CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23859
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Would you then support euthenasia?


No. I never have and never will.


Interesting.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20864
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:44 pm
 


Gunnair wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Would you then support euthenasia?


No. I never have and never will.


Interesting.

Pay 93K or die painfully.

Mmmmm, freedom.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23859
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:53 pm
 


Mr_Canada wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:

No. I never have and never will.


Interesting.

Pay 93K or die painfully.

Mmmmm, freedom.


Well I think it's more, if you can't or won't pay the 93,000, the state expects you to linger on as best you can. You have no freedom to end your dependence, suffering, and anguish even when there is no hope.

Very curious attitude from a people who's majority religious belief says there is a good chance of ever lasting happiness (if you were good) when you die. Can't have that happiness begin a bit earlier though, for some reason.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20864
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:08 pm
 


Gunnair wrote:
Mr_Canada wrote:
Gunnair wrote:
Interesting.

Pay 93K or die painfully.

Mmmmm, freedom.


Well I think it's more, if you can't or won't pay the 93,000, the state expects you to linger on as best you can. You have no freedom to end your dependence, suffering, and anguish even when there is no hope.

Very curious attitude from a people who's majority religious belief says there is a good chance of ever lasting happiness (if you were good) when you die. Can't have that happiness begin a bit earlier though, for some reason.

I agree. I find it awfully irritating that this belief is the practice in or society.

This very week, I heard that a patient my mom worked with for years and years is dying. He's mentally challenged and unable to speak. He's in a sort of unconscious state but he can feel. Well, he's drowning. He vomited and breathed it all in. Very little pockets of air remain in his lungs. His desperate coughs that are trying to force out what will not come out are depressing cries. Tears rolling down his cheeks, the poor lad so confused and hurt. This poor kid (he's actually around 35) had no option for a peaceful dismissal. They forced air into his lungs and had/have plans for keeping him alive... as a brain dead vegetable. Pumping air into him, because we're supposed to care more about the figmentation of life then a peaceful death for our loved ones.

He drowned to death a two days ago. Very painfully, very violently.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY HE AND OTHERS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 9953
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:53 pm
 


Cause no one wants to draw the line MrC. No one has the guts or wants to take responsibility for deciding when to stop trying to save the life. I agree that in your Moms friends case, the line sure seems to have been crossed, but who is going to make the call? I don't know if I could. Our society is unwilling to set guidelines as to when the preservation of life is worse than dieing for the patient. It also opens up a can of worms with families and loved ones too, some would want them not to suffer, others wouldn't be able to let them go at any time. Touchy subject.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42402
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:57 pm
 


I shelled out $ 2000 yesterday for one injection. I figured it was fairly important.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 883
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:44 pm
 


What was it? A Hep-C, HPV or one of the other incurable nasties that we're to polite to stamp out? Or was it Small pox or polio or one of the big bads that threatens to return from the grave?

If it was a Flu vaccine I'll laugh at you though.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15055
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:48 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Scape wrote:
Please, how many bankruptcies were filed in the US today for medical reasons again?


Something that typically speaks to insurance reform, not a government takeover of an entire sector of the economy.

Does everything have to be a communist plot to you? Pot, this is the kettle: you're black! The US doesn't have the high ground here. An economic slave is still a slave.

BartSimpson wrote:
Scape wrote:
The US debt load for both personal and government is at criminal levels and is retarding the economy.


I agree. So why should the government add another $1 trillion a year in debt to pay for this system?

The current ginned up logic is to have the foxes run the hen house because there is practically no system at all in place as it is. Just guild lines that the insurance industry will either ignore outright and pay a small fine or deliberately undermine. 'Spirit' of the law be dammed profits come 1st!

BartSimpson wrote:
Scape wrote:
The private insurance industry and big pharma are out of control and are doing more harm then good. It is a byproduct of the system they are exploiting rather then by good design and policy that is creating new patents.


I disagree...to a point. Private insurance and the pharma industry are what they are as a result of (mostly good) government regulations. Drugs are expensive because of the massive investment required to bring them to market and the risks in doing so are huge. Thalidomide, anyone? That said, the rewards must be in proportion to the risks or else there won't be any investment in new drugs. Period.



Let's take a look at where the rubber meets the road shall we? Heard about AVANDIA?

Avandia, Diabetes Drug Restricted by FDA, Banned in Europe and UAE

Quote:
Studies have indicated that over 47,000 patients using Avnadia may have experienced a heart attack or stroke from the drug in just the last decade alone. When questioned, Dr. David Graham, who is a senior drug examiner for the FDA, stated, “There was no reason for the agency to keep the risky diabetes drug on the market, now that another drug Actos, which is in the same class, but much safer, compared to the Avandia.”

In 2009, sales of Avandia totaled $1.2 billion worldwide, and have been down considerably after news spread of the possible side effects which can also include bone fractures, eye damage and hepatoxicity. In July GlaxoSmithKline paid out $460 million as a settlement to over 10,000 cases against it for the drug. Billions of dollars more could be rewarded to victims and victim’s families who used the drug over the last decade.


Canada weighs tighter rules on Avandia diabetes drug

Quote:
In Canada, more than one million prescriptions for Avandia were dispensed in 2005, according to IMS Health Canada, a company that monitors the pharmaceutical market. By 2009, that number had slipped to just under 580,000, reflecting negative news reports about the drug.


Doctors Silent on Risks

Quote:
The FDA decided Avandia could not be administered without the doctor trying less risky treatments: Meeting with the patient to discuss the risks and then the patient agreeing in writing to accept the risks.


...

Last June, I wrote a blog entitled It's Time for NICE where I discussed the need for a UK-like oversight organization (i.e., National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) to provide comparable risk profiles for treatment regimens as well as guidance on the most cost-effective medical solutions. This seems to me to be the best way to provide medical weight-of-evidence reports that both doctors and patients can rely on with confidence.

I can see the conservatives in the audience complaining about bigger government. To those I point out that over 50% of our national health bill is associated with 12 diseases (see graph) representing just over $500 Billion per year.


IT'S STILL ON THE MARKET. Are the regulators of the FDA arms length from the industry they are supposed to regulate or are the appendages of that industry?

BartSimpson wrote:
That's the thing about the US Constitution: while the government can prohibit an action, it cannot compel an action. A business has the right to stop doing business. That's what Obama is up against. If he and the Democrats make it unprofitable to be in the healthcare business the investors will move their money elsewhere and then the government can run hospitals, clinics, medical schools, and pharmacy and medical supply to their heart's content. But they cannot order anyone to do business in any segment of the market because they can always choose not to do business at all.


Unless he bites the bullet and provides the public option once and for all. Then the private industry can charge and do what ever they want, the people will then have a choice between the public or private option rather then no coverage at all or cover that is inadequate for most and dependent upon the employer. A rug that can be pulled out from under your feet on a moment notice regardless of how many years you played into the plan.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42402
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:04 pm
 


Dragom wrote:
What was it? A Hep-C, HPV or one of the other incurable nasties that we're to polite to stamp out? Or was it Small pox or polio or one of the big bads that threatens to return from the grave?

If it was a Flu vaccine I'll laugh at you though.

There is no shot for Hep C genius. It was ranibizumab (Lucentis), so chuckle away numb nuts. Unlike you, I went past highschool, and I'm able to make informed descisions about my health and I'm easily able to afford a second tier of care.

Quote:
“There was no reason for the agency to keep the risky diabetes drug on the market, now that another drug Actos, which is in the same class, but much safer, compared to the Avandia.”


I find it interesting that these drugs do more good to more people than they ever harm. The same thing happened to Resulin(Troglitazone) a few years back. A tiny percentage of the people taking the drug suffered liver problems and in a few cases liver failure.

However, most people taking the drug benefitted from it, just like Avandia. Now, I like many others suffer an allergy to penicillin, in my case it almost killed me. Should this drug be banned because it isn't until someone is administered it that an allergy can be detected. Fuck everybody else whose life it saved. It's the same reasoning.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 883
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:11 pm
 


ShepherdsDog wrote:
Dragom wrote:
What was it? A Hep-C, HPV or one of the other incurable nasties that we're to polite to stamp out? Or was it Small pox or polio or one of the big bads that threatens to return from the grave?

If it was a Flu vaccine I'll laugh at you though.

There is no shot for Hep C genius. It was ranibizumab (Lucentis), so chuckle away numb nuts. Unlike you, I went past highschool, and I'm able to make informed descisions about my health and I'm easily able to afford a second tier of care.


Oh thats right, it's a mix A/B shot isn't it? It's just that I'm always thinking of C.

And ow. I've never heard of macular degeneration.

But they didn't teach me about it in that Electronics Technician course I took. Should I ask for my money back?


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8767
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:18 pm
 


Gee Bart, you're commie plot is right on. That's exactly what I'd do.
Nice patent, guy. Have a fucking medal. You're a national hero.
We'll be producing the drug now in a gov't lab for $1.50.
Tough luck, national security isn't just protecting a few people's wallets.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6651
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:32 am
 


Any medical proffesional is sworn by oath to preserve life, and it should be kept that way.

However, I don't understand why it isn't allowed that health centres don't have personelle who, while closely affiliated to medical practice, aren't actually medical practicionrs, and at the end of the day can be the one's who perform the action of "pulling the plug" should it be requested by the victim, victims family, or deemed required.

I've been lucky enough to not have many close family members die. Only one that died was my grandfather, who withered away due to a long term lung ailment (think it was emphasema). While, as a kid, I wanted him to press on and hoped for a cure, there was none. And it would have been better for him to die when he was happy and still relatively healthy. He never specifically said he wanted to die, but we all knew it coming closer to the end.

As for cancer, my Dad just recently beat it. It was a fairly common cancer, and was easily treated. While I don't know the costs, I don't really care what they are, cause I'm happy he's going to still be kicking around for atleast a few more years.

Now, if it was not treatable, I'd still press for every meathod possible to be applied to extend a life of quality and stop the hurt from it, regardless of cost. But this is assuming he'd get a significant chunk of extra life out of it, and that he'd be healthier after. It's hard to put a price on life, but it is possible to put a price on prolonged suffering. No one deserves to suffer, be it the patient or their family members. But any drug or treatment that costs more than a months paycheque per extra month of prolonged, bed-ridden life it gives is not worth coughing the dough up for. A drug that extends life aswell as improves quality of life is. Even if it is only an extra month, but for that extra month that person is healthy enough to get out to see, do, and experiance things one last time before they pass, bid everyone they care for a final farewell, then it's worth the price.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 73
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:53 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Math is not your strong suit, eh?


As reading isn't your strong suit, <i>eh</i>?

I linked you to plenty of articles that debunk your theory. But whatever, continue with the status quo, just hope you aren't ever on the hook for a $93,000 treatment that could cost a fraction of that with a little reform. I understand what a loss is, what I am trying to point out is that argument is a myth.

The government has <i>already</i> monopolized drug development. It's call a patent, that is nothing more than a government granted monopoly. I am arguing for the exact opposite of that, and I'm not pretending it makes economic sense, a noble prize winning economist is. I guess you'd know better than he would right? After all you comment on a forum, certified expert here.

Oh, the US has been working on patent reform for the better part of a year and a half. That won't ever change either though right?


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 769
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:54 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Prof_Chomsky wrote:
Sorry but that 1.5B and 7-10 years figure was pulled straight out of the same place most stats are - thin air.


Actually, it is rather common knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development


Prof_Chomsky wrote:
Same goes for this completely made up rubbish
Quote:
One of Obama's apparatchiks in his health care committee said something about an "obligation to die" for older people. Maybe you need to apply for a job with Obama.


With that cleared up, I don't claim to be an ethicist and therefore won't speak on this topic too much. Money and human lives shouldn't be compared.


The comment was “Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way” and it was uttered by Richard Lamm who worked on both the 1993 Health Care proposal and the current health care law.


So, no you are not an ethicist and you are also not a fact checker. [B-o]



Funny, your own "proof" link disputes your own numbers, and has several awesome links to pharmaceutical company produced lobbyist 'facts'. Both of which claim the cost is either as much as 800 million, or as much as 2 billion (small margin of error)... both of which are crap. I also like the last part of YOUR link:
"The development cost of the thousands of other drugs are much smaller. The $800 million quoted include the cost of all drug development which did not result in a new drug. It also includes some $400 million of opportunity costs". i.e. most drugs cost FAR less. And even their wildly inflated 800 million figure includes "money I may have made if I had invested elsewhere". lol. I may have made 10 million dollars if I just bought a magazine from publisher's clearinghouse.

They also leave out the rest of the picture on pharmaceudical profits. Ever wonder why Canada gets the exact same drugs you get in California for less than half the price? Cause we told them to stick their rediculous profit margins up their arses... yet the drugs still keep being created cause it's still lucrative as hell. You may also want to see where most new drug funding comes from - government and universities - both publically owned.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Martin15 and 19 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.