Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (381362)	4/29/2008 8:55:22 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574068

Even when generics are available, insurance companies are under the gun by their customers to get them brand-name medication because, well, they saw the commercials. Plus there is a negative perception of generics that is arguably fostered by Big Pharma. And that doesn't even cover the problem when generics aren't available because the drug maker has the patent. How much should Big Pharma charge in terms of profits for patent exclusivity? It is more than this. Zoloft, for example, conceptually did the same job as Prozac -- of course, Zoloft is more expensive since Prozac is generic. But the reality is that many people find that Zoloft is a better treatment for them, and so it is presumably worth the additional money. The reason new drugs like Zoloft (and its successors) are developed is that they are better treatments for many patients. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of chemo drugs. If you have cancer, you don't want Taxol if Taxotere will do a better job. You don't want to surrender to cancer if you can get Neulasta and keep fighting. And you don't want compazine if Zofran will better control your puking. The idea of "cutting costs" sounds so appealing, but when you cut costs you're going to kill people in the long run. If that is a tradeoff people want to make, that's one thing -- but to have the rug pulled out from under them by liberals who are leading them down the primrose path seems at best unfair and truthfully, unconscionable.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (381362)	4/29/2008 10:21:55 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574068

OK. So get the gov't do bargain with insurance companies. The bottom line is that just because you and I have good jobs with companies that provide good health coverage doesn't mean that every American who doesn't have a job that does shouldn't have means of providing coverage for their family. For example, I am about to retire, so I looked up what it would cost me to get similar health coverage with Blue Cross Blue Shield to what I have today with my company. Right now, I pay about $250 per month to cover my whole family and the coverage is the best you can get. The equivalent with BCBS if I were to buy it as an individual once I retire would be $1,000 per month. WOW! When I first found that out, I had to adjust my anticipated retirement date out a little. So you can see the problem. I'm a top earner and my health coverage costs $3,000 per year. Poorer people than me that want to get equivalent coverage outside of employment would have to pay $12,000 per year. No wonder the deck is stacked against poor people. I know this very un-Republican, but I absolutely do believe we have to even the playing field a bit. If I can get good coverage for my whole family for $3K per year, why isn't it fair that everyone else in this country gets the same opportunity?