posted on March 19, 2002 04:54:07 PM new
A point or two about the free drug programs that drug manufacturers have:
I've looked into this several times, and just checked again last week - many of the companies will only give free drugs to people without insurance. The remainder will only give free drugs to people who are very low income.
And not every drug each company makes is offered free under these programs. Many of the newer and really spendy pain meds are not included in these programs. It isn't a simple matter of just telling a patient to switch to another similar drug, since not everyone can tolerate every medication.
I have insurance...so I don't qualify. But finding the $$$$$ for my prescriptions each month is getting us deeper and deeper into debt. $1,500 each and every month, and even though my insurance pays 80%, it only does that after the $5,000 deductible, plus the monthly insurance premiums. Ends up being like a second house payment.
Borillar: The only drug on your list that I've taken is Xanax (nastiest s*hit...incredibly hard to kick!), and the price you gave is WAY off. Dunno about the rest of the prices, but that one isn't even close.
Stusi: I haven't EVER seen any co-pay on prescriptions...I'd be thrilled to only pay $50 on the ones I take! And I've had a $25 co-pay for doctor's office visits for at least ten years. Yeah, I agree that $5-10 co-pays for office visits DO encourage people to run to the doctor with every single sniffle.
posted on March 19, 2002 04:57:54 PM new
Thanks, NearTheSea, for that link. I'll be sure to pass it around. The life-saving drug that I spend $130.00/month for isn't on that list of freebies, though.
posted on March 19, 2002 06:58:17 PM new
auroranorth
No, the figures are real. I know sometimes numbers and stuff can seem outlandish but I prefer them to divine inspiration.
Borillar,
I believe you meant "taxol" instead of "taxil" and of course I was referring to Laetrile as the "quack" drug.
Ken,
Well my my you found some real stuff there but I'm still looking for the big revelation. Lets see I agree drug companies are very profitable. Hmm I said there is a factor of "what the market will bear".
Of course James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology is also president of The Center for Study of Responsive Law. These are Nader groups which kind of knocks the "scientific" out of "scientific study". I'm telling you, you just have to get that stationary printed.
It appears that 35 cents goes a long way:
http://www.taxolog.com/taxol.html
Any chemist would laugh at the term "copycat" when talking about drug "families". And if a certain type of compound is shown to be effective, researching others with similiar structures is not any cheaper. That taxol thread also includes info on the search for related drugs.
Ken you frequently like to declare things "equal" and make the big discovery of conspiracy or gouging or whatever. For example Levamisole is used to treat animals for worms for years and some researcher notices a data point that is significant in a sampling of a tumor study. Does that mean it doesn't cost a fortune to be clinically trial tested and FDA approved? Whether the difference in price you quoted is justified, I don't know. I just know it's not the same thing no matter how the crowd cheers.
And "many" of the best drugs come from American companies is an understatement.
posted on March 19, 2002 07:06:45 PM new
I didn't have time to look at the list.
Sorry, maybe thought it might help someone
the life saving drug I have to take, Tenormin I pay for, and its cheaper than the 'runner up' drug I have to take; Klonopin, running me almost $200. a month.
posted on March 19, 2002 09:22:31 PM new
Gee, dusquirrel, you've neglected to continue your misguided ramblings into the realm of monies wasted by your protected companies on competitive marketting techniques, which I believe are clearly left open to your commentary by inclusion in my post above. What of the fact that expenditures for wineing and dining their buyers exceed by huge margins their claimed expenditures for the research which you say do so limit their profitability.
The concept of 'copycat' drugs is hardly a new idea. We have all experienced the reality that there are several compounds with like effect which are presented under proprietary names by each of the several major developers, and those being nearly identical compounds has been proven chemicallly time and again.
Typical of you, et al, to attack the messenger when you are frustrated by the message. Who else but a Nader like investigative entity could be relied on for factual disclosures? You? We've ALL seen the follie in such a venture as that, now haven't we? When your every slimey utterance is provable to be either false, distorted, or deceptive?
posted on March 19, 2002 09:27:07 PM new
Note, dusquirrel, before you respond, if you can, that I've not yet mentioned the arena called "lobbying" in which your pampered companies play.
posted on March 19, 2002 10:51:44 PM new
Which message?
I responded to the topic thread message, which Borillar posted
He said, Now look at what it really costs for to produce those meds.... (not his words)
Ok yeah... but then question this
Do you absolutely HAVE to eat?
Now, the food producers, I'm gonna guess, are marking up every food you buy and consume. Aren't they... Do they give it away, do they take a loss?
Is there a difference here... sure, in ways, but..
You gotta have that medication.
You gotta have that food.
I dunno. I don't have the answers, unless I become a chemist in my basement and can produce the heart med and seizure med, I guess I gotta buy those. I don't have a choice, nor the energy to start a campaign against the drug companys
(which HAVE to be Republicans, ya know, the evil ones, whatever)
posted on March 19, 2002 11:19:23 PM new
Ever heard of gardening? You can grow your own food, and maybe even your own pain meds if you're clever, since most derive from or are chemical facsimiles of one plant species.
Unfortunately, they jail you for it. Fortunately though, in the case of the meds you need, the jails you go to will be able to provide them to you because they are able to obtain them through the government contracts which also supply the VA (where I get ALL of mine for free to me, sort of) and all other military facilities their supplies at little over the actual cost to make them. Profitable contracts they are though, don't get me wrong..the pharmacuetical companies don't like them much but they do participate enthusiastically so that the other benefits available only through legislative blessing will continue.
posted on March 20, 2002 06:23:31 AM new
Nearthe Sea- why can't you take the generics? For a generic drug to be approved for market it must be the chemical equivalent of the brand name drug. If your doctor writes "DAW"(dispense as written) on the script you have no choice. If so, ask him/her why.
posted on March 20, 2002 08:30:27 AM new
stusi I tried generic, Clonazapam is half the price of Klonopin. For me they didn't work, the same for the generic of Tenormin. They didn't work, Klonopin is
for seizure control, Tenormin is for angina. I had a few problems after one day.
What I guess scares me the most is what if I couldn't get my meds one month. Yes I believe Health care in the U.S. is a mess, but I have no answer for it. I don't like the idea of Universal health care, its questionable to me, but if it ever came to be, maybe it would be good, I really don't know. I really don't know anyone in Canada, so I cannot comment.
I do know that a lot of people here, go up there for things like the eye laser surgery, but they are paying cash, and the one I do know personally that went up there to have it done, had it well below what it costs here, but it was elective thing for them, not a nessecity
Hi plsmith! I haven't read your link yet. Who is Ellen Greve? LOL! no I don't shill
krs, naaaa I'll pass on jail.... I try and stay out of there as best I can, thanks
And I can't grow frozen lasanga here, it doesn't do well up here LOL!!!!
posted on March 20, 2002 08:39:09 AM new
LOL plsmith... I read the link. Good one!
No I am not into breatharianism, (hey had to copy and paste that word! )
I HAVE heard of a nun that lived on communion only, that must be the same one they mentioned.
Gets all her nutrients from fresh air... hmmmmmm but does take a mouthful of CHOCOLATE now and then? LOL
They did find her house full of food.. hmmmm, sounds to me, like she's not a true beleiver
Ok, let's see, you wanted my take on your discovery that the drug companies have a lobby. But I already knew that. So does the rest of the planet.
I think part of your problem is the reliance on "Nader investigative" types. Ralphie boy is at best an idiot and at worst a charlatan. And as to his "investigative" ability, well lets use an example. He has someone read a few reports and then goes after say Volkswagen. Remember his campaign against the Beetle? He beat the flames saying Beetles burst into flames and had a driver's seat that ripped from it's moorings causing injuries in an accident. The press flocked to give him coverage and government investigations were launched as to why the gov was letting big bad Volkswagen massacre the people. Well it turns out his big "investigation" was running 10 Beetles into a wall a having 1 catch fire, followed by: "Oh my God! 10% of Beetles blow up in collisions." If Ralph Nader walked in and told me it was sunny out, I'd get my raincoat.
And stop harping about "copycat" drugs, you haven't a clue. Under copyright laws, Company B cannot take Company A's drug and put their own label on it. And if say, one company finds a certain isocyanide compound is effective against a certain condition, working with different formulas is a WHOLE NEW BALL game.
And "most" drugs are not derived from plants. And there is no difference in naturally occuring and synthesized compounds of the same structure.
Near the Sea
Don't feel bad, I am a chemist and I have to buy them. Maybe we can get McDonald's to start a pharmaceutical operation. So many Big Macs gets you a free prescription. But of course the Big Macs would make you need more prescriptions. It could be a fiendishly clever plot!
posted on March 20, 2002 12:34:08 PM new
Uhm......no dusquirrel, can't you read?
You said "Ok, let's see, you wanted my take on your discovery that the drug companies have a lobby"
but
Lobby expenditures by the pharmacus hasn't been broached yet
I had said:
"Gee, dusquirrel, you've neglected to continue your misguided ramblings into the realm of monies wasted by your protected companies on competitive marketting techniques, which I believe are clearly left open to your commentary by inclusion in my post above".
yet you try a sidestep.
As to your silly comment about most drugs being derived from plants--well, where did that come from? I thought I mentioned pain killers, but maybe you couldn't see that, having to always peer around that weasel's nose you have.
And no it is not a whole new ballgame when a new compound is found which does the same thing as an old compound does. It's only wasted time spent in competitive backbiting trying to weasel in on profits made by others who's proven work does have effect by replicating that effect. It's called copycat in your sphere, it's called repro in selling. either way it doesn't break new ground.
posted on March 20, 2002 12:37:51 PM new
de squirrel right there is the crux of the matter, you as a person witha degree feel confidant to make choices for the rest of us that you personally wont have to live with. Yet an examination of your own statemants realizes a foolish position at best, you said for example that most drugs are not derived from plants then went on to say that there was no difference from the natural occuring drug as opposed to the chemical mfr drug if there is no differance then your point in the first place is incorrect. Logic dictates that there can only be one correct answer. The fact is is that there is no differecne that you have measured or are capable of measuring with todays equipment. That is far different from there is no differance.
posted on March 20, 2002 01:44:08 PM new
auroranorth
"you as a person witha degree feel confidant to make choices for the rest of us that you personally wont have to live with"
?????
I haven't made any choices for anybody. And despite your cute comments about scientists and "engineer types", I do not consider myself superior to anybody because I have degrees in Chemistry.
"you said for example that most drugs are not derived from plants then went on to say that there was no difference from the natural occuring drug as opposed to the chemical mfr drug if there is no difference then your point in the first place is incorrect."
Somebody has got to tell me what this means as neither I nor any of the other wacky "engineer types" around here can figure it out.
Most drugs are not derived from plants.
Whether you eat an orange or take a tablet, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), is ascorbic acid.
posted on March 20, 2002 02:36:27 PM new
desquirrel
it's not surprising to me that you need help to answer an email response, How many of you guys does it take to turn in a light bulb ?
your statement contains two conflicting positives, it is therefore a simple fact that one of the two has to be wrong.
and as far as the natural and synthetic substance being the same, they are possibly the same and appear to be with the limited sicience currently available, Thalidomide was also tested by the drug industry to be safe, yet practice showed otherwise.
you guys cant see the forest because there are too many trees.
Opium was an opiate long before anyone called it papaver somniforum and whether dusquirrel prefers to call it Codeine, Morphine, Heroin, Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), Oxycodone (Percodan), Oxymorphone (Numorphan), Hydrocodone (Vicodin), Meperidine (Demerol), Fentanyl, Methadone(Dolophine), Darvon, or Talwin it's still growin' in the fields.
Oh. You say that Hydromorphone Hydrochloride is an invention of the fabled Lilly Corporation? But the Endo Generic Products only makes a copy of it and didn't legwork it through the FDA so can charge less? Or What?
Seems to me there's a tremendous waste of money when a pharmacuetical company spends so much to get the stuff past the FDA when so many little asian players get it past the DEA for nothing.
I know. The Lilly people buy theirs direct from the Taliban, right? And just make it into tablets with labels and magazine ads in Medical Journals. Never really do any research at all.
Or tell me that Hydromorphone is eight times more powerful than opium by weight and so "IT'S A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME".
posted on March 20, 2002 03:17:04 PM new
actually willow gives us aspirin and so does coal tar derivatives yet I know desquirrel will say they are the same because the chemical structure looks the same. I also agree with Einstein that ''we know less than 1 percent of anything'' and I feel that some day we will have an ability to see marked differences we currently cannot measure. Quinine also would be a plant derivative, and I do understand his points about market and demand. I also know that if the population realizes that they are being priced out of health by parasites. they will not pay and enjoy it but will begin to resist until something gives. personally I hope what gives in is the crimminal bribe a polictician by the rich structure of anti white government we have.
posted on March 20, 2002 03:23:57 PM new
Gosh, you're priceless, Auroranorth -- that last post gave me a sustained three-minute belly-laugh! May you live long and post often...
posted on March 20, 2002 03:30:59 PM new
plsmith, look at it this way: we're helping the younger generation to learn to spell correctly and use grammar well in writing. The next thing you know, they may grasp the fundamentals of things like world causes and Ultimate Evil.
Borillar, both you and Auroranorth should know by now that I prize those posts which make me laugh out loud above all others. No one here is "statesman" material, let's face it, but if we can make each other laugh while we fritter away the hours arguing about things that have already been decided, that is something "valuable" to me. No disrespect intended at all. Really.
isn't oxycontin one of the drugs up there you mentioned?
While I see the med as a needed one, in extreme cases, its big time on the street now
Also I heard certain pharmacists were refusing to fill perfectly legit 'scripts for it, for what reason, I don't know, I guess they think they know what is best? Which is really insane.
