Our representatives in Congress receive health-care coverage that every other citizen in the country would love to have. Of course it costs a great deal of money to develop new drugs of any sort, including "orphan" drugs: as a result, Novartis has just received an extension of its Gleevec patent past the date when the patent would have ended. I remind you that a lot of the financing for the developent of Gleevec came from the NIH. However all this does not address the problem of the cost of those drugs to the individuals who desperately need them. How many CMLers could actually afford to pay for their drugs out-of-pocket? Gleevec costs over thirty thousand a year. How many jobless, underemployed, working-class people could actually afford it, not to speak of medical care itself? And now the middle-class finds itself in trouble, with many dropping their health insurance as they can no longer afford it, Is unaffordable health care economically and politically sustainable for the nation? I'm not even going to mention the moral and ethical side of it again.
It seems my original posting was redacted to remove any mention of the erroneous rumors surrounding the Advance Directive portion of the health care act. The original portion merely stated that doctors would be paid for having this important, and voluntary, conversation with a patient. Due to the brouhaha and disinformation regarding this portion of the bill, it was removed before it was voted upon. n Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:12 AM, <[email protected]<cmlhope%[email protected]> > wrote: > Today's Topic Summary > > Group: http://groups.google.com/group/cmlhope/topics > > - Tests came > back<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#12deb024a471ef28_group_thread_0>[1 > Update] > - Digest for [email protected] - 7 Messages in 4 > Topics<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#12deb024a471ef28_group_thread_1>[3 > Updates] > > Topic: Tests came > back<http://groups.google.com/group/cmlhope/t/4e502c1fe5597030> > > [email protected] Feb 02 09:33PM -0500 > ^<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#12deb024a471ef28_digest_top> > > No problem Suziq, thought I could help. > > greenie > > > > Topic: Digest for [email protected] - 7 Messages in 4 > Topics<http://groups.google.com/group/cmlhope/t/433e2ab0a3b27f06> > > Victoria Reiter <[email protected]> Feb 02 10:27AM -0500 > ^<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#12deb024a471ef28_digest_top> > > It is perfectly fine for persons with the finances to support their own > health care to do so. However, there are millions of people in this > country > who cannot afford health care. And all this time, the insurance > companies > have used a surprising percentage of subscribers' payments not directly > for > healthcare but for their own profit. There is something quite wrong > about > leaving the poorest of our citizens on their own in a world where > healthcare > is so horrendously expensive. As for worries about the "nanny state," > the > bill specifies that persons must purchase insurance but also provides > both > for restricting the price of that insurance to reasonable levels and > also > offering varying modalities of insurance that establish different forms > of > coverage. Imagine what would happen if someone in a family just above > the > Medicaid-approved line developed CML. How would that family pay for > Gleevec > or Sprycel or Tasigna, and the tests that need to be done? We all know > how > much those medications cost. We all know how expensive it is to visit > the > oncologist and have a PCR done. For most of us, if we didn't have > insurance, we'd be dead. For middle and working class people, the cost > of > self-pay health care, or even basic insurance coverage, is far too high > and > often unobtainable due to a pre-existing condition or other barriers > the > insurance companies put in their way. The health care bill gets rid of > the > pre-existing condition problem. It covers children not already covered > under other programs. It finally makes it possible that people do not > have > to use the ER as their basic health-care provider. We all know what a > burden that places on hospitals, often bringing them to the edge of > bankruptcy. St. Vincent's Hospital, in New York City, one of the > mainstays > of healthcare in lower Manhattan, and also known for its cardiac unit, > was > forced to close down because it was treating so many of the poor and > indigent for nothing: it was forced to close down, leaving the entire > area > without a nearby hospital. This situation can no longer be tolerated, > not > in good conscience, not ethically nor morally. If you have the money to > pay > for health insurance, or self-pay out of pocket, lucky you. But we > cannot, > as a moral nation, deny health care to our citizens who cannot afford > it, or > can no longer afford it due to losing their jobs or having reached the > "lifetime limits" of their particular health plan. Please remember that > in > the 19th and early 20th centuries, when a farmer's barn burned down, > the > entire community would gather to rebuild that barn and restore the > family's > well-being. Well, the health insurance barn is burning and we all must > do > something to rebuild it. > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:43 AM, > <[email protected] <cmlhope%[email protected]>< > cmlhope%[email protected]<cmlhope%[email protected]> > > > > > > > Holly <[email protected]> Feb 02 11:15AM -0600 > ^<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#12deb024a471ef28_digest_top> > > I totally agree about the healthcare issue. We need the government to > make the bloated insurance companies responsible for all Americans. They > will never do it on their own. > > > > > > Daniel Brown <[email protected]> Feb 02 03:20PM -0600 > ^<https://mail.google.com/mail/html/compose/static_files/blank_quirks.html#12deb024a471ef28_digest_top> > > I find your comment,"And all this time, the Insurance companies have > used a surprising percentage of subscribers' payments not directly for > healthcare but for their own profit" interesting. If, instead of listening > to the political propaganda, you actually investigate the facts you will > learn the the 5 largest health insurance companies averaged a 5.2 % profit > margin in 2009. When you stop to realize that the average non-insurance > company averages 9 to 11% profit margin, then you would realize the > insurance companies are being extremely responsible in maintaining their > cost vs profit ratios. If you believe the government can operate anywhere > near that efficiently, then I would love to see an example of that. I have > never seen the government do anything, without going way over budget! As a > matter of fact the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arkansas is a "not for profit" > corporation. Bet you didn't know that? > > Now, do you believe the drugs that keep us alive, would have been > developed without the profit principle? Whether you realize it or not, > Gleevec and Sprycel are considered orphan drugs. An orphan drug is a drug > that has been developed without a sufficient number of people needing it, > to > justify it's cost of development, unlike Viagra. These development costs > are > extremely high, to not only develop, but to also get through the FDA > approval precess. Now, with so few people needing our drugs (after all CML > is considered a rare cancer), how is the drug company to show a profit that > would justify it's development? Well, the only way, is to extend the patent > an extended of period of time, in order to give the drug company the > opportunity to have the time to recover it's expenses. If this is not done, > what is the motivation to develop these drugs that are extending our lives. > The simple answer is, they wouldn't have been developed! These are the same > drug companies the present administration got in bed with, to support the > health care bill. > > Here are the profit numbers for these HORRIBLE insurance companies! > > The top five health insurance companies did indeed see profit increases > of over 55% for 2009. However, the top 5 saw a 34% decrease in profits in > 2008 in a particularly bad year. The total profit increase from 2007 to > 2009 > was only 2.6%. The insurance companies were able to bounce back from a bad > year, which lead to huge profit increases for 2009, but hardly obscene or > outrageous when compared to average years. If a company or industry has a > particularly bad year with a following good year, the profit increases can > seem very high. > > What about the claim that CIGNA had a 346% profit increase in 2009? > Well, it is entirely true. However, in 2008, CIGNA had a 74% decrease in > profits in a really bad year for the company. The total profit increase > from > 2007 to 2009 was an outrageous 17%. > > The media and several special interest groups are working to demonize > several groups in order to sway public opinion. Many groups dish out half > truths in an attempt to induce outrage and hysterical emotional response > from the public. As “profit”, “CEO”, “shareholder” and “Rich” become dirty > words, Americans need to educate themselves and seek the truth. > > Anther website: > > http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html > > The bottom line is, that this country can no longer afford the debt > that this bill is going to create. Everyone knows that the government isn't > going to cut Medicare $500 million, which was in the health care bill, and > was the only way the administration could show the healthcare bill would > save money' even when they use 10 years of tax collections to cover 6 years > of benefits, even with the additional 16,000 IRS agents created in the > healthcare bill. > > The story of St. Vincent's Hospital is terrible, But it does prove that > even those without healthcare insurance, are receiving healthcare at the > same level as those that did have insurance. You may ask how I know this? > Because I work in the medical field (not a doctor), and know that if the > uninsured receive any semblance of lower quality care, they would be > exposed > to major lawsuits. Now, if you want a two tiered healthcare system, then > you > will love the new healthcare bill, those with private healthcare insurance > vs those with government insurance! > > If this healthcare bill is so great, why are our representatives not > going to be covered by this bill? > > Now, I am not saying that it can't be done better than it is now, but > this healthcare bill is a complete and utter disaster, that will only > bankrupt this country much sooner than at the present rate. > > > > On Feb 2, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Victoria Reiter wrote: > > > > > -- > [CMLHope] > A support group of http://cmlhope.com > ------------------------------------------------- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "CMLHope" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/CMLHope -- [CMLHope] A support group of http://cmlhope.com ------------------------------------------------- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CMLHope" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/CMLHope
