![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 29. Go back in thread:
Posted by MidnightBlue on June 13, 2007, at 16:19:17
In reply to A case for deregulation (nm) » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2007, at 15:57:12
I've been there.
Posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2007, at 17:25:29
In reply to Re: A case for deregulation, posted by MidnightBlue on June 13, 2007, at 16:19:17
It's part of the new feudalism, isn't it?
Posted by zenhussy on June 13, 2007, at 18:22:32
In reply to Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!!, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 13, 2007, at 15:47:27
lived it. hard. very. extraordinarily. takes creativity to find ways to stay on necessary meds when financially it is beyond one's means to do so.
not just the seniors on medicare struggling w/ meds.....epidemic level in this country for uninsured and underinsured.
Posted by Iansf on June 13, 2007, at 19:09:56
In reply to A case for deregulation (nm) » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2007, at 15:57:12
I hope you're being sarcastic, not serious. I mean, drug prices aren't regulated.
Posted by linkadge on June 13, 2007, at 19:27:49
In reply to Re: A case for deregulation » Sigismund, posted by Iansf on June 13, 2007, at 19:09:56
Pathetic isn't it. $900 for geodon. They treat the drug as if only the ritch have mental illness.
Drug companies should be ashamed of themselves.
Linkadge
Posted by Sigismund on June 13, 2007, at 20:38:00
In reply to Re: A case for deregulation » Sigismund, posted by Iansf on June 13, 2007, at 19:09:56
I think they (drug prices) are.
That is called patents.
And I wasn't being at all scarcastic or ironic....the flip side of being consumers and clients is that we are a captive market for the companies who make the big money...that's what I meant by the new feudalism.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Quintal on June 13, 2007, at 21:48:59
In reply to Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!!, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 13, 2007, at 15:47:27
$200 for nose steroids? Which one? I just bought a Beconase spray from ASDA for ~£3.50. Also got cheap generic ceterizine tablets for £1.25. Ed says they cost about 20p to buy from the manufacturer.
>250 for antihistamine
Some of that must be service charges surely?
>What do people DO without Rx coverage? this is way more than my rent & food every month. unbelievable.
In the US I don't know. Makes me grateful for the free drugs we get on the NHS. Sometimes there's a standard prescription charge of £6.00 or thereabouts if you're working and can afford it.
Q
Posted by Phillipa on June 13, 2007, at 22:27:11
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Quintal on June 13, 2007, at 21:48:59
Go figure as I'm on Disability an antidepressant is over $200, benzos cheap about $35 a month and lunesta $86 a month not to mention the synthroid been getting free from the endo about to end tomorrow. And my total to live on is 8l7 a month go figure again. And just added some medical insurance at least it pays for the generic of some antidepressant. Love Phillipa
Posted by corn on June 14, 2007, at 6:09:58
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Quintal on June 13, 2007, at 21:48:59
> $200 for nose steroids? Which one? I just bought a Beconase spray from ASDA for ~£3.50. Also got cheap generic ceterizine tablets for £1.25. Ed says they cost about 20p to buy from the manufacturer.
I pay over $80/mo for my *generic* nasal steroid (fluiticasone)--can't breathe without it. The brand is over $100. Not to mention the $152 for 30 days of lunesta.
Posted by Sigismund on June 14, 2007, at 6:24:41
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!!, posted by corn on June 14, 2007, at 6:09:58
Nasal steroids here (Becanase AQ, beclomethasone dipropionate) sell for about A$12 a bottle.
That's 200 sprays, which should cover you for the best part of a month.Not a prescription item.
Posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 6:33:14
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!!, posted by corn on June 14, 2007, at 6:09:58
I'm amazed at the difference in prices - last month I bought Flixonase (a brand-name fluiticasone spray) and it cost me £5.80 ($11.42) from this online retail pharmacy:
http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=FLNS60Beconase is more expensive at this pharmacy, but I bought a bottle off the shelf at ASDA supermarket for about £3.50 ($6.89). The generic ceterizine tablets (a non-sedating antihistamine, usual brand name Zyrtec) I bought there cost me £1.25 ($2.46).
http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=BEHS180Then there's these, the most effective antidepressants I've ever taken. And the cheapest too:
http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=FMPAT32
http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=NUPT32Reading this it's hard not to conclude American medicine is excessively motivated by profit.
Q
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 14, 2007, at 9:51:17
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!!, posted by corn on June 14, 2007, at 6:09:58
Hi corn,
I paid about 200$ US for fluticasone generic (flonase = brand name) I think it has a couple hundred squirts in there, which would probably work out to about 80 bucks a month. The problem is that I put it in my cosmetics or first aid pack and then I travel and forget it, or lose it. I now have 3 barely used bottles. oh well, with a copay of 3 dollars (b/c of generic) It's cheaper for me than a lipstick.-Ll
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 14, 2007, at 10:01:36
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » corn, posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 6:33:14
> Beconase is more expensive at this pharmacy, but I bought a bottle off the shelf at ASDA supermarket for about £3.50 ($6.89). The generic ceterizine tablets (a non-sedating antihistamine, usual brand name Zyrtec) I bought there cost me £1.25 ($2.46).
I think that price would cover about 2 tablets of zyrtec. wow.
> http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=BEHS180
>
> Then there's these, the most effective antidepressants I've ever taken. And the cheapest too:
> http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=FMPAT32
> http://www.pharmacy2u.co.uk/details.asp?productid=NUPT32
>
> Reading this it's hard not to conclude American medicine is excessively motivated by profit.
>
> QI know- it's terrible and really compromises our human rights, that all men are created equal. I think a natural corrolary is that all lives are created equal and deserve the same chance to live.
I used to share a bus stop with a public hospital. I know that the people who got off at the public hospital were pretty poor. They would frequently be physically disabled in their 50's and there is a widely reported discrepancy between black and white americans in survival rates for cancer, heart disease and other major killers.
I remember one time waiting for the bus with a very well-spoken, clean-cut guy, who surprised me by telling me what a pain in the *ss it was to have to go to the public hospital to pick up his Rx, and the agony of having to deal with so many case workers for his bipolar. He told me that he used to have homocidal urges and almost landed on the street many times. Used to drink a LOT, but is doing much better on medication, just doesn't have any health insurance. But at least he had a job and seemed to be fairly satisfied with the rest of his life.
Talk about the socioeconomic disparity in the US. it disgusts me.
Posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 10:26:35
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!!, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 14, 2007, at 10:01:36
It's almost the opposite way around here, too many people are better off when they're sick or unemployed, pregnant or whatever and the hard workers often feel penalized by the high taxes put on their wages to pay for all this. People are complaining that large parts of the country aspire to the 'benefit culture' of idleness, teenage pregnancy (to get a free council flat and child benefit money) and crime - simply because it pays. Many working class people are better off financially when they're unemployed, so some do all they can to stay that way and milk the system. It's a popular theme in sitcoms like "The Royle Family" and "Shameless".
I do prefer the generous state handouts and free health care (I don't know where I'd be without it), but unfortunately it's wide open to abuse which is causing a different type of apathy and neglect.
Is health insurance very expensive? I'm surprised the guy didn't get some if he had a job, but I guess many policies will be reluctant to take on - or place restrictions on a new customer with a serious illness who needs expensive medication?
Q
Posted by Phillipa on June 14, 2007, at 21:31:07
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 10:26:35
Quintal my husband paid $620 a month for health insurance when we were both working. Incredible. Now at least I have medicaire as unable to work and picked up a policy for meds. My last ad luvox and serzone were free and I still have to pay for benzos about $35 a month and lunesta no coverage either $85 a month at CVS. Love Phillipa
Posted by Jedi on June 14, 2007, at 22:36:25
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on June 14, 2007, at 21:31:07
Hi,
Here is a link to the list of medications covered by Walmart's $4 generic med program: (Have to have or download free PDF reader)http://i.walmart.com/i/if/hmp/fusion/genericdruglist.pdf
Not that much on it as far as antidepressants. But some of the common SSRIs and Tricyclics are on the list. Also trazodone is on the list. Maybe I'll try it again for insomnia. Priced Seroquel lately?
Jedi
Posted by Phillipa on June 14, 2007, at 22:53:42
In reply to Walmart's $4 generic drug program, posted by Jedi on June 14, 2007, at 22:36:25
No benzos or new ad's from what I could read small print or lunesta so I'm better off at zero with my medicaire plan at CVS. Thanks though Jedi Love Phillipa
Posted by Iansf on June 15, 2007, at 1:04:25
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 10:26:35
> Is health insurance very expensive? I'm surprised the guy didn't get some if he had a job, but I guess many policies will be reluctant to take on - or place restrictions on a new customer with a serious illness who needs expensive medication?
>
> QThe cost of health insurance in the US depends on age, previous conditions and location. Living in San Francisco and having had cancer, the cheapest policy I could find for myself cost $650 a month. And that was with a $30 co-pay for every doctor's visit, no prescription coverage and a $5,000 deductible, meaning I had to pay $5,000 out of pocket for treatments before my insurance company would pay anything. It's criminal.
Posted by confuzyq on June 15, 2007, at 4:25:47
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » corn, posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 6:33:14
> Reading this it's hard not to conclude American medicine is excessively motivated by profit.
>AFAIK, the explanation for higher US prices for the same drugs is usually that the research etc. on them is/was often funded by US companies. So they 'deserve' to recoup it here. Yeah yeah whatever, I extend them no empathy or belief on such things whatsoever.
Health insurance: Private US policies can turn anyone down from what I know (or -- this part denied but often witnessed to be true -- find ways to eliminate the 'declining' from their membership rosters. Including through astronomical premium increases). Only if your insurance is provided through an employer can you be somewhat sure you can maintain it, come what may.
> It's almost the opposite way around here, too many people are better off when they're sick or unemployed, pregnant or whatever and the hard workers often feel penalized by the high taxes put on their wages to pay for all this. People are complaining that large parts of the country aspire to the 'benefit culture' of idleness, teenage pregnancy (to get a free council flat and child benefit money) and crime - simply because it pays. Many working class people are better off financially when they're unemployed, so some do all they can to stay that way and milk the system. It's a popular theme in sitcoms like "The Royle Family" and "Shameless".
> I do prefer the generous state handouts and free health care (I don't know where I'd be without it), but unfortunately it's wide open to abuse which is causing a different type of apathy and neglect.
The US/some states are also starting to increase taxes in order to provide health insurance for the uninsured. Working uninsureds too, AFAIK. I don't even think they need to prove they can't afford insurance. (Admittedly I don't follow these things too closely.)
> Is health insurance very expensive?
Independent policies (ones not provided by an employer) can be exorbitant. I'm a 40-ish female, no history of health problems; virtually never actually file claims with/use my insurance; have no meds that need to be covered; have no kids or maternity coverage; and no dental or vision coverage. Even with a $2,500 deductible, and an 80% pay-me-back rate once I reach that amount out of pocket yearly (which I *never* have, or even close), I pay almost $300/month for my policy. (Admittedly, that's for a PPO, where one can choose their own doctor as long as he/she is within the insurer's large provider network.) I do my homework too, this is not some offbeat unpopular company.
The premium rises every year with these independent policies, sooner or later it would go through the roof and you have to apply with a different company to start lower again. But eventually one will be too old and accordingly declining to get accepted by any company. The whole system really is outrageous.
Posted by confuzyq on June 15, 2007, at 4:43:14
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » Quintal, posted by confuzyq on June 15, 2007, at 4:25:47
...example of how picky US insurers can be: I was turned down when applying with one company for:
1.] Disclosing in the "List every dr. you ever saw & why" section that, on my own buck, I had seen a therapist a few times (if u don't fess up, they can easily find out themselves should a related claim be filed later, and retroactively cancel your entire policy). They asked, "What was the date of FULL RECOVERY?" Which I bickered with because there was no such thing, I hadn't, like, had a breakdown and been admitted and released from a hospital. I said "Like a billion other ppl, I had some things on my mind and just freakin talked to someone a few times!" Not good enough, they needed "Exact date of full recovery."
2.] Stating that my gynecologist writes me a script for Valtrex, which I keep on hand for cold sores (ok, Herpes simplex I). "WHY would it be your GN that writes that script, if it's only simplex I??" Because, she is my only doctor at this time! I answered. They insinuated that I might be hiding the fact that it is actually simplex II, which could lead to virus invasion of the eyes, brain, etc.
They would not bother to order my records to check any of that themselves, or even let me have the records sent to them. They just turned me down.
Posted by Racer on June 15, 2007, at 12:47:01
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » LlurpsieNoodle, posted by Quintal on June 14, 2007, at 10:26:35
>
> Is health insurance very expensive? I'm surprised the guy didn't get some if he had a job, but I guess many policies will be reluctant to take on - or place restrictions on a new customer with a serious illness who needs expensive medication?
>
> QI'm another who's been turned down for insurance coverage, because of pre-existing conditions. In my case, it was disclosing the anti-depressants I was on and disclosing that I had osteoarthritis. They insisted on a physical exam, and blood work, which I had to pay for out of pocket. The blood work showed elevated rheumatoid factor, which means only that I had some sort of inflammation going on somewhere for some reason. The insurance company announced that I must have rheumatoid arthritis, despite my paying out of pocket to see a rheumatologist who wrote a nice letter telling them they were wrong.
They respectfully declined to cover me.
Had I been accepted, I would have been paying about $200 to $250 a month for minimal coverage. I can't remember the specifics, though. I was in my mid 30s, otherwise the cost would have been much higher.
My alternative at that time was to enroll in a State program, which provided catastrophic coverage, for $1200 per month -- but they had a waiting list of anywhere from six to eighteen months. That's why I remained uninsured.
Group coverage from employers is easier. Then it's mostly a fixed rate based on things like age, with a few pre-existing condition restrictions. And most anyone will be accepted for group coverage, since the risk is spread across so many people.
When I was uninsured, I was taking 225mg of Effexor XR and 10mg of Prozac. At the time, that was approximately $400 per month. Since I was not making a whole lot more than that, I was in deep doo-doo. The companies that make the drugs, though, had programs that provided free drugs to people who didn't earn enough money to pay for them and were uninsured. I got my drugs that way for a while.
One other problem, by the way, is based on averages: the averages of what someone can earn and still be called "low income" for the purposes of programs like this are based on a national level. That means that, for instance, the government program which would have provided assistance for me had a living expense allowance of $540 per month. Anything above that had to go to the cost of the drugs and other treatment I received. Every penny -- if I only had, say, $25 of treatment in a month, but I earned $740, I still had to pay $200. That might have been fine -- if my rent hadn't been $850 per month! And that rent was low for the area.
Anyway, this is one of those things that raises my blood pressure, so I'll stop now. Let's just say that I think there's {ahem} room for improvement in this area in this country...
Posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 15, 2007, at 13:26:31
In reply to Re: Holy SH*T this stuff is $$!! » Quintal, posted by Racer on June 15, 2007, at 12:47:01
In the cinema, saw a preview for Michael Moore's latest liberal documentary.
This time it's about the state of healthcare in the country.
Although NOT a MMoore fan, I might see this on DVD, someday when I need galvanization.
-Ll
Posted by meri-tuuli on June 15, 2007, at 14:04:01
In reply to SiCko, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 15, 2007, at 13:26:31
Actually, that film should be interesting. He compares the health systems of the US, with those of the UK and France.
I read in the CIA factbook (google it, its a great resource) that the US has the same level of economic disparity between the rich and the poor as some of the sub-saharan countries. Ie, the rich are really rich, and the poor are really poor.
Scandinavian countries, on the other hand, have the least difference between the rich and the poor in the world - and it shows. Its safe for me to take the bus home at night on my own at 12midnight -- and I supposedly live in one of the 'rough' areas. And they don't even have private schools here, and all education, including unversity level education, is totally free for everyone.
Posted by med_empowered on June 15, 2007, at 19:07:22
In reply to SiCko, posted by LlurpsieNoodle on June 15, 2007, at 13:26:31
here's how I see it: if the FDA stepped off the rx thing and just let all drugs compete on the open market place, with doctors in place to help consumers pick meds (which they do in countries like Mexico, where a lot of meds are OTC) and the FDA sticking to making sure available drugs are reasonably safe...prices would go down. way, way down. Because not only would multiple companies manufacture the same meds, but also consumers could pick. So, you have ADHD: do you buy generic amphetamine tabs for, say, 20 for 30, or do you buy brand-name, Adderall XR for 100? Or do you spend 150 for straterra? Depression--same deal: 20 for some xanax and maybe a low-dose of dexedrine, or do you pop out 300 for the latest antidepressant?
Drug companies would have to create meds that not only WORKED, but worked BETTER than competing drugs, because they're not marketing to docs, they're marketing straight to consumers. As for the risks...100,000+ people in the US already die from rx drugs; I doubt consumers will do much worse than docs are now.
Posted by Phillipa on June 15, 2007, at 19:36:02
In reply to Open market on all drugs, posted by med_empowered on June 15, 2007, at 19:07:22
Yup vioox, fem fem, and some statins, and then the combining of meds especially in the elderly that should never be given together. Thankfully some pharmacists pick theses combos up but not all people get their meds all at the same pharmacy. And what about the people who don't know and combine potent herbs with meds that shouldn't be taken together. Yup the US is a mess. Love Phillipa
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.