Health Care

[wesfau2]

But it is still a choice. Which doctor, or which drug.

I'm not suggesting that today's system is terrible, per se.  Only that it can be improved.  And that "choice" under this system is limited in most cases, illusory in the rest.

[Kaos]

Or de-regulation.

Bing-FUCKING-o. 

You're not going to get better and more affordable care by inviting more government involvement. 

[Saniflush]

Did he, though?

Or did he steer me toward a drug whose manufacturer will send him to Hawaii in December?

I don't know.

Slow that roll boss, for a change I actually have something somewhat informed to add here.

The skirt is a medical liaison in the oncology division for one of the largest pharms in the world and I cannot begin to explain to you how little the greasing of palms happens on that end.  There are MASSIVE amounts of regulations that preclude it from happening that dole out not only harsh consequences for the company but also to the medical provider any type of shenanigans like that.

I certainly am not saying that it doesn't happen cause there are always ways to slip a dinner in here and there but by and large it does not because the consequences are way too steep on both sides. 

What I do see happen is that different doctors subscribe to different treatment profiles.  Some subscribe to the drugs, some subscribe to the chemo and radiation, some subscribe to cell therapy, some subscribe to a combination.  It is no different than how people in your own profession will handle a lawsuit.  Some are settle a suit cuase your sleepless nights are their sleepless nights, some are gonna go all in till the end, and some are gonna be somewhere in the middle.  None of them are necessarily more right or wrong than the other as long as it is what your client is trying to accomplish and what your advice because of experience tell you. 

One of the big problems with cancer treatments as you are well aware of is that there is no magic bullet for it at this point.  Depending on where it is, when it is caught, and who has it are all variables that make treatment educated guesses at best.  Add to this that most of the cancers mutate over time and you have a disease that is infinitely harder to treat much less cure. 

[wesfau2]

There are MASSIVE amounts of regulations that preclude it from happening that dole out not only harsh consequences for the company but also to the medical provider any type of shenanigans like that.

Excellent.

What I do see happen is that different doctors subscribe to different treatment profiles.  Some subscribe to the drugs, some subscribe to the chemo and radiation, some subscribe to cell therapy, some subscribe to a combination.  It is no different than how people in your own profession will handle a lawsuit.  Some are settle a suit cuase your sleepless nights are their sleepless nights, some are gonna go all in till the end, and some are gonna be somewhere in the middle.  None of them are necessarily more right or wrong than the other as long as it is what your client is trying to accomplish and what your advice because of experience tell you. 

One of the big problems with cancer treatments as you are well aware of is that there is no magic bullet for it at this point.  Depending on where it is, when it is caught, and who has it are all variables that make treatment educated guesses at best.  Add to this that most of the cancers mutate over time and you have a disease that is infinitely harder to treat much less cure.

Agree with all of this.

[AUChizad]

REGULATIONS!!!

You mistake me. I said earlier that while I tend to favor the "free market" side of the spectrum to the "regulation" side of the spectrum, first of all I'm the one saying we do and should operate in shades of gray, and more specifically I said that these types of issues with the pharmaceutical companies is where I'd start.

[Kaos]

You mistake me. I said earlier that while I tend to favor the "free market" side of the spectrum to the "regulation" side of the spectrum, first of all I'm the one saying we do and should operate in shades of gray, and more specifically I said that these types of issues with the pharmaceutical companies is where I'd start.

Which is fine to a point.   

Note also that this is an entirely different discussion than the whole "free health car for all" dead carcass.

[GH2001]

Or de-regulation.

And this is no "Trump Worship" point by any means, but isn't one of his staple issues to get drug prices DOWN? Via negotiation? Meaning all drugs and treatment used on people.

We apparently have some horrible deals in place and the way they are bidded on, and just LEFT to remain in place. Right now in that climate everyone BUT the consumer is benefitting so nothing has changed.

 He's right in that these kinds of drugs whether it be a head drug or a heart drug or a cancer drug - are much cheaper in other places. The same drugs from the same companies. Sorry but thats gotta stop. That would be a HUGE first step in the right direction.

[GH2001]

No...I "shopped" for the one the doc told me would work.

Information asymmetry.

And thats a "Big Pharma - Doctor - FDA" triangle that needs to be unwoven as well. Too much cahoots.

[GH2001]

Which is fine to a point.   

Note also that this is an entirely different discussion than the whole "free health car for all" dead carcass.

Thats the macro solution to a LOT of micro problems....the one chad pointed out being one of them. You fix a lot of these things, and a solution of single payer may not be talked about as much. Right now, people are desperate. Single Payer just throws more money at a system that has flaws and needs an organic fix at the root level. We fix those things, there isn't as much incentive to demand that free care via single payer.

[AUChizad]

Federally terminate.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/meals-on-wheels-donations-compassionate/

Meals on Wheels' donations, volunteer sign-ups soar after Trump eyes cuts

I can't think of a much better argument for privatisation and the power of the free market than Meals on Wheels making exponentially more in private donations and overhead than the 3% they MIGHT lose from the government.

[GH2001]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/meals-on-wheels-donations-compassionate/
I can't think of a much better argument for privatisation and the power of the free market than Meals on Wheels making exponentially more in private donations and overhead than the 3% they MIGHT lose from the government.

So the federal govt involvement in it is now gone. But the program will somehow live on. And not only survive but apparently grow and thrive. A Win for the taxpayers and limited govt everywhere on this one. I don't see one loser in that end game.

[Kaos]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/meals-on-wheels-donations-compassionate/
I can't think of a much better argument for privatisation and the power of the free market than Meals on Wheels making exponentially more in private donations and overhead than the 3% they MIGHT lose from the government.

Drop a mic.  Or serve an ass platter.  Cmon.  You deserve it.

[CCTAU]

So the federal govt involvement in it is now gone. But the program will somehow live on. And not only survive but apparently grow and thrive. A Win for the taxpayers and limited govt everywhere on this one. I don't see one loser in that end game.

But. But. But, how can I feel good about my tax money if it's not helping po people!