Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

What a surprise (NOT!) -- many insured quitting expensive drugs

Dec 3, 2003 9:33PM PST

Hi, All.

Most folks use the increasing %age of uninsured to demark the affordability crisis of health care in this country -- a crisis that is doubtless killing tens of thousands annually. But, surprise -- even many of the insured are going off life-saving prescription meds as insurance covers an ever smaller part of the cost, while drug company and insurance company profits soar. But hey -- we have a "free market," and that's all that matters, right?
For the gory details, see Study says many quit pills in 3-tier prescription plan.
The copays on our Rx drugs this year will be well over $2,000 -- when we started working in 1980, there were no copays. Is it any wonder the WHO ranked the U.S. health-care system 71st in the world in their last survey (and we've doubtless dropped a few slots since...)
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re: gripe ... P.S. And you never explained how taxes to the government differ from exorbitant charges from a company
Dec 4, 2003 12:41PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Become familiar with the Constitution and you should see the difference IMMEDIATELY
Dec 5, 2003 1:11AM PST

The Constitution LIMITS what the government is supposed to be doing and taxing the people for REGARDLESS of the overreaching done during the "New Deal" and permanent "temporary wartime taxes" of WWII.

- Collapse -
You are right, and that's why you are wrong:
Dec 5, 2003 10:52AM PST

it LIMITS, it doesn't PROHIBIT.

Ian

- Collapse -
No Ian I am not as it does limit AND prohibit...
Dec 6, 2003 9:53AM PST

try reading the whole thing INCLUDING the Bill of rights.


Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


The US Government since FDR has gone into PROHIBITED regions and once precedent is set it becomes too late. At least it does when courts legislate from the bench as is becoming more and more common practice.

- Collapse -
Re: No Ian I am not as it does limit AND prohibit...
Dec 6, 2003 12:27PM PST

Hi, Ed.

Interesting you cite the 10th Amendment, Ed -- as illustrated on West Wing this week, doesn't that Amendment mean the Feds (mainly Ashcroft's DOJ) should stop going after doctors in California and other states who prescribe marijuana for cancer patients, and after doctors in Oregon who follow that state's assisted suicide law?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Would that mean, Dave...
Dec 6, 2003 4:23PM PST

Dave, by that logic,should the ATF should not "go after" people who have illegal automatic weapons, things like hand grenades, or in a different aspect, moonshiners.
If a state should in your opinion, be able to override Federal laws about marijuana, should a state, like say, Georgia, be allowed to override ATF firearm regulations.

- Collapse -
He wants to have his cake...
Dec 7, 2003 1:20AM PST

(or magic brownies?) and eat them too...

- Collapse -
Re:Would that mean, Dave...
Dec 7, 2003 6:44AM PST

Hi, J.

>> by that logic,should the ATF should not "go after" people who have illegal automatic weapons, things like hand grenades, or in a different aspect, moonshiners.<<
If Idaho passed a bill legalizing private ownership of automatic weapons, then there might be a 10th Amendment issue... Texas (frinstance) had no such law in effect at the time of Waco (or now).
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Why should it, Dave...
Dec 7, 2003 5:35PM PST

Why should be a 10th amendment issue if they passed such a law, Dave? You do realize that some states have such a law, don't you? Of course, you must start off with the Federal permission/investigation etc., etc. long before you get to the State level of following their additional regulations. This has come up before in past threads, and your memory is not that bad.
Let's look at another interesting thing about that Federal/State situation with the Constitution. The 21st ammendment says that I can go to a local store and buy a bottle of booze. But, if I lived in what is called a "dry county", I couldn't.
See it, Dave? A State can't not override a prohibition by the Federal Government with a local (State) law. But it is possible for a State (County,City) to override a Federal "permission".
Change it to marijuuana instead of booze or automatic weapon. A local (or State) law does not automatically override an existing Federal level prohibition.

- Collapse -
You have the idea Dave...
Dec 7, 2003 1:18AM PST

and were it not for States abdicating the RIGHT to control substances to the Fed you would even be correct. Since they did knuckle under to Liberal Big Government desires though the piper must be paid and you are incorrect.

This is an example of where government long ago overstepped its carefully enumerated constraints as it grew bigger and more involved in what it has no business in.

Interesting that you cite a made for TV entertainment movie as a source AND are becoming (like many other Liberals) advocates of "States Rights" since the Liberal control of government has waned.

States Rights aren't so evil and bad an idea after all now are they Dave?

- Collapse -
C'mon Dave, its obvious,
Dec 5, 2003 10:49AM PST

High prices and gouging the poor rewards the people Ed respects,

Taxes reward people Ed doesn't respect.

Ian

- Collapse -
High prices...
Dec 6, 2003 10:00AM PST

tend to get controlled by the market when it is free to control them (supply and demand).

Welfare and other social spending that takes from those who earn and gives to those who do not lacks controls but is essential to maintaining a downtrodden voter base.

Unemployment is a funded welfare that employers contribute to. Unwed mothers with steadily growing litters are completely subsidised by taxpayers who could better be using that money in their own local communities. Rural America, just like rural Australia, does not like being forced to maintain urban ghettos.

- Collapse -
Re: High prices...
Dec 6, 2003 12:32PM PST

>>tend to get controlled by the market when it is free to control them (supply and demand).<<

In this case, that's BS, Ed. There's not free supply because the drugs are patented, many as minor reworks simply to extend patent life. And there's no elasticity of demand when the alternative is death. The effects of elastic demand are being seen in the subject that started the thread (folks not getting statins and bp meds because of the high price and the less than obvious need) -- and the result will be greatly increased morbidity and mortality. The free market is a teribble way of controlling prices for products necessary for life.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I thought you said you got such good grades...
Dec 7, 2003 1:37AM PST

in economics Dave. Counldn't have with your lack of understanding of a free market.

There is ALWAYS elasticity of demand regardless of "alternative". Always has been and always will be in a free market.

You either can or can't afford a product and it matters not what the product is but on the supply of the product.

This applies to medicine, operations, homes, cars, and even food and it applies across the board.

The effects of elastic demand are being seen in the subject that started the thread (folks not getting statins and bp meds because of the high price and the less than obvious need)

Yes but NOT as you think. People are not getting them THROUGH THEIR OWN CHOICE because they want the "high priced spread" but can't afford it without doing without something else they apparently want more and choose to do without rather than using the "low priced margarine".

If this does result in "greatly increased morbidity and mortality" it has nothing to do with free market but with any specific individual being unable or unwilling to pay the price while others are able to. If enough cannot meet the price the price will drop. If you really wanted the free market to work toward lower drug prices you yourself would REFUSE the high priced new drugs and demand that your doctor only prescribe low cost alternatives or generics as this would drive the prices down IF enough people who could buy didn't.

It is YOU, insisting on only the latest and greatest for yourself who is keeping that latest greatest out of the reach of the "poor".

- Collapse -
Re:I thought you said you got such good grades...
Dec 7, 2003 6:47AM PST

Hi, Ed.

>>There is ALWAYS elasticity of demand regardless of "alternative".<<
That's NOT what Samuelson says (at the time, the most-used economics book). He says that for there to be a truly free market, there must be elasticity of both supply and demand -- here both are inelastic!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Have you ever heard of a capitalist or company misbehaving,
Dec 7, 2003 5:58PM PST

perhaps of Cartels?

Perhaps, of the laws enacted to try to stop companies working together to gouge the customer.

If you have, then you'll understand that there is no such thing as a free market. The human beings running companies use their power to maximise their cash receipts just as much as do any dole bludgers.

If you haven't, that explains the ongoing in depth statements of incorrect things regarding economies.

Ian

- Collapse -
Point me to the generics, Edward
Dec 8, 2003 12:32AM PST

for meds that don't have any and I'll gladly buy the 'margerine'...your arrogance is mind-boggling that you would think I would refuse to buy generic if it was available.

>>>>Yes but NOT as you think. People are not getting them THROUGH THEIR OWN CHOICE because they want the "high priced spread" but can't afford it without doing without something else they apparently want more and choose to do without rather than using the "low priced margarine".

If this does result in "greatly increased morbidity and mortality" it has nothing to do with free market but with any specific individual being unable or unwilling to pay the price while others are able to. If enough cannot meet the price the price will drop. If you really wanted the free market to work toward lower drug prices you yourself would REFUSE the high priced new drugs and demand that your doctor only prescribe low cost alternatives or generics as this would drive the prices down IF enough people who could buy didn't.>>>>

A doctor can't prescribe what isn't out there. However, your comment of "if enough cannot meet the price, the price would drop" would only hold true if everybody needing the same meds were living below poverty level like me. Until then, the ones who can afford it, will continue to pay the high price, and we're stuck in a catch-22.

- Collapse -
Essential Medications
Dec 8, 2003 12:11AM PST

Hi Dave,

Is there a limit to what you think should be entitled? I mean Lipitor wasn't even around not all that long ago. Now I suppose because some capitalists risked money to develop that drug, paid their scientists for their knowledge and efforts, and made a few bucks back for those investors, now everyone is entitled to the product of their efforts?

IF the market were less regulated, and this boondoggle that is "insurance" paying for routine medical care, prices WOULD naturally stabilize at a price that the majority could indeed afford. Those who can't could still have their costs subsidized without making this yet another entitlement. I mean the "rich" are only a small percent of the population. There is no reason to think they are likely to be less healthy than the general population, and if only they could afford the meds, prices would come down quick. It is the government and insurance companies that ultimately keep prices high, and a fair dose of the ideology that you espouse advocating unlimited free healthcare to the entire population.

I personally would like to see individuals rewarded with tax advantages for carrying high deductible true insurance and saving and paying for routine care with tax deductible MSA's that can accumulate indefinitely.

I wish I could find the reference, but a while ago a radio host listed the amount Medicare pays for a number of routine medical services (checkup, blood test, etc.) and juxtaposed that with what we spend on other services such as haircuts, manicures, plumbing fixes, etc. Also compared were the hours and costs of education to be a provider of such services, and overhead considerations. It really hits home when looked upon in this manner. Why should anyone in their right mind even want to become a doctor anymore when they are expected to work for less/hour than people who don't have to be on call or worry about malpractice, etc.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Essential Medications
Dec 8, 2003 12:13PM PST

Hi, Evie.

>>Is there a limit to what you think should be entitled?<<
I happen to believe that being endowed with a right to life applies to the living, not just the unborn. How recent a life-sving medication may be is irrelvant to the discussion. Or does that mean you oppose free polio vaccinations because they didn't exist when the Founding Fathers lived?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
You are insured ...
Dec 4, 2003 3:54AM PST

... and can afford your copays. Siince you own stocks and get dividends or capital gains from them, I fail to see how any stockholder profiting from your medical expenses is any different in terms of taking money out of the market for someone to be spending.

I think STATE governments and/or business associations can do an awful lot to enable small businesses to obtain insurance for themselves and employees. I don't want Hillarycare or anything of the sort, or Canada's health care system either.

Curious, what was your salary in 1980 vs. today? I didn't have any prescription drug coverage with my first job. I paid out of pocket for medications when I needed them. Insurance is supposed to be for unexpected circumstances. Maintenance of chronic medical conditions doesn't qualify, so if you expect "insurance" to pay any portion thereof, you are really expecting someone else to pay for them in the form of their higher premiums. This year my hubby's company offered options where the prescription drug plans were separate from some of the general medical insurance options. Now for those who have lots of meds, they would probably choose the highest level coverage and pay higher premiums. Those who don't can choose the lower level and pay less. I really don't see why it should be anything but that. If a person's financial status is such that they cannot afford the medications, then there any number of ways besides Federal govt. meddling and destroying one of the last great industries to actually produce anything in this country!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:You are insured ...
Dec 4, 2003 12:31PM PST
destroying one of the last great industries to actually produce anything in this country!

I guess their concerns about the "quality" of drugs coming in from Canadian online pharmacies were true. I suspect their concerns had more to do with their bottom line than with the health of the people. Scoff all you want at the Canadian health system but it has resulted in lower drug prices in Canada for the same drug (produced by the same company in the U.S.).
- Collapse -
Re: i am well aware. I am one of them
Dec 4, 2003 4:48AM PST

And how dare you infer that these people are free loaders. We have worked all our lives. I worked for 6o years and raised well educated tax paying citizens.You don't mind paying because you can. I hope it will always be that way for you.

- Collapse -
Excuse me, but ...
Dec 4, 2003 5:19AM PST

... where did I infer you were a free loader? Or anyone else for that matter. How dare you misrepresent what I said there Mary Kay!

- Collapse -
Re:Excuse me, but ...
Dec 4, 2003 5:38AM PST

"Your comments about choices are interesting. Poor financial choices are not the fault of government. If a person values their own health less than materialistic things there's only so much the government can do to impose responsibility in a free society." You mean like food and shelter???

- Collapse -
Keep it in context MK
Dec 4, 2003 5:58AM PST

I mentioned that there are many people who "can't afford" their medical care who, indeed, if they prioritized spending better, would actually find that they can.

Dave came back at me with a rationalization that people are carrying too much debt and spending too much. To which I am only saying that government can only dictate so much where spending choices are concerned.

Still fail to see where you make the quantum leap to accuse people of free loading, but NO, I don't believe that a person who spends irresponsibly on non-essentials has any entitlement to having the necessities they could have afforded paid for by someone else.

The only point I meant to make initially is that people have become so accustomed to "insurance" paying for medical care that they immediately complain when *they* suddenly have to pay for them. All along someone has been paying for it. And when one considers the amounts many of us spend on non-essential things -- even the poor Mary as evidenced in recent surveys on just what poverty American style really is -- most would find they really can afford their important and essential medical care with a shift of priorities.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Keep it in context MK -- you missed the context!
Dec 5, 2003 12:56AM PST

Hi, Evie.

Seems to me you missed the context -- MK didn't say anything about "free-loading." She asked about the tough choices many folks face in trying to balance the exorbitant cost of health care with the need for food and shelter. In fact, the combination of a lost job and an unexpected medical emergency is the number one reason why families become homeless (as opposed to individuals, where substance abuse is also a major factor).
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Off on a tangent Dave?
Dec 5, 2003 10:10PM PST

Hiya!

I didn't call anyone freeloaders but was "scolded" with a "how dare you"

People, including yourself, are mixing up a whole lot of apples and oranges trying to make grape juice.

The article was about people dropping their meds entirely when offered a tiered plan with lower copays for generics and higher ones for brand drugs. You took that as an opportunity to complain about your own circumstance where you have to actually pay a co-pay for your medicines.

Dave, "insurance" that "pays for" chronic medicines is not insurance at all. If you routinely take $300/month in prescription meds, and your co-pays are $100/month, that means that OTHER PEOPLE are paying for YOUR prescription drugs. Either that is your employer's portion of your premiums or other people's premiums, because insurers are not in the business of paying out more than they take in.

Now everyone wants government to either control the prices of prescription drugs which would be disasterous, or subsidize the cost. Well, at some point, my generation and the ones thereafter are gonna reach the point where we can't sustain it.

You don't expect your auto insurance to cover oil changes, the brake pads, radiator flush & fill, tire changes, etc. These are reasonably expected and hopefully planned for expenses. Same for the "life saving" medications you apparently need to sustain yours. If someone genuinely cannot afford them, most if not all of the states, some companies, etc., already offer assistance. At some point a little realism as to what another person should be expected to pay for someone else's medical care is in order.

If prescription drugs and routine medical care were routinely NOT covered by "insurance", then the market would stabilize at prices that are affordable to most. There will always be those who either can't or choose not to afford care, but if we don't get off this tack geared at them, nobody will be able to afford it pretty soon.

I think Neal Boortz is right when he opines that the Dems really want this to happen so they can say "see I told you so" and in rides government to the rescue to destroy what's left of the healthcare system.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Mary, go back and read the article Dave Linked to...
Dec 4, 2003 9:06AM PST

I did and Evie did but Dave obviously didn't and you apparently didn't either.

ALL this "study" found was that if the co-pay was raised on an EXPENSIVE BRANDED DRUG people quit taking them RATHER THAN paying a lower co-pay for a LESS EXPENSIVE GENERIC drug. This is a little surprising because rather than paying less for a generic drug they save it all by not taking any drug.

Dave is one of the more affluent and is complainiong that he isn't being subsidised for the BRANDED DRUGS he apparently prefers to the Generic ones, but I will bet that you tend to be more price concious and if Generic Brand X costs $30 and your co-pay is 33%($10.00) while Name Brand Y of the same drug costs $60 and your co-pay is 50% ($30.00) YOU are going to go with the Generic version and save some money since BOTH are available to you but at different co-pay rates.

- Collapse -
Re:Ed, I was responding to Evie's comments, not the article. nt
Dec 5, 2003 12:43AM PST

.

- Collapse -
p.s. regarding health care rankings and saving lives
Dec 4, 2003 1:43AM PST
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country, yet in overall quality its care ranks 37th in the world, says a World Health Organization analysis. It concluded that France provides the globe's best health care. (source)

Hmmmmm.... wow, when I get older I really wanna move to France. Oh wait! The heat wave in August overloaded France's lauded health care system and killed an estimated 14,800 people. Many of the victims were elderly who died alone, some while their families took traditional August vacations. (source)

I'm trying to fathom this level of deaths in the entire US from a heat wave, there would be outrage enough. But adjust that for population and you would be talking about 75,000 deaths.

I'll take my chances growing old here thanks.

Evie Happy