|
Post by falgar25 on Oct 22, 2009 5:04:13 GMT -4
Our enrollment period is coming up, but we did get a "sneak preview" of the changes. My monthly contribution is going up, and my deductable is going up. But it was also pointed out that artificial insemination is now covered. I called my wife (she was babysitting our newest grandson), but I'm not gonna try to post her response to my newest insurance benefit. I don't think it'll get past the automatic "bad word" censor on the forum ;D ;D We also had no preview of the changes until our enrollment period started and neither did the husband of a co-worker. Strange. Does your company show you how much they pay? Did that also go up? For me, the total cost stayed the same but my company shifted more of that cost to me (thus reducing their payment).
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Oct 22, 2009 5:31:30 GMT -4
And those drugs sold in Canada are just the same as those sold here in the US. ..The exact same meds we get here are sold in Canada for a fraction of the cost. Exactly the same manufacturer? Or "exactly the same" the way computer software from China is "exactly the same" as Windows, or Coach and Gucci bags from Korea are "exactly the same" as those I can get in NY, or DVDs from Russia are "exactly the same" as those I can get at Best Buy? Either you misread what I wrote or you're changing the subject. Pharm companies are worried about their patent rights ( P A T E N T ), not patient rights. The pharm companies don't have patients, they have patents. As misternuke pointed out, a vast majority of the beneficial drugs we have today came from the R & D labs of the pharm companies. They wouldn't spend the money on the development of the drugs and seeing the drugs through FDA approval if there was no possibility of making a profit. What you see as a "monopoly" I see as "patent right" protection. Basically, the system is working: because they can make a profit, the pharm companies, working with overpaid doctors, chemists, and other researchers, develop the new meds that keep people alive. Sure, not everyone can afford the new drugs today, but take the profit out of the equation and the new drug development will disappear. Every year around April 15 the Govt calls me Peter.
|
|
|
Post by stephadele on Oct 22, 2009 11:38:46 GMT -4
Either way, falgar, a patent right should not have rights over people trying to buy meds for the best possible cost....That right shouldnt prevent people from getting meds. Corporations shouldnt have more rights than the public....It sounds like socialism in reverse...for the corporations.. There is a good documentary exposing the abuse of this called The Corporation. And BTW, I certainly wasnt overpaid nor were any the psychiatrists I worked with. On the pay scale, psychiatrists and internists/primary care physicians are at the very bottom...We were barely able to afford the costs of living much less be rich...Only certain few doctors who sign up to be reps for pharm companies get those perks...The same few always showed up to deliver the lectures so it wasnt alot of MDs.
New drug developments should be researched and discovered at universities, not pharm companies....It avoids this much of this conflict of interest in terms of profits.. It doesnt make sense to have new drugs if alot of people cant afford them. Im not interested in supporting drug research with my taxes if only certain people have access to the results and a profit making pharm company has complete control over price and costs... It should be available for all of us, not just those who can afford it. And you ignore the bigger [problem of ill people not getting care/ or adequate care from that costs us all more money in the long run. Either we take care of that as a society or you will continue to see medical costs rise from unneccasary emergencies that could have been prevented with the right meds and care at the right time. I dont believe in reactionary care....its way more expensive from preventative care...driving the cost up of everything.
Id also rather have freedom of choice where I buy my meds and for what price, rather than pharm companies deciding that for me in a monopoly and ,along with the Fed govt. ,threatening me with legal action if I dont buy meds from them...Now that is socialism right there!......Its certainly not indicative of the free market working
|
|
|
Post by dej on Oct 23, 2009 8:48:02 GMT -4
We also had no preview of the changes until our enrollment period started and neither did the husband of a co-worker. Strange. Does your company show you how much they pay? Did that also go up? For me, the total cost stayed the same but my company shifted more of that cost to me (thus reducing their payment). We got the preview about two weeks before our enrollment period starts. While they had side by side comparisons of employee costs for 2009 & 2010, for some strange reason, we didn't see the same for employer costs
|
|