On a separate, but slightly related, note: When this government mandate that we must purchase health care insurance takes effect in 2014, we are still going to have Medicare taxes taken out of our paychecks?!?!

At this point though, I think government should stay out of approving drugs. They take waaay too long to approve life-saving medications that have already passed the test in other countries. I would be more for an independent, industry-driven approval plan instead. Let the market demand which drugs get developed and approved. Let volunteers try the drugs- there are many people with terminal illnesses that would be willing to take the risk…they have everything to lose and life to gain. If the independent groups of drug trial oversight didn’t have to waste time or money on lobbying, they could spend more time on research and clinical trials rather than running to Washington half-cocked, pushing for approval of a new drug before it’s been thoroughly tested. See, the way it works right now is the drug companies w/ the most $$ and friends in Washington get their drugs “fast-tracked” through the system, and the FDA just does what they’re told by the ones in D.C. – that is- if they want to keep their cushy government job, and all the perks that come with it. Let’s face it- “THE MAN” will sell us out for a few bucks, an ego stroke, and a good Porterhouse steak.

Also, anyone who wants to take a “new” or experimental drug should be allowed to do so, as long as they understand that there may be side-effects that have not yet been discovered, and they would sign a waiver, admitting they proceed at their own risk.

What this practice is causing is corruption. This lobbying and campaign contributions encourage politicians to oppose enacting laws that would decrease the profits of drug companies.

I know you are against most government intervention and believe in free enterprise, but I think the ideas in my original post can only be corrected with government intervention. The FDA should be forced to do its job effectively, which means forcing drug companies to completely test their products and produce accurate reports. It also means imposing price limits on drugs and hospital supplies with strict penalties for those that violate reasonable billing practices. I don’t think financial penalty is the answer, as this just increases the cost of doing business.

I don’t think anyone in the government has actually performed a complete analysis of the entire healthcare system (separate from Medicare and Medicaid). I would do probably do this between your steps two and three.

1. According to Wikipedia, “The top twenty pharmaceutical companies and their two trade groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and Biotechnology Industry Organization, lobbied on at least 1,600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2004. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, pharmaceutical companies spent $900 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, more than any other industry. During the same period, they donated $89.9 million to federal candidates and political parties, giving approximately three times as much to Republicans as to Democrats.[1] According to the Center for Public Integrity, from January 2005 through June 2006 alone, the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $182 million on Federal lobbying.[2] The industry has 1,274 registered lobbyists in Washington D.C. [3]

“You can hardly swing a cat by the tail in Washington without hitting a pharmaceutical lobbyist,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa)

2. Yes, I completely agree that advertising drugs is silly.

Also look at how many drugs the FDA now warns against and all of the attorney commercials looking for people to sue because of health problems caused by these drugs. I think the FDA has failed to do its job in the beginning when they approved these drugs. More testing needed to occur and drug manufacturers were not disclosing negative test results. Keeping these harmful drugs off the market in the first place would save drug companies millions (if not billions) in legal fees.

Why is it that prescription drugs are so much cheaper in other countries? I’m talking about the exact same brands as in the U.S. and manufactured by the same companies (not blackmarket drugs). Are the high U.S. profits subsidizing cheaper drugs for other countries or is the markup really that high to where Americans are flat out being overcharged?

Why is it that I can go to the ER on my own without insurance and receive a bill that grants me 10% off since I am a cash paying customer? Who says I’m going to pay; there is the risk that I will never pay the bill, but I’m still granted the discount. Why aren’t insurance companies granted discounts since the hospital is almost guaranteed to get paid?

Take a look at a detailed hospital bill from someone who has stayed for a week or more. Look at how much is being charged for little things like bedpans, gowns, drugs (compared to buying them yourself), tampons, q-tips, etc. It is absolutely ridiculous. Insurance companies are footing the bill for these grossly overpriced items. I can go to CVS and get this stuff about 90% cheaper.

Insurance is not our problem; it is the healthcare industry itself. With the high cost of healthcare, I can understand why insurance companies want to protect themselves from high risk customers.

Well written!

Ken