Again today (March 4, 2008), during your 7:30 or so (Talk show) segment a caller complained about prescription drug costs as driving health care costs.  I challenge you to put the facts out there on the table.  Prescription drug costs are not the drivers behind the increased cost of health care.  All prescription drug costs represent about 10% of the total national health care bill.  Please, get someone who is knowledgeable to come onto your show to discuss this as most of the public do not have a clue as to why health care costs are so incredibly high in this country.  

I suspect that you do know some of the drivers of health care costs, insurance.  That is, the cost of insurance to the patient, and the cost of malpractice insurance to the physician.  Consider, prescription drug costs are at 10% of our total health care expentidure, but our national expenditure on overall health care has increased from 1960 when we spent 5.2% of our gross domestic product to 16% in 2005.  Hardly accounted for by changes in prescrition drug costs.  In general our overall health care spending has increased faster than other segments of the economy.  

Sadly, one reason is that we (the folks in the US) are paying for the R&D costs.  Costs that we be shared, in the past, with the rest of the western world.  Currently almost all major pharmaceutical companies conduct NO basic research, as they can no longer afford it.  This means that they must acquire technologies (at a premium price) from (and here is a shocker) universities (and who foots the bill for that research?  you and me through our taxes in the form of federal research grants).  (By the by, federal and state research grants account for about 60% of the revenue for our universities.)

Ok, so where does the health care dollar go? - breakdown is as follows:

30.8% - Hospital Care (and consider this includes medical teaching hospitals associated with academia)
21.2% - Physician clinical services (and paying for their malpractice insurance)
16.4% - "Other" Health care spending ("administration and nect cost of private health insurance,public health activity, research and infrastructure...)
13.0% - Other Personal Health Care (dental, durable medical equipment)  
10.1% - Prescription drugs
  6.1% -  Nursing Home care
  2.4% - Home health care

source:  www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/ (see historical: National Health Expenditures by type of service and source of funds, CY 1960-2005 file nhe2005.zip)

In short, be a part of our health care solution by putting real facts out there, and not a part of the problem by perpetuating lies.

Do you have any concept of what it costs to bring a new drug to the market?  or the amount of time and effort?  And even once you do get FDA approval, how would you get people to use the drug... even if it is better....?  to say nothing of the tremendous law suits when someone has an adverse event... (pesky insurance costs again!).  

The simplest drug to get approved is either a new sun screen or antipersperant (yea, they ARE drugs) and it costs about $15M to get those through the FDA.  Now imagine something far more complex, such as a new treatment for metastatic melanoma.   Best guess is about $750M for a drug that might have a current market value of about $500M or so.  Remember the cost of the top 10 newly approved drugs is born by the 3 top sellers....

So, as I challenge you, get some facts, have some experts help you sort this out.... and present actual reality to your listeners - they deserve it.  

Tackle the incredible settlement costs for malpractice and you will see health care costs go down, and the quality of health care go up.... it is that simple.

which are your comments?

It's not at all clear.

I doubt that anybody is going to argue the usefulness of either drugs, insurance or malpractice rules as concepts, only whether they are well administered.

Anybody close to the system is not going to believe that anybody, and especially MDs, are in it from charity.  The many MDs that I personally deal with have got to be some of the most conniving, venal, mendacious buggers on the face of the earth.  Then they'll stiff some wetback who wants $3/hour to sweep the floors, and they wonder why they are going to fry in hell.  They shit on the floor then complain about the smell.  It's the whining like little girls that pisses me most of all.

your single observations?  your anecdotal evidence...?  what?  oh, I see where you're coming from... nowhere.  and I'm not talking about MD's

"AM I - ???"

That is, is this YOUR assertion?  Or what are you cutting/pasting?

Is your point that the primary curable cost of healthcare is - what?  malpractice actions?  or what?

It's a QUESTION, and that QUESTION is, WTF ARE you saying?!   Because it's so fucking far from clear, that even CBO can't figure it out!

First frickin sentence.... yea... crystal ball my ass.... can't even read.

should be at the top of any health care reform.

left wing kooks had their way - the only drugs we would have would be MJ, wine spritzers, willow bark and "Crystals..."  

we would still practice medicine by saying chants and leaches...  

While few drugs actually cure a disease - they at least help manage the disease...  such that a person can live a semi normal life....   but don't let me stop them from protectin us...  yea...

Several years ago... animal rights activists wanted to stop veterinary students from learning vet med by practicing on animals...   (much like aspirant young physicians learn their craft by practicing on human beans...)....   it was ludicrious...   cannot say I have much patience for those who've never done....  and many many libs have NEVER EVER done... anything except moan...  then they get uppity when confronted with fact.

Which is saving tax payers thousands... Hopefully someday he'll self-medicate, and OVERDOSE! (Which would further extend the future-savings to taxpayers by eliminating his need for in-patient care...)

The reason psych drugs don't cure conditions is because that is the psych model.

Medical drugs often do cure conditions, as any sailor with the clap will tell you.

The fact that some medical conditions are unknown is not relevant to the fact that NO DSM dx is curable.
That is a function of their model.  50 years ago, homos were 'diseased'; then one day the APA came to work, took a vote, and decided they wanted to come out of the closet, and voted themselves normal.   Not of course that there is anything wrong thing that.

So what's your excuse?

Clear..

you ain't getting it

while some infectious diseases are cured by antibiotics or antivirals... many are NOT...
and even there some are managed by drug therapy...
As to diseases that cannot currently be cured... but are "treated" these would include...
Diabetes (types I and II)
hypertension
Fibrosis (liver lung, heart)
emphysema
Asthma
Many genetic abnormalities such as sickle cell, diseases associated with the Ashkenazi Jewish, vitiligo, short limbed dwarfism...

the list is kinda long.... but then again - lookie at who Im talkin at.... Jack0 who specializes in psychotic disorders... as he is under meds....

and show that incurable ones outnumber curable ones.

Do you think anybody has done that?

Maybe you'd be better off by starting to define exactly what a disorder is.

It seems to me that the problem with the original hypothesis is that it's not falsifiable.

has to be a shock to his "perfect" mentality.....  Just watching him twitch is great entertainment....   just great!  

Question for the day... is there a real Jack0 or is he a computer program...?  

-- Modified on 3/5/2008 8:36:59 AM

When you are off your meds I have no desire to argue with you. You are strictly comic relief.

When you are back on your meds I'll be perfectly happy to debate/argue with you, or even agree with you which does happen some times.

and by definition, you don't know anything.  In fact, there isn't even a YOU, only an IT.

So I'm not even bothering to say STFU!

otoh, we can take notice of your idiocy!