Bill Maher's rant for health care pharmaceutical industry

Like that Cosmo...
"Just say "No" to pharmaceuticals!
A great call to action.
I am still surprised at how many people in the industry and media, apparently from their weak arguments.. won't watch "Sicko" because it's radical.

They also won't watch Inconvenient Truth and give feeble and ignorant statements about global warming in their reporting.

All people in these positions and teachers should be encouraged to watch these important documentaries since their behavior has a critical impact on society.

Ditto Cosmo // The whole procrastination thing is another issue. Today, it's almost like campaign advertising threads hold more educational value than tutorials.. or perhaps is that because they get more exposure(?)

I did like that!....but also agree and disagree. Of course it's right to take care of ourselves, and of course the pharmaceutical industry wants to sell us every little purple pill that makes us kick up or heels or rest our restless legs (which are now a "syndrome")...BUT....some people get sick anyway, and are really truly (not make believe) sick. Everything modern science has figured out is not garbage (just a lot of it).

The trick is to take advantage of the advantages and leave the garbage for the garbage. The truth (if you do become really sick or are in an accident) lies somewhere in between "eat your vegetables" and "take a pill".

The son of my friend was diagnosed with ADHD about 2 years ago. Doctors were ready to hand over the Ritalin but my friend wasn't so sure. She really wanted to work closely with her son; understand him, get him involved in activities, a little prayer, and simply love him before she was sure she had to pump him full of drugs. 4 months after the diagnosis, his teachers have been saying what a wonderful student he was, how his grades improved as did his attitude. Today his a healthy 11 year old. I was so happy that she was not fooled by the ads. I was happy she wasn't fooled by her doctors.

Mental illness is something that I can understand needing medication for but some folks are just so quick to jump into the pills. Our physical illness however, are something that we should be trying to prevent rather than say, "It's OK. I can live however I want because they keep putting out medicines for everything." Yeah, the science behind pharmaceuticals is great but the science behind keeping good health is even better and far more simpler.

I too do not have health insurance so it's important that I keep a healthy lifestyle. I never thought about how the pharm industry is a business but I knew it was getting out of hand once they started advertising medicine for restless-leg syndrome. Are you kidding me?! It was then I knew this whole thing is going to far.

"Ask your doctor, if getting off your ass, is good for you."

When I think about how preventable many of these diseases are, it makes me wonder how it is we've gotten to this point. It looks like a combination of fattier foods and transportation. We eat worst, and walk less. No wonder we rank like 30th in the world for life expectancy. And we're suppose to be the superpower.

Love it MornRail!...a Current Pod anyone?

Great slogan for our society Neghie!!

spoon I am not a religious anti pill fanatic.
They have saved my life I am sure of that.
I believe that our medical services could be the finest in world...I am sure of that..if we got our priorities straightened out. First do no harm would be a great start!
WE just need to do your own homework for now.
I use Dr Weil's web for information. He is offering doctors training in Integrative Health that my doctor attended along with Harvard.
Even he is not perfect so I sift through his recommendations also.

The World Health Organization's report ranked our overall health 72nd, and our health system's performance 37th. Here is a bit from a recent Commonwealth Fund report:

"The U.S. spends twice per capita what other industrialized nations spend on health care, but ranks 19th out of 19 countries on mortality amenable to medical care. There are wide variations in health care outlays across the U.S., with no apparent relationship to quality or health outcomes. Over 100,000 lives could be saved if all states in the U.S. performed at the level of the best state, at considerably lower cost. The U.S. could learn from best practices within the nation and from other countries on how to simultaneously improve quality and efficiency."

Take a pie. Remove 31% of it and throw it in the garbage. That represents how much we're allowing health insurers to eat (divert dollars spent on health care away from health care). Pharmaceuticals are 11-12%, and some of them actually do help some people. All health insurers do is cost gouge healthy Americans and deny needed care to sick ones. How dumb can one country be?

I like Dr. Weil and use his website too (get his emails even).

We've all seen how much money pharmaceutical companies make. We've all seen their reps visit our doctor's office. We've all had doctors that try to push the most expensive prescription onto us.

What I don't understand is HOW ARE PEOPLE STILL FALLING FOR THIS?

Here are a few guesses:
1) People are too busy to actually take time to heal themselves with diet, less stress, exercise, etc.
2) People want a quick & easy fix because they can't miss work. (Which is probably true.)
3) People are suckers for marketing schemes like the "restless leg syndrome".
4) People inherently trust the medical system. They want to trust their doctors because they don't have the education themselves.

Any other suggestions?

He's so correct. The pharmaceutical industry does not give a DAMN about curing diseases. Because if you aren't sick, they wont make any money. They treat symptoms. Americans are stupid and lazy. And that is the problem. If we ate less red meat, more vegetables, drank more tea and went for a run a few miles a day. Trust, a lot of the illness we face today wouldn't be there. Obesity. That's just one thing that pisses me OFF. How is it that in one part of the world---the people are dying because they don't have any food to eat. But on the complete other side of the world---the people are dying because they eat too much. Diabetes, Gastric bypass. You have got to be kidding me.

We really should call it "health coupons" instead of insurance because insurance never really pays for anything in full.

Some people want to treat "illness" like it were a consumer product. Okay, let's put that to the test. What if your local grocery store (as opposed to your hospital) offered you the following deal:

The grocery store offers a special discount card that will save you up to 40 percent on SOME of your purchases (that discount could be revoked at any time for any reason at the discretion of the 3rd party business servicing your card).

If you want to buy an apple with the discount card it will cost you $2.00 (ouch) but without the card it will cost you $18.76.

Don't really have a choice, do ya? So you sign up for the discount card.

Great! All you have to do is pay a 3rd party business that "services" your discount card $450 a month. See! You're already saving money.

So you go to buy an apple at the store and you swipe your discount card.

"That will be $32.00" the clerk says. "It's a $30 co-pay for the privledge of shopping here in addition to the cost of the apple."

The next day you come back and buy an apple, some laundry detergent and some paper towels.

"That will be $102.00" the clerk says. "$30 co-pay, $2.00 for the apple and since your Silver Level discount card doesn't cover paper towels so the full price is $25.00 and the laundry detergent is only 'discounted' via your taxes as a deduction so you'll to pay the full price up front at $45.00. Keep your receipt so that when you file you can apply $3.00 for that particular expense toward your allowable deductions."

Sounds ridiculous to me.

Of course a grocery store is all optional. You can pick whatever you want.

Nobody can pick what illnesses they are going to get.

Health insurance seems like a ridiculous system to me that really doesn't "save" anyone any money at all. In fact, it almost seems designed to hide excessive increases.

Binarysunset---I have to argue with that RLS thing. I dont think its necessary to take medication for ANYTHING. But that does not mean the illnesses are fake. RLS is a neurological condition that effects the nerves in people limbs and causes indescribable sensations that warrant urgent movement. I know that because occasionally I get it. But that does not mean people need to go out and get some mirapex. Maybe their bodies are just telling them to walk around?

good to know that someone still has their head on straight. eating healthy and having an active lifestyle(i.e. getting out of the house to do something besides to go the mall) is all it will take to get our country physically healthy again. turn off the tv, the computer, and get outside. its spring now. enjoy it.

Health insurers make an incredible amount of money (31% of evrything we spend on health care) in one of two ways: charging healthy people as much as possible, and denying medical care to sick ones as often as possible. That's not a good business model for consumers.

Pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money (11-12% of what we spend on health care) in one of two ways: selling people medicine they don't need, and selling people medicine they do need. One of those is a good model for consumers while the other one not so much.

I've done quite a bit of homework on this issue. Last I checked the CEO of Johnson & Johnson was being paid $4 million dollars/year and had tens of millions of dollars worth of unexercised stock options. The CEO of United Health Group was being paid (can't say "earned") $57 million/year and had $1.6 Billion (with a "B") dollars in unexercised stock options, not counting the hundreds of millions he'd already cashed out...or is it in?

More later; I have to go exercise (body, not options).

I think that Spoon's statement {The truth (if you do become really sick or are in an accident) lies somewhere in between "eat your vegetables" and "take a pill"} says it best. There's a middle ground for everything and health starts with lifestyle, but when genetic diseases or deadly illnesses are at stake medication can help save lives.

I think the majority of the outrage is the over prescribing/advertising to the point that medications have become recreational drugs of choice.

RLS= your body telling you to go for a freaking walk.
2 of my family "have that"

crob great comparision!
Very funny but in a dark way since people are dying all around us.

regarding ADD...I think that many in my family have that. My father went on to create an amazing business and was well loved...so what if he was a little shy when he was little..that is not as sickness.. I might have it a bit too...I put on my headset and listen to music or books on tape to help me doing my boring chores..much more effective.

I agree with the spirit of what Bill is saying, as I do most often. Bill can get a little bit out there at time though. In this case he was pretty much on target. Those commercials have always made me wonder. With some of the side effects, how bad is the problem really? And the one for sexual dysfunction - if it gives me a headache, backache or dizziness I may not be in the mood anymore.

I tried to link this but the link didn't work, so decided to copy and paste the whole thing. I thought it was an interesting article.

OK, in two parts....here's Part 1

HEALTH POLICY PLACEBOS

From "The Nation Magazine" 4/14/08
By Drs. David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler

Harvard Medical School Founders: Physicians for a National Health Program.

We don't administer useless nostrums for curable cancer -- even when effective treatment is arduous. Yet Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama prescribe the health policy equivalent of placebos. (John McCain prescribes arsenic, but more about him later.)

The Democratic contenders proffer a superficially plausible reform model that has a long record of failure. Their proposals trace back to Nixon's 1971 employer mandate scheme, concocted to woo moderate Republicans away from Ted Kennedy's singlpayer plan. Like mandate reforms subsequently passed (and failed) in Massachusetts (1988), Oregon (1989), and Washington (1993), Clinton's and Obama's plans would coulple subsidies for the poor with a requirement that large employers foot part of the bill for employee coverage. Obama limits his mandate to children. In both versions, a federal agency would serve as insurance broker selling a new public plan and a menu of private ones -- reprising the format of Medicare's ongoing privatization, implemented through competition rigged to favor private plans.

The earlier state reforms foundered on the shoals of cost. As health spending soared, employers rebelled and legislators rescinded the mandates and subsidies. Massachusetts looks set to replay this experience; only 7 percent of those required to buy subsidized coverage have yet to sign up, while the state wrestles with massive cost overruns for subsidies.

Proposals that rely on private insurers can add coverage only by adding costs. Both Democrats promise savings from computerization, prevention and chronic disease-care management. Yet medical computing hasn't yielded savings, despite thirty yeaars of rosy promises. As for prevention, a raft of studies shows that it saves lives, not money. And the Medicare Health Support program recently abandoned its care management project because it yielded no savings.

Both Democrats' proposals forgo the administrative savings possible under single-payer national health insurance (NHI) such as that proposed by Conyers/Kucinich bill (HR 676) and by Ralph Nader. Bureaucracy consumes 31 percent of US health spending, versus 17 perecent in Canada. The difference translates into $350 billion frittered away annually here, where a million healthcare workers, as well as hundreds of thousands in the insurance industry, spend their days in useless paperwork.

This waste is a natural byproduct of private insurance. Private plan overhead is eleven times that of Canada's NHI program. Each dollar spent on private premiums buys only 88 cents of care; the rest pays for insurers' marketing, underwriting, utilization, reviewers and profits -- and for billions paid to their CEO's. Fragmented coverage also means duplication of claims- processing facilities and mountains of paperwork for doctors and hospitals, which must deal with multiple insurance products, each with its own eligibility rules, co-payments, referral networks, etc. -- tasks that are absent in Canada. Our multiplicity of insurance , also precludes the payment to hospitals of a global, lump-sum budget. In Canada global budgets obviate the need for most hospital billing and much of the internal accounting needed to attribute costs to individual patients and payers.

Clinton's and Obama's plans also lack credible means to redirect the hundreds of billions now wasted on overtreatment. Hospitals, doctors and equipment firms profit from investments in expensive high-tech care, encouraging the over-use of interventions that help some patients but hurt others -- for example, spine surgery, cardiac stents and CAT scans (which often deliver radiation equivalent to 500 chest Xrays.) Insurers limit their outlays through intrusive case-by-case reviews or by raising co-payments. But they have little interest in systemwide cost control, so their efforts have mainly shifted costs to patients or other payers -- the economic equivalent of squeezing a balloon. In contrast, NHI would allow explicit public decision-making about today's capital investments that shape tomorrow's care, and straightforward mechanisms to limit profit.

Without savings, the tax increases Obama and Clinton propose would be eaten up by subsidies for the uninsured, leaving nothing for the majority of Americans already covered but often unable to afford care. As we found in a 2005 study with Elizabeth Warren and Deborah Thorne, three-quarters of the 750,000 families driven to bankruptcy each year by illness or medical bills had coverage, though with unaffordable co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services. NHI would eliminate these gaps. Private insurers caused the healthcare crisis. Yet both Democratic contenders advocate reforms that would fortify private plans, making government their debt collector. Their proposals, while palatable to the health industry -- which supplies the Democrats with huge donations as well as key officials (DNC credentials committee co-chair James Roosevelt moonlights as an insurance company CEO) -- cannot cure our healthcare crisis.

Nonetheless, we're optimistic about the prognosis for healthcare reform. If you turn up the volume on C-SPAN you can hear the audience cheering whenever Clinton or Obalma lets the the words "single payer" slip out -- a reflection of the fact that three-fifths of the general public, as well as the 124,000 member American College of Physicians, support NHI. As in the JFK era, acharismatic, if only tepidly liberal, candidate can help raise hopes and expectations, igniting a mass movement that pushes a progressive agenda further and faster than the candidate intends.

(I guess it took three parts....hope it ended up in the right order.)

thanks spoon I will read it..gtg get some work done this site is getting addictive..I think we have been starved for honest communication for so long its refreshing

An interesting alegory to what is going on in our country can be read in the book The Fifth Sacred Thing by Starhawk. Interestingly the people in the story living in LA were being drugged into submissive states, through their food. When they decided to escape they had to fast so that they could get enough brain function back to make decisions and have the energy to get away....

I will look it up HellaDelicious..thanks.
Another silly film is Idiocracy...have you seen it.?
it is a funny concept.

I like "The Girl In the Cafe".

I cannot stand Bill Maher because he completely polarizes issues that should not be partisan - they should be about general human well-being!
That said, this is an issue that needs to be spoken out about as much as possible because it is a unique, dysfunctional, and depressing aspect of our healthcare situation...It is in the government's interest (for those that have their pockets in insurance companies) to keep us sick. PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND TREATMENT ARE THE ANSWER...NOT PROFIT FROM ILLNESS!!!!!

I just read an article (Washington Post, 4-11-2008) about workers worried about health problems that might be caused by the building they are all working in...at the U.S. Interior Department. I can't make this stuff up because no one would believe it.

Experts' best guesses are that health problems are 50-50, about half caused by our own stupidity and the other half not.