Obama & Healthcare

[saveferris2009]

If you don't have health insurance in the US, Vertex will give you the medication under their assistance program. If your co-pay is too high when you have health insurance, Vertex will give you the med as well. We just have free market solutions (aka not under government decree) to such issues. The company will subsidize the medication, as well as the CFF - neither are government entities.
Something that many people don't mention is how much private foundations as well as the drug manufacturers themselves give away no cost or low cost medications to those who are uninsured or under insured.
I rarely hear of a CFer who can't get a hold of Pulmozyme, the Vest, digestive enzymes, or any other key CF medication due to being uninsured or underinsured. There is always a foundation or company program that will give access to the medication.

 

[Allansarmy]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><em>Originally posted by: <strong>Anomie</strong></em> I like medicaid the way it is right now. We get everything prescribed to us and don't pay a single cent for it. Haven't seen a single bill for the 3 week hospital stay from when my daughter was diagnosed last fall. I'm on medicaid now too and all of my prescriptions are free and there is no co-pays for doctor office visits. I do like the thing Obama did where he got rid of the waiting period for pre-existing conditions and I'm not sure our nationalized healthcare would be exactly socialist. There will still be the option for private coverage. You'll just have to pay a fine for not having coverage. I think things work really good now though. I've never heard of any body being denied medical care for lack of insurance and usually if you can't pay your medical bills, there will be assistance available to you in the form of a charity to step in and pick up the tab. I hear you on Ron Paul though. I like his libertarian style. Just not sure if he's really a candidate anymore. It seems all you hear about these days is Romney and Santorum which means 4 more years of war in the middle east.</end quote>

I don't want to sound or come off rude here and I am being very sincere that I am very glad that you do not have to pay a dime for your medications and your daughters meds / hospital visits.
Unfortunately, I like many others, fall in that gap or bubble if you will where I make too much money for Medicaid and too much money for CIDC. Although me working as a medical technician in a doctors office and my wife working retail we are barely scraping by living pay check to pay check supporting 5 people, and yet our medical bills are stacking higher and higher. We have healthcare insurance its just we have very high deductibles of over $5,000 and monthly premiums are eating us alive! Everytime my son goes into the hospital..... sorry I am just going on and on over my problems with medical dept and no one really wants to hear this. But I have not heard of any "charity to step in and pick up the tab" on my medical bills, instead I get calls usually every week telling me to pay on my 20k "tab".
But I am glad that you never have to worry about medical bills.

 

[Allansarmy]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><em>Originally posted by: <strong>saveferris2009</strong></em> If you don't have health insurance in the US, Vertex will give you the medication under their assistance program. If your co-pay is too high when you have health insurance, Vertex will give you the med as well. We just have free market solutions (aka not under government decree) to such issues. The company will subsidize the medication, as well as the CFF - neither are government entities. Something that many people don't mention is how much private foundations as well as the drug manufacturers themselves give away no cost or low cost medications to those who are uninsured or under insured. I rarely hear of a CFer who can't get a hold of Pulmozyme, the Vest, digestive enzymes, or any other key CF medication due to being uninsured or underinsured. There is always a foundation or company program that will give access to the medication. </end quote>

Well said, my son's medications have never been an issue (Tobi, Pulmozyme, enzymes). One thing my insurance will not cover is the Nutren 2.0 for my son's feeding tube. I made the mistake of having the doctor order this through the CFservicespharmacy and they sent it to my house within 3 days of the order, Sounds Sweet huh? But what they didn't tell me was that my insurance does not pay for this and they now are billing me for over $2,500 for 4 cases. First, this is damn right extortion as I could have bought these from an online store for $55 a case but since it was a "Prescription" they are allowed to charge more? They will not take them back as well as it is against health regulations. BAH! Sorry I digress.

Also about <em>The Vest, </em>Its available for sure. Key word "available" but its covered under my Aetna insurance lovely DME which is terrible to say the least with high deductibles etc.

 

[saveferris2009]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>Allansarmy</b></i> <div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><i>Originally posted by: <b>saveferris2009</b></i> If you don't have health insurance in the US, Vertex will give you the medication under their assistance program. If your co-pay is too high when you have health insurance, Vertex will give you the med as well. We just have free market solutions (aka not under government decree) to such issues. The company will subsidize the medication, as well as the CFF - neither are government entities. Something that many people don't mention is how much private foundations as well as the drug manufacturers themselves give away no cost or low cost medications to those who are uninsured or under insured. I rarely hear of a CFer who can't get a hold of Pulmozyme, the Vest, digestive enzymes, or any other key CF medication due to being uninsured or underinsured. There is always a foundation or company program that will give access to the medication. </end quote> Well said, my son's medications have never been an issue (Tobi, Pulmozyme, enzymes). However, my son does the VEST and the vest we have at home is literally 12 years old and weighs 80 pounds (some know this one) and is not working all that great. Unfortunately the doctor wrote the RX for this and it falls under my DME which I am responsible for 20% of the cost, don't think I need to tell you how much these run. Does anyone know of a company that helps with the cost? .</end quote>


Have you called Respirtech? Better device and I would imagine they would help you with cost.

 

[Allansarmy]

</end quote> Have you called Respirtech? Better device and I would imagine they would help you with cost.</end quote>

Have not but I will look into this. Thank you.

 

[musclemania70]

Once again, people can have private insurance, a good job and STILL have trouble keeping up with all the costs that the employer won't pay toward the insurance. There is still high deductibles and co-insurances (not including the premiums) that can drain anyone's budget no matter how frugal you are.

I can understand why these people would want a public option that would hopefully cover these costs. Private insurance can be great if you have the dough to fork over for premiums, deductibles and co-insurances.
Not everyone has access to a cadillac insurance plan or choice of job location to satisfy their health needs.

 

[Hardak]

Well said Cindylou, I for one don't fear socialized healthcare. Sure nobody wants to hear "no" to the request of "hay I want/need this" its a kin to telling somebody go home and die, nobody wants to hear that or say that to some one. But it happens daily just right now its mostly based on your wallet. Sadly I don't have the link but my mother was telling me a week or two ago about life expectancy of CF patients broken down by country and those living in socialized healthcare systems typically lived longer from what I was told. Been looking for the article my mom read this in but haven't been able to find it my self so I can't give a link.

 

[Cesco]

I just wanted to point out a thing. To saveferris: it is false that pure earnings provide motivation to researchers to develope new drugs. Pure earnings provide motivation to shareholders in order to pay salaries to researchers to develope new drugs. Hundred thousand of freelance researcher, or just those who work in what you would call "socialized" system like Europe's poor and scarce research facilities, manage about the same if not better results in terms of scientific research. They are not less smart, and overall they tend to have better formation. The only problem is, state entities are literally strangulated by free market and cannot fund their research projects. I suggest you (and everybody who cares about his future - and we people that cannot stand by ourselves should be the most conscious ones) to watch "Zeitgeist - moving forward, the 3rd first, the 1st and 2nd too then, if you haven't already. On a side note, Sweden's cystic fibrosis approach is said to be the best and the one that gives higher life expectancy, and if I was to point a model of european healthcare system I'd refer to scandinavian countries: the idea is that, more or less, the whole of europe would have the same as them; the truth is that right now just them and few countries of the northern europe can fund properly their healthcare system. Spain, where I lived, had untill two years ago one of the best healthcare systems in EU, english people used to organize "health journeys" to Spain considering its system even better than the UK's one. Now, always due to the speculative attack by free markets (watch Zeitgeist 3) we started to cut the spent for healthcare: it is causing both some lack of coverage, but at least also a good improvement in efficiency. One thing that is true is that a system like this, if left without control, may become wasteful. But that's a cultural problem.

 

[CyrilCrodius]

Unwarranted American patriotism is like nails on a blackboard to me. Especially when it comes to health care and economy. So are people who cannot make the difference between a concept and its implementation. If my washing machine sucks because it's designed in a way that clothes are difficult to put in and take out, I don't go and make a blanket statement saying that washing machines suck. I say that THIS particular washing machine sucks. If my cellphone has a short battery life and keeps freezing, I don't go and make a blanket statement like an idiot saying that cellphones suck. I say that THIS particular cellphone sucks. The same goes for everything that is a system (Definition : "A set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole").Some things may suck in socialized health care in country X while those same things do not suck in socialized country Y, because country Y has done something to fix it, while country X hasn't.Don't blame a concept, blame it's shitty implementation.People don't seem to realize that health care and drug plans are two different things, no matter what country you are looking at.Because you have "socialized health care" doesn't mean that the drugs you take at home are going to be paid for by the government.Socialized health care means public paid hospital stays (including drugs given to you while you are in hospital), surgeries and professional services. Nothing more. This, I think, should be a given for any developed country.From that point, all concerns about having coverage or not for a drug under socialized health care are invalid, because it's irrelevant to socialized health care.Taking Canada as an example, health care is taken care of on the federal level, while public drug plans are taken care of on the provincial level. Some provinces have better public plans than others. For example, I had no problem having Tobi Podhaler and Pulmozym covered by the public plan in Quebec as "exceptional medication", whereas B-C's public plan (and I think it's the case for other provinces too) won't cover Tobi Podhaler.
Don't blame the CONCEPT, blame its IMPLEMENTATION.
In every case, you can still get a private insurance if the public plan denies you coverage for a drug. I think it's the same in France and Australia. The cool thing here is that private insurance companies are forced to cover at least the same drugs as the public plan covers. Then it is up to them whether or not they cover "exceptional medication" like Pulmozym or Tobi Podhaler.I have never heard of anyone being refused coverage for a drug here. Even vitamins are covered because CFers are a special case where vitamin supplements are required to stay healthy. Hey, even my 3 Boost (nutritional drinks) a day are covered by the public plan.If some public drug plan in some country doesn't cover important drugs for CF like Pulmozym, blame the implementation, not the fact that it's a public drug plan. Doing that is totally dumb.<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><em>Originally posted by: <strong>saveferris2009</strong></em> I'm curious if ppl in the US correlate American access to medications such as Kalydeco (how many threads do we have on this board about no access to Kaly in Australia, Canada), certain enzymes such as Zenpep, HFCC (aka the Vest) and many other life-altering/extending devices/medications.</end quote>You are mixing up ACCESS and COVERAGE. There is a HUGE difference between both.ACCESS has NOTHING to do with whether your health care system is privatized or socialized. It has to do with laws put in place by governments to protect people from using drugs that would either have no effect or harm them and to allow access to some drugs in some special cases anyway.
All developed countries have such legislation, that regulates drug sale (requiring drugs to be approved for sale, depending on their safety and efficacy) and have some kind of special program to allow special access to drugs which have not yet been approved, or proven to be safe or efficient, for special conditions. Those programs are called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_patient_programs">Named Patient Programs</a><a href="http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/AccesstoInvestigationalDrugs/ucm176098.htm">See US's Named Patient Program "Expanded Access"</a>. It says : "<em>FDA regulations allow access to investigational drugs for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for an individual patient, or for intermediate-size groups of patients with similar treatment needs who otherwise do not qualify to participate in a clinical trial. They also permit expanded access for large groups of patients who do not have other treatment options available, once more is known about the safety and potential effectiveness of a drug from ongoing or completed clinical trials. </em><em>[...]</em><em>In order for a patient to gain access to an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial, the patient must have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition and no comparable or satisfactory therapeutic alternatives. Additionally, the drug manufacturer and the patient’s doctor must make special arrangements to obtain the drug for the patient. These arrangements must be authorized by the FDA. These safeguards are in place to avoid exposing patients to unnecessary risks.</em>"What makes it easier to have ACCESS to Kalydeco in the US is that the FDA doesn't step in to ask about mutations and the condition of the patient, hence why drugs on trial can be prescribed off-label as soon as they have been proven to be safe. In other countries, such as Australia or Canada, the government is stricter and steps in, requiring evidence that a patient would indeed benefit from a drug and that the patient is really in a state that would justify taking the risk of not waiting for trials to be completed before allowing access to the drug. In the case of Kalydeco, it means no possibility of getting it off-label because no evidence exists that it's effective for mutations other than<span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}">G551D, which does not exist. Again, it has NOTHING to do with COVERAGE. It's all about risks and benefits and protecting the people. It's dumb in the case of Kalydeco, but I'm pretty sure it prevented harm to be done with many other drugs. The point is, how hard a government tries to protect its people from bad drugs or drug misuse and how lax they are about "special cases" has nothing to do with whether your health care system is public or private.

 

[CyrilCrodius]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><em>Originally posted by: <strong>saveferris2009</strong></em> We are so many biotech companies in the US? Why does so much drug development occur here? Why are clinical trials conducted here? Has anyone wondered the reasons to all of these questions? Why doesn't Europe have a vibrant biotech community with the likes of Gilead, Vertex, Genentech inventing our medications such as Cayston, Kalydeco, Pulmozyme.</end quote> Simple. You will get your answer in history and in a simple principle : Brains attract other brains. Companies that need to do research and development go where there is knowledge. Actually no, they SPROUT where there is knowledge, because companies start from an idea or a discovery, not from money. Why do most things related to technology in America happen in silicon valley? Because that's where it started. Standford University. Hewlett-Packard. That's where the microprocessor was invented. Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook? Silicon valley. I want to create a technology company? I go to silicon valley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley It is the same for other areas of science. In the 19th and 20th century, brains (read here : scientists, knowledgeable people) moved to the United States because of all the opportunities it offered in science and research, thanks to its rapid growth. Yet, until WWII, Europe was the still the center of science research. WWII changed that. Basically, you owe your scientific leadership to the destruction of Germany and other parts of Europe due to WWII and also to the Cold War. Had they not happened, you would probably still be behind Europe. I suggest that you read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_United_States Today, if you want to do research, you will have much more success and resources if you go where the knowledge is. In the case of drug companies, you also have to go where the investors are because yes, R&D costs money. That makes the United States a damn good candidate. As for biotech, it's the same thing. Biotech is young, biotech companies are in the United States because that's where the knowledge is. There is a Wiki page about the history of biotechnology too. <div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote><em>Originally posted by: <strong>saveferris2009</strong></em> Again, I ask - why are there no biotech firms outside of the US? You agree that US profits subsidize R&D for the rest of the world, but at what cost? DO you have CF? Are you over age 5? Because for all of human history (thousands of years), except for the past 50, your fate was death before 5 years most likely. Do you consider your life a cost to society? Do you know how much scientists' salaries cost to conduct this research? How about conducting a clinical trial - ask the CFF how much it costs to conduct a clinical trial on a medication in order ot get FDA approval. Can you quote how much it costs for a company to submit a new drug application to the FDA? Or how much it costs to fly experts, scientists and other members of the medical community to FDA HQ to discuss the merits of a drug prior to approval? The vast majority of drugs aren't even marketed. Drug development estimates don't take in to account post-approval marketing. The 1 billion plus it takes to discover a drug and bring it to market has nothing to do with marketing - the expense is the R&D, clinical trials, regulatory discussions, etc. 1 in 100 drugs that is discovered makes it to the market. YOu have to provide some sort of incentive to a person or a company to take this huge risk to develop a drug. If there's no monetary reward, companies won't take the risk of investing billions in R&D and POOF! you won't have new drugs, antibiotics, CF potentiators, etc etc to improve your health. </end quote> There is no denying that research and development costs 16 arms and legs. However, you should know that companies receive research grants from the government when they do research on drugs for diseases that are not widespread. You should also know that generics are much more expensive here in Canada than they are in the United States, so companies can make money on that. You should also know that there is a financial benefit in lowering the price of a drug so more people can afford it. You should also know that there are many non-profit organizations that do research. For example, the Toronto Adult Cystic Fibrosis Centre does a lot of research that is funded by donations and grants. They do the kind of research that no one would do in a private funded system because it's not lucrative. You should also know that money doesn't drive innovation, it allows it. What drives innovation is innovation itself. Humans have a basic drive to discover things and make things better, innovate, for the sake of it, just because discovering and inventing new things is thrilling. You know, the scientific mind, curiosity. Those who had curiosity as a pure motive are those who have made the greatest discoveries. You cannot deny that. Einstein, Tesla, Franklin...
How many innovations do you think have not seen the light of the day or have even been killed because there wasn't enough money to be made out of them, even though they were a thousand times better for everyone than the less-innovative solutions for which they were dropped because they would bring in more money? Many.Lack of money and money-based motives hinder innovation. However, money does NOT drive innovation. It is a HUGE difference. Money allows researchers and scientists to follow their drive to innovate. That's all it does. In this way, investors are enablers. Unfortunately, most will only enable what will make them make money. Can't blame them, but the point is, money is not an incentive for innovation. At all. It is an incentive to FUND innovation and pretty much determines which innovations will be funded and not. Again, huge difference. .... and all of this has nothing to do with whether your health care system is privatized or socialized. You might have a point about subsidizing the cost of research and development, yet, Switzerland plays a pretty good part in the drug industry and they have... dun dun dun! Socialized medicine and public drug plans. Health is also an area where everyone would benefit from SHARING knowledge as opposed to keeping it secret to keep a competitive edge. Adopting an open source mentality to research and development would likely spur research and improve the rate by which discoveries and innovations are made by a lot. But yes, research costs money...

 

[musclemania70]

Allll righty then. This issue is not to be taken lightly.

 

[jacobus]

Here, here CyrilCrodius!