decides there isn't any profit in producing a new drug?
Thats exactly how I feel on the subject howevermost people don't see eye to eye with that philosphy. I know here at AstraZeneca we are already making provisions to deal with budget issues in case Kerry wins. But the Pharma companies will be hit very very hard is drug importation is allowed.
this will be like everything else, importers will be trying to make a buck, and the price wont drop enough to matter. the real solution would be for the government to stop wasting money. we have an incredibly ineffiecent government, dont think there is much arguement with that. neither kerry or bush are willing to make the needed changes.(nor anyone in the senate or house)
A good point I never thought of. Supply and demand as the demand goes up I am sure the costs will raise to as much as they can get away with. The problem is the government wants tomess with something that tends to be needed for a lot fo people. if the pharmacutical companies go under what will we do? By our drugs from china as well?
You know what dont get me started on the independents in the presidental elections. I think tis disgraceful how they are treated IMO. Why can';t they be allowed to debate? Why must our coutnry be ran by a democrat or republican? Why must the democrats insist that the idnependents steal their votes....its not the democrats votes its the ******* people's vote they can choose whoever the hell they want. if they want Nader then that means they don't your crappy ass canidents they want someone different. grrr it pisses me off so much sometimes
Yeah I am actually realyl republican and stuff but I do feel that its a slap to the face of our system that nader is not allowed to debate and that both parties seem to go out of their way to make it seem like he is not even an option. I think both parties should be forced to provide limited funding to independet capaigners.
It's my belief that drug companies in the US have messed up priorities. Necessary prescription drugs, those meant for diseases and other serious afflictions, should be developed by non-commercial organizations which put every dollar into research and development (and reasonable salaries of course) rather than advertisements and lobbies. If a drug company wants to be commercial, they should stick to non-essential medications such as those for "natural male enhancement", over-the-counter drugs, and supplements.
Also, importing medication from other countries should be legal. Does anyone really believe that US drug companies are any more trustworthy than those in Canada?
Originally posted by rjcrews good point, people dont realize how similar bush and kerry are relative to many of the third parties who offer solutions instead of ...well...what we get now. that is the same service over and over.
for example, i totally disagree with nader on tons of issues, but i think its unbelieveable he cant debate. the public needs to hear what he has to say about governemt reform imo.
Exactly what Ive been trying to tell people. The Republicans and Democrats have hijacked our system and country by disagreeing with each other just to say im on this side and your not, Without taking spacific issues and disecting them, compromising and choosing the best solution for a problem, and yea nader should be on the ballot in all states, even though he has some bizzarre ideology.
yea well the libertarian candidates should be included also, to make a somewhat full circle of views. i dont think the fascist party should be included, or a few others that are not even close, but there are a host of viable options that are completely suppressed. im upset nader isnt on the ballot here...(mo). last i heard he wasnt anyway.