Skip to main content

View Diary: No 'rate shock' for Obamacare in California (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree. (5+ / 0-)

    It's not up to PhRMA to determine which of their costly drugs makes me "healthy," whether I can tolerate its side effects, or whether their metrics are legitimate or a passing fad.

    As I said, it makes sense to encourage people to go to their doctors, but there are a heap of unintended consequences to forcing it.

    •  It's not the drugs - it's the cholesterol (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wmspringer, FindingMyVoice

      If you've got high cholesterol, and you're not doing anything to lower it, your premiums should be higher.

      And by doing things to lower it I don't mean unproven methods.

      Like it or not we are all in this health care cost together. If you're engaging in behavior that has been proven to damage your health then it costs the rest of us money.

      You've gotta carry your portion of the load.

      That's why we have the motorcycle helmet laws. I remember when all the hew and cry went up about the motor cycle helmet laws. If that infringes on their freedom - tough.

      It's not up to PhRMA to determine which of their costly drugs makes me "healthy," whether I can tolerate its side effects, or whether their metrics are legitimate or a passing fad.
      It's not Pharma that determines which drugs make you healthy. It's the program administrators that make that judgment. That's how it works in Medicare.
      As I said, it makes sense to encourage people to go to their doctors, but there are a heap of unintended consequences to forcing it.
      I really don't think there are a lot of unintended consequences to this. The research is all there.
      •  "Proven" today = tomorrow's recall (nt) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musiccitymollie, mmacdDE
        •  Simply not true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SoCalSal, FindingMyVoice

          and you have nothing to back that up.

          Lipitor has a decades long proven track record.

          As do certain lifestyle changes.

          While it may feel good to say

          "Proven" today = tomorrow's recall
          it has no basis in reality as a blanket statement about this subject matter.
          •  I wasn't talking specifically about Lipitor... (3+ / 0-)

            ...but about the number of both prescription drugs and medical trends the efficacy of which has changed over time.

            For example, new studies show that being fat isn't the death sentence commonly ascribed to the condition--which flies in the face of every employee "wellness" program that's been created to date.

            12 years ago it was common practice for doctors to urge menopausal women to take synthetic hormones--but the side effects turned out to be so lethal that one study was stopped midstream and women then urged to not take the hormones.

            Medicine evolves, as it should. But it's not the state's job to force me to take particular meds--especially in a for-profit medical system such as ours, where most of the pre-market testing is performed by those with financial interest in particular outcomes.

            As I said, we'll have to wait and see whether my concerns are warranted. I don't doubt that others will share my concerns if they are warranted.

            •  I wasn't talking specifically about Lipitor (0+ / 0-)

              but rather the cholesterol reducing drugs and lifestyle changes that have been proven over decades.
              The study you reference doesn't "show that being fat isn't the death sentence" as you state.
              The article refers to that ONE study which is very much in dispute. Reference paragraph 16 of the article.

              The reference to menopausal hormone treatment really doesn't compare to the decades of research and experience concerning heart disease.

              I never said the sate should force you to take meds or develop a healthy life style. I said YOU should pay for the extra health care expense you most likely will incur - not me.

              Thus the higher premiums.

              In a way I'm saying you can't have your cake and eat it too.

              •  Your saying that is fine... (0+ / 0-)

       concern was the government telling me I can't have my cake and my insurance subsidies too!

                Like I said, we'll have to wait and see how this shakes out. I'm hoping my concerns are for naught and that there won't be mandatory physicals or mandatory "wellness" edicts--not in the least because of the public shitstorm that would ensue and jeopardize other parts of the Act.

                Until then, ciao!

          •  lipitor - not all roses (5+ / 0-)

            We’re overdosing on cholesterol-lowering statins,” Topol writes, “and the consequence could be a sharp increase in the incidence of Type 2 diabetes.”

            As a former medical librarian and evidenced-based medicine geek, I'll chime in here that having everyone "take your Lipitor" is not such a great idea.  Unfortunately, many of our research studies are tainted by "ghost writers" from Big Pharma. Studies that disprove what a drug company wants are simply not published, so that when a meta-analysis is performed, it looks like all the research is glowing.  My sister suffered from severe muscle pain from Lipitor, could have led to kidney failure if she had not stopped taking it.

            •  You don't understand what I was saying (0+ / 0-)

              Or what the article you reference says.

              First - I wasn't saying that everybody should be taking Lipitor.
              I said that people with high cholesterol should be engage in cholesterol lowering behavior or pay higher health care premiums.
              Cholesterol lowering behavior includes a number of possibilities. Taking statins, changing diet, and exercising are all factors - proven factors.

              If people don't want to engage in those behaviors they should pay higher health care premiums.

              Second, that article in Forbes is simply voicing the highly disputed contention of ONE person about statins. The opening of the article even stated that that person had broken ranks with most others in his profession. It quotes others directly contradicting him.

              •  I really do understand... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Willa Rogers

                I understand your argument about healthy lifestyle choices - my point was the problem with prescribing drugs to solve all our health issues - the link was just one example of what can go wrong with jumping on a current drug as a lifesaver without good evidence, and our evidence is not good.  The link to the sci-am article about poor quality and tainted evidence was my main point.  sorry it wasn't evident in such a short post.

          •  Lipitor has unwanted effects (5+ / 0-)

            like all medications.

            "Proven" today = tomorrow's recall
            No basis? Lots of drugs have been taken off the market. I was on one of them. My doctor called me one day and told me to stop taking it - today, not tomorrow - as it was found to sometimes cause liver failure.

            Unlike many people I know, I am a believer in modern medicine and take drugs. But even I can plainly see that the drug companies cannot be trusted; they conceal negative research and exaggerate benefits. And drug interactions are largely untested and unknown.

            Moreover there are many people who dispute the significance of cholesterol levels in causing disease.

            We open up a huge can of worms if we start coercing people into taking drugs and/or punishing them for health risks that may or may not be ascertainable and may or may not be under their control.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Fri May 24, 2013 at 04:55:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  It's an incredibly bad idea to tie (6+ / 0-)

        one's health care fees or subsidies to the taking of a particular drug for an ailment.  Very bad politically and very bad for the feeding frenzy it would set off for the drug companies to get that drug qualified for subsidy offsets

        That's absolutely the worst idea I have ever heard of in this healthcare debate.

        Right man, right job and right time

        by Ianb007 on Fri May 24, 2013 at 05:57:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I was just doing the "slippery slope" thing (0+ / 0-)

          ...from requiring annual physicals to requiring that you follow your doctor's (or insurer's) recommended course of treatment.

          Right now I'm more interested in the former, since Covered California included the language I referenced, than in the latter (which could--but hasn't--come to pass).

    •  Hear, hear! N/T (0+ / 0-)


      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      by musiccitymollie on Fri May 24, 2013 at 03:26:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site