Cost of Health Care Continues to Rise

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I don't have a lot of time to get all wordy-n-s**t this morning.

So, stated simply, my point was this;

People complain that this so-called "ObamaCare" is big brother, big government taking away choices and telling them how to live their lives. Do they not?

To my mind, what Whell described, (And what I see unfolding before me.) is the same thing. Only instead of "big government", it's "big business" scrutinizing my life, telling me how to live it, and using financial pressure to force me into compliance. If it's Bill Clinton jacking up tobacco taxes to disuade me from smoking, or Anthem jacking up my premuims to disuade me from smoking, to my mind there is little to no difference. (BTW, I don't smoke, just used it for an example.).

Big Government-Big Business, same-same.

Dave

Not quite, at least I get one vote on government.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Not quite, at least I get one vote on government.

True dat, Rob.

Dave

[d-ray657]

I suppose the insurance companies haven't heard of the practice in medical treatment called informed consent. All of the medications list some potential side effects. After having been advised of this risk, the patient has the choice to accept the risk or not - but it sounds like the insurance companies want to usurp that choice. The drug Dave took had side effects he experienced them and determined that he did not want to suffer that risk. Doctors give advice, people consider the pluses and minuses of that advice and decide whether to take it.

I suppose the political issue is that people want to decide which insurance company is going to tell them how to run their lives.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I suppose the insurance companies haven't heard of the practice in medical treatment called informed consent. All of the medications list some potential side effects. After having been advised of this risk, the patient has the choice to accept the risk or not - but it sounds like the insurance companies want to usurp that choice. The drug Dave took had side effects he experienced them and determined that he did not want to suffer that risk. Doctors give advice, people consider the pluses and minuses of that advice and decide whether to take it.

I suppose the political issue is that people want to decide which insurance company is going to tell them how to run their lives.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yep, the GOP campaigned on the notion of not allowing anyone between you and your doctor (except, of course, for an insurance company if it sees an opportunity to increase profits) - profits panels, as it were.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I suppose the insurance companies haven't heard of the practice in medical treatment called informed consent.

I'm sure they have heard of such things. I'm sure that they've heard the phrase "talk to your doctor" on all those "big Pharma" commercials when they cover the list of side effects ad infinitum. Such language also accompanies the information that I receive with prescriptions that I fill.

This isn't about "control". Its about reasonable expectations and responsibility. Its not unreasonable for an individual to contact their doc if a script has a side effect. This allows the doc to address the issues and prescribe and alternative as needed. It also should not be the responsibility of the insurance carrier if an individual stops treating, to their own detriment, and then expect their insurance to pick up the tab later when their condition worsens.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yep, the GOP campaigned on the notion of not allowing anyone between you and your doctor (except, of course, for an insurance company if it sees an opportunity to increase profits) - profits panels, as it were.

Seems to me that most GOP folks are anti-abortion, is that not getting between a woman and her doctor?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm sure they have heard of such things. I'm sure that they've heard the phrase "talk to your doctor" on all those "big Pharma" commercials when they cover the list of side effects ad infinitum. Such language also accompanies the information that I receive with prescriptions that I fill.

This isn't about "control". Its about reasonable expectations and responsibility. Its not unreasonable for an individual to contact their doc if a script has a side effect. This allows the doc to address the issues and prescribe and alternative as needed. It also should not be the responsibility of the insurance carrier if an individual stops treating, to their own detriment, and then expect their insurance to pick up the tab later when their condition worsens.

I love the bit where they say "Be sure to tell your doctor what medications you are taking." If your doctor does not know I suggest you find another doctor.

Or the part where they say "Known side effects include stroke, heart attack and even death, if this occurs consult your doctor." Maybe, if your doc knows a good spirit medium.

So just what does a person do when all of the variants have side effects and this person experiencesthem for every one?

[BlueStreak]

Okay, man. So, when you demonstrate to your physician that you no longer need the ungodly expensive crap he is selling you, then he hands you a piece of paper telling you you'll resume taking it or it will cost you even more-------That's not an attempt at "control"? Or, at the very least pressuring you to keep on taking it anyways?

Dude, I don't know how many people are on some form of statin in this country, but I'd bet it's huge. I wonder how that number relates to other "developed" nations? And I imagine there is giant money in it.

Most of all----I wonder how many of those people really need the stuff?

We market and sell pharmaceuticals like it's candy.

I forget what drug it was, but I almost fell out of my chair watching a pharmaceutical ad last night. It took them at least six times as long to list the possible side-effects as it did to describe what the stuff is supposed to do for you.

"Ask your doctor about _____, it'll cure your RNS---Restless Nostril Syndrome. The possible side effects are drowsiness, vomiting, explosive diarrhea, uncontrollable twitching and screaming, stomach cancer, dementia, spousal abuse, nightmares, suicide risk, irrational fear of tomatos, inability to operate a can opener, kidney failure, halotosis, trench foot, agoraphobia, aracniphobia, xenophobia, sudden outbreak of shingles, hives, acne, genital warts and hair loss. Some patients also reported an oily discharge from the rectum and an irrepressible desire to move to Youngstown, Ohios East End and take up residence in a crackhouse. If any combination of, or all of these symptoms occur consult with your physician."

Humor aside; What are people supposed to think?

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

I'm sure they have heard of such things. I'm sure that they've heard the phrase "talk to your doctor" on all those "big Pharma" commercials when they cover the list of side effects ad infinitum. Such language also accompanies the information that I receive with prescriptions that I fill.

This isn't about "control". Its about reasonable expectations and responsibility. Its not unreasonable for an individual to contact their doc if a script has a side effect. This allows the doc to address the issues and prescribe and alternative as needed. It also should not be the responsibility of the insurance carrier if an individual stops treating, to their own detriment, and then expect their insurance to pick up the tab later when their condition worsens.

No you missed the point. It's up to the individual to determine whether to accept the treatment that is offered. If the individual makes that choice - that he doesn't want to accept that level of risk - does he then abandon his right to any further treatment, or even to the same treatment if he later reaches the conclusion that the risk of side effects is more acceptable than the condition? Perhaps the patient decides to try to improve the condition with diet and exercise. Isn't that the type of conservative treatment option that insurance companies promote/require? Should the patient then be punished if the conservative option doesn't work?

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I forget what drug it was, but I almost fell out of my chair watching a pharmaceutical ad last night. It took them at least six times as long to list the possible side-effects as it did to describe what the stuff is supposed to do for you.

"Ask your doctor about _____, it'll cure your RNS---Restless Nostril Syndrome. The possible side effects are drowsiness, vomiting, explosive diarrhea, uncontrollable twitching and screaming, stomach cancer, dementia, spousal abuse, nightmares, suicide risk, irrational fear of tomatos, inability to operate a can opener, kidney failure, halotosis, trench foot, agoraphobia, aracniphobia, xenophobia, sudden outbreak of shingles, hives, acne, genital warts and hair loss. Some patients also reported an oily discharge from the rectum and an irrepressible desire to move to Youngstown, Ohios East End and take up residence in a crackhouse. If any combination of, or all of these symptoms occur consult with your physician."

Humor aside; What are people supposed to think?

Dave

Out through the night
An the whisperin' breezes
To the place where they keep
The imaginary diseases

. . . .

You got stink foot! stink foot, darlin
Your stink foot puts a hurt on my nose!
Stink foot! stink foot! I aint lyin,
Can you rinse it off, dyou suppose?

Regards,

D-Ray