<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Avoiding the Extremes in Health Care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=7877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877</link>
	<description>Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:22:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eclectic Radical</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877&#038;cpage=1#comment-214325</link>
		<dc:creator>Eclectic Radical</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877#comment-214325</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure, right now, if a slower rate of &#039;invention&#039; in the pharmaceutical business wouldn&#039;t be a better idea anyway. Right now many of the &#039;new drugs&#039; are old drugs with minor changes to re-patent them as the old patents lapse. A massive amount of drugs to treat ED and allergies are matched by relatively little real progress (with some notable exceptions in a few specific areas) on cancer or heart disease. Massive amounts of preventative drugs intended for healthy patients, with possibly dangerous side effects, have been shoved into the market as well. There was a time when potentially deadly side effects were considered to be a legitimate risk only for treatments for the most life threatening ailments. Now potentially deadly side effects are a legitimate risk to treat restless leg syndrome.

CEO&#039;s do not invent new medications and claims that executive compensation is tied to the success of medical research is... questionable at best, if not laughable.

Pharmaceutical companies must be dealt with from both ends, both as part of comprehensive drug policy reform and as comprehensive health care reform. They are on the short list of trusts most in need of busting, like the media, the oil industry and the auto industry they have become a virtual cartel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure, right now, if a slower rate of &#8216;invention&#8217; in the pharmaceutical business wouldn&#8217;t be a better idea anyway. Right now many of the &#8216;new drugs&#8217; are old drugs with minor changes to re-patent them as the old patents lapse. A massive amount of drugs to treat ED and allergies are matched by relatively little real progress (with some notable exceptions in a few specific areas) on cancer or heart disease. Massive amounts of preventative drugs intended for healthy patients, with possibly dangerous side effects, have been shoved into the market as well. There was a time when potentially deadly side effects were considered to be a legitimate risk only for treatments for the most life threatening ailments. Now potentially deadly side effects are a legitimate risk to treat restless leg syndrome.</p>
<p>CEO&#8217;s do not invent new medications and claims that executive compensation is tied to the success of medical research is&#8230; questionable at best, if not laughable.</p>
<p>Pharmaceutical companies must be dealt with from both ends, both as part of comprehensive drug policy reform and as comprehensive health care reform. They are on the short list of trusts most in need of busting, like the media, the oil industry and the auto industry they have become a virtual cartel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bruno</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877&#038;cpage=1#comment-214314</link>
		<dc:creator>bruno</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877#comment-214314</guid>
		<description>In other words....  Maybe, as is suggested with the Financial Industry, we need to make it less glamorous.   Take away the exorbitant compensation, and we may experience an more reasonable financial industry as well as health care industry.

Of course Health Care industry also encompasses the Pharmaceutical companies who claim that if their CEO&#039;s don&#039;t get multi million dollar bonuses no more new drugs will ever be invented again - forever.   They don&#039;t use those exact words, but that&#039;s pretty much what it comes down to.

There aren&#039;t too many pundits who acknowledge that the dreaded bureaucrats also work in Private Insurance companies.   Conservatives seem to believe that only government bureaucrats are bad, but that the adjuster at an insurance company has your best interest in mind at all times.

Why else would we have to call our insurance company for pre-authorization?   Personally, if I have to,  I&#039;d rather call the government.  At least I can be assured that they have a reasonable payscale for their compensation.  That their compensation doesn&#039;t go up because they were able to deny me service.   I&#039;d also be assured that the Secretary (CEO) of that department will not be making more than the President of the United States.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In other words&#8230;.  Maybe, as is suggested with the Financial Industry, we need to make it less glamorous.   Take away the exorbitant compensation, and we may experience an more reasonable financial industry as well as health care industry.</p>
<p>Of course Health Care industry also encompasses the Pharmaceutical companies who claim that if their CEO&#8217;s don&#8217;t get multi million dollar bonuses no more new drugs will ever be invented again &#8211; forever.   They don&#8217;t use those exact words, but that&#8217;s pretty much what it comes down to.</p>
<p>There aren&#8217;t too many pundits who acknowledge that the dreaded bureaucrats also work in Private Insurance companies.   Conservatives seem to believe that only government bureaucrats are bad, but that the adjuster at an insurance company has your best interest in mind at all times.</p>
<p>Why else would we have to call our insurance company for pre-authorization?   Personally, if I have to,  I&#8217;d rather call the government.  At least I can be assured that they have a reasonable payscale for their compensation.  That their compensation doesn&#8217;t go up because they were able to deny me service.   I&#8217;d also be assured that the Secretary (CEO) of that department will not be making more than the President of the United States.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eclectic Radical</title>
		<link>http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877&#038;cpage=1#comment-214291</link>
		<dc:creator>Eclectic Radical</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:57:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=7877#comment-214291</guid>
		<description>It is worth noting that in some of the countries noted in the quoted article (France and Germany, possibly others), even the &#039;private&#039; health care is run on a non-profit basis. The only income goal of &#039;private carriers&#039; is to meet their expenditures on care and hospitals and clinics only need to meet operating costs. This reduces consumer health care costs dramatically without requiring cutback in services.

Some Republicans (Mitt Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, where a similar plan passed, comes to mind) have championed an unfunded insurance mandate loosely based on the French and German systems, but without the non-profit clause or regulation of minimum standards of care. Such a mandate would not be noticeably better than our current system, because it would not remove the basic problem of American health care: the necessity to collect as much money as possible while providing as little care as possible in order to make a profit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is worth noting that in some of the countries noted in the quoted article (France and Germany, possibly others), even the &#8216;private&#8217; health care is run on a non-profit basis. The only income goal of &#8216;private carriers&#8217; is to meet their expenditures on care and hospitals and clinics only need to meet operating costs. This reduces consumer health care costs dramatically without requiring cutback in services.</p>
<p>Some Republicans (Mitt Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, where a similar plan passed, comes to mind) have championed an unfunded insurance mandate loosely based on the French and German systems, but without the non-profit clause or regulation of minimum standards of care. Such a mandate would not be noticeably better than our current system, because it would not remove the basic problem of American health care: the necessity to collect as much money as possible while providing as little care as possible in order to make a profit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
