So there's a new fee to make sure the treatments we're paying out the ass for actually work as advertised... and the problem with this is: ?

MrEricSir: So there's a new fee to make sure the treatments we're paying out the ass for actually work as advertised... and the problem with this is: ?

The problem is that we should just let the invisible hand of the market do it's job and weed out the less efficient medications. For example, say you're taking lipitor because you've got high cholestrol and have a heart attack while you're doing 85 down an interstate. Obviously that shiat isn't cutting the mustard and you'll damn well switch to the competing maker's drug.

And how does this compare to the amount of taxes I'm having to pay for the wars, rich welfare, and corporate welfare?

EnviroDude: Does anybody think a new federal bureacracy will not lie to protect the favored pharmacuticals of the party in power?

Cut the lights, we're done here.

Karac: MrEricSir: So there's a new fee to make sure the treatments we're paying out the ass for actually work as advertised... and the problem with this is: ?

The problem is that we should just let the invisible hand of the market do it's job and weed out the less efficient medications. For example, say you're taking lipitor because you've got high cholestrol and have a heart attack while you're doing 85 down an interstate. Obviously that shiat isn't cutting the mustard and you'll damn well switch to the competing maker's drug.

Beautiful.

EnviroDude: Does anybody think a new federal bureacracy will not lie to protect the favored pharmacuticals of the party in power?

So don't try, and vote Republican.

That tax only applies if you make more than 200k a year.

That is what Obama repeatedly promised - no new taxes for anyone earning less than 200k.

Karac: MrEricSir: So there's a new fee to make sure the treatments we're paying out the ass for actually work as advertised... and the problem with this is: ?

The problem is that we should just let the invisible hand of the market do it's job and weed out the less efficient medications. For example, say you're taking lipitor because you've got high cholestrol and have a heart attack while you're doing 85 down an interstate. Obviously that shiat isn't cutting the mustard and you'll damn well switch to the competing maker's drug.

Nice trolling, but this whole thing is bullshiat. Unless there is a clear problem with a drug (which is already the purview of the FDA), we'll now have a new fee to fund a bunch of bureaucrats to tell us the answer which everyone already knows, which is almost always "it depends".

deadcrickets: And how does this compare to the amount of taxes I'm having to pay for the wars, rich welfare, and corporate welfare?

So one dumb idea (or three) deserves another. Got it.


Everyone around here loves to dogpile on "security theater" (and rightly so), where is the similar skepticism toward "public health theater"?

hurdboy: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Unless there is a clear problem with a drug (which is already the purview of the FDA), we'll now have a new fee to fund a bunch of bureaucrats to tell us the answer which everyone already knows, which is almost always "it depends".

Exactly. Two drugs to treat the same condition might have similar overall effectiveness rates in clinical studies. But one might work for a particular patient, while the other doesn't. Unfortunately drug #2 is still covered by patents, and, as a result, costs 10x drug #1. The bureaucrats say, well, nobody should be using drug #2, because it's no more effective, and costs 10x more.

If you don't respond to drug #1 like most people, that's your fault for not being average. Government hates nonconformists.

Somewhat disappointed by Obama, but will still vote for him. He delivers more of what I want than what the Lunacy Party is offering, which is anthrax and thumbtack sandwiches and education made out of lunchmeat.

//why oh WHY is this on the business tab and not politics tab, where the stupidity belongs? It's Obama-hate not socializm-hate.

MrEricSir: So there's a new fee to make sure the treatments we're paying out the ass for actually work as advertised... and the problem with this is: ?

That the companies claiming that they do should probably be the ones paying for it instead of me?

I sound fat: That the companies claiming that they do should probably be the ones paying for it instead of me?

You do realize what tends to happen when an interested party pays for a study, right?

I have no problem with this so long as it doesn't get raided to build an airport to the antarctic that China can use or some other unrelated spending bullshiat.

MrEricSir: I sound fat: That the companies claiming that they do should probably be the ones paying for it instead of me?

You do realize what tends to happen when an interested party pays for a study, right?

If its a tax, the government would be DOING the study, they would just be taxed for it.

I sound fat: If its a tax, the government would be DOING the study, they would just be taxed for it.

Exactly -- there's little to no conflict of interest this way.

hurdboy: jjorsett: If you don't respond to drug #1 like most people, that's your fault for not being average.

Right. The problem is that for my condition, some of the most common treatments only have around 30% effectiveness. But there's four of those. There's two with about 70% effectiveness -- one's a daily pill, one's an IV infusion every 28 days. Both have fatal side-effects. We're not talking about aspirin versus Ibuprofen, here, unfortunately. Normally, those effectiveness and fatality rates would prevent a drug from reaching market. But, in my case, the option is treatment or increasing permanent disability. A quick rundown, minus the pill. (I'm supposed to start the pill sometime next month, but I have to visit several specialists for tests prior to starting it....so I don't die or go blind....) The ones with the lower effectiveness rates don't have fatal side--effects. But they're injections, some of which give flu-like symptoms for a period of time (three of them for ~12h, one for ~36h, the other has virtually no side-effects after the first few doses, and even the first few, the symptoms are generally less than 1h.)

jjorsett: Government hates nonconformists.

Especially doctors who actually, you know, practice medicine. It's not an exact science.

Didn't even have to click your link to know what you're talking about.

FWIW, I've been on Gilenya since January 2010; and it's been great, honestly. No changes, no nothing. Heart didn't skip a beat during the first pill, and eyes haven't changed at all.

Avonex essentially stole half my Saturday from me. (took it Friday night, woke up at 3AM, felt crappy till 6AM, went to bed till noon)

Some guy did die on Gileyna recently, but it was his first day and I dunno if they've proved cause yet.

And anyone who wants to take these $40K/year pills from me can very well try - I'll go down fighting. Cause fark that shot.

Anybody read the whole article, where the director baldly states that they are not a policy-making organization, and instead are going to run trials and provide data? Keep in mind that clinical trials are bought and paid for by the makers of the drug, who have a vested interest in making sure their drug succeeds in the trial. There are lots of controls to prevent hanky-panky, but it's still fair to say that the data gathered presents the drug in the best possible light.

So now, the government wants insurers to contribute to an organization that runs followup trials that produce more detailed data about drug effectiveness in different situations. This is a positive externality for the insurers- physicians in their programs can make well informed decisions about treatment options, resulting in better and more cost-effective treatments, thus reducing costs. Of course, drug companies would prefer such an organization never exist- they don't want people making decisions based on data. They want you thinking about their commercials.

"Hey, your sail's limp. LIKE YOUR DICK!"

Ha! Ha! I'm okay with this (because Blue Cross cancelled our insurance because, and I'm quoting here my wife, "had too many operations."); you know, like that emergency appendectomy.

I'm all for taxing the bejeezus out of health insurance companies.

Anyone looking for a career change in 2012?
My company in Boston, MA is looking to hire about 60 people between now and the end of next year (end of the world)

Paste URL for job listings and apply via online: Link (new window)

Algebrat: mistrmind: Anyone looking for a career change in 2012?
My company in Boston, MA is looking to hire about 60 people between now and the end of next year (end of the world)

Paste URL for job listings and apply via online: Link (new window)

Random spam from a nearly 10 year old account? I guess everybody's gotta make a living.

Hacker-like typing detected?

We will really know if he posts in the Political tab looking for candidates. Nobody would willing do that.

mark.jms: hurdboy: jjorsett:
And anyone who wants to take these $40K/year pills from me can very well try - I'll go down fighting. Cause fark that shot.
`
$40K/year? WTF - your serious?

EnviroDude: Does anybody think a new federal bureacracy will not lie to protect the favored pharmacuticals of the party in power?

Not if the party in power is MY party.

hurdboy: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Unless there is a clear problem with a drug (which is already the purview of the FDA), we'll now have a new fee to fund a bunch of bureaucrats to tell us the answer which everyone already knows, which is almost always "it depends".

Exactly. Two drugs to treat the same condition might have similar overall effectiveness rates in clinical studies. But one might work for a particular patient, while the other doesn't. Unfortunately drug #2 is still covered by patents, and, as a result, costs 10x drug #1. The bureaucrats say, well, nobody should be using drug #2, because it's no more effective, and costs 10x more.

you don't think this happens now? my dad is a primary care doc and constantly has to fight insurance companies to cover the cost of a medication because the drug that they have on the formulary originally isn't working well with this particular patient. It takes up a considerable amount of his time, and though he usually gets them to cover it for the patient, he has to go through a bunch of idiots on the phone before he can talk to a physician who actually understands the medical needs of the patient they're covering.

at least the government bureaucrat doesn't have a "responsibility to his shareholders". Farking conservatives are always defending CEOs and companies for screwing over americans by saying "well, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, not you". How convenient that they forget that little gem when it comes to healthcare. Drug companies, insurance companies, a good percentage of hospitals, billing companies, EMR makers...their primary responsibility as corporations is to their shareholders. Not the patient, not the patient's doctor, not society. Their shareholders.

But yeah, government bureaucrats are bad, mmkay?

BEER_ME_in_CT: OMG that fee really breaks the bank.

"The $1-per-person insurance fee goes into effect in 2012. But the Treasury Department says it's not likely to be collected for another year, though insurers would still owe the money. The fee doubles to $2 per covered person in its second year and thereafter rises with inflation."

DEAR OBAMA I COULD HAVE BOUGHT A DIET PEPSI INSTEAD WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA