What do you pay for ?

[Mimmsicle]

[center][size=1][b][ Thanks to Everyone who helped me out with this ^_^ ][/center][/size][/b][color=darkred]

[b]I have been thinking about things we pay for. [/b]

This stemmed from reading many articles and interviews over the years, featuring young women who loudly protested about sanitary protection being over charged.
Often followed a demand that it should be free, since periods are not voluntarily.

When I started to think about other situations where help/aid is unfairly priced and discrimination occurs, I was reminded of a movie that dealt with AIDS and the implications of the disease[size=1] (in a very Hollywood-esque manner of course).[/size]

People with AIDS need medication [size=1](expensive medication)[/size] and if they have Health Insurance, that [i]could[/i] assist them. *

But it appears that things aren't as crystal clear as such.
Some Insurance Companies will try to either wash their hands off an AIDS/HIV inflicted person, or increase the premium.
This kind of discrimination is illegal of course, but Insurance Companies have found ways around that.[/color]
[size=1][b]
[ Charles provided a [i]very[/i] interesting article about this, unfortunately I didn't gather where it came from. But if anyone would like to read it, PM me ^_^ ][/size][/b]
[color=darkred]

I then remembered a thread here on OB, where the subject of drug addicts being given free injections/or needles for injections, came up **

Drug addicts are aided in their sickness, while people dying of AIDS have to fight Insurance Companies [i]and[/i] their disease ?

I realise that some things must be paid for, but what is reasonable to pay for ?
When is it downright silly to charge [too much] money for a service/product ? [/color]

[size=1][b][It would be nice if this could be kept fairly high quality ? so please refrain from complaining about how much a pair of Gucci shoes cost and alike. Thank you.][/size][/b]
[color=darkred]
- Mimmi [/color]

*[size=1] I am not very familiar with the medical system, so if anyone would take it upon them to shed some light over this, feel free to do so.[/size]

**[size=1] The thread was not about this, however I fail to remember which thread it was and the exact statement, so if anyone would care to repeat that information - go ahead.[/size]

[Semjaza]

I don't have anything I need medicine for, personally. However, my girlfriend has diabetes. The insulin and such are ridiculously expensive without insurance.

This became an issue when her mother lost her job several months back. The family health insurance went with it. Almost everything they had went to paying for the supplies she basically needed to stop herself from simply dying. Luckily her mom got a new job and things are back to normal.

Anyway, that's the end of my story. I just find it kind of sad, really. I find it hard to believe that these supplies should cost as much as they do.

[lea]

[COLOR=blue]I think in certain cases, especially if you are poor, things should be either free, or drastically reduced.
Of course, there will be people disputing that if you don't have the money, then tough luck....
I just think differently -_-[/COLOR]

[Mimmsicle]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Semjaza Azazel [/i]
[B]I don't have anything I need medicine for, personally. However, my girlfriend has diabetes. The insulin and such are ridiculously expensive without insurance.

This became an issue when her mother lost her job several months back. The family health insurance went with it. Almost everything they had went to paying for the supplies she basically needed to stop herself from simply dying. Luckily her mom got a new job and things are back to normal.

Anyway, that's the end of my story. I just find it kind of sad, really. I find it hard to believe that these supplies should cost as much as they do. [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=darkred]I just wanted to add, in referance to the cost of medical supplies, that in Sweden we have a system that builds on discount [size=1](or however I should explain it)[/size]

When you've bought medicine for about 200 $, you get a 50 % discount on future purchases.
If you reach 400 $, you get a "free pass". Meaning you don't pay for the medicine.

[b]But[/b] this only applies for [i]certain medication[/i], and for a 12 month period.
And I gather that most medicine is so expensive, that this system doesn't offer enough help [i]*shrugs*[/i]

I believe that there is something called [b]Medicaid[/b] in the USA [size=1](Lea told me a little about this)[/size].
Could anyone explain further what that means, what it builds on ?

- Mimmi[/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[quote]I find it hard to believe that these supplies should cost as much as they do.[/quote] Well, to start from the beginning...

HIV is a very dynamic disease, in that you always have to change your medication. It's just a downhill battle that everyone eventually loses - with the exception of an [I]extremely[/I] few, who are the descendants of those inflicted with the Bubonic plague during the Black Death and survived. The problem with HIV is simply the mechanics of infection: Macrophage attacks, attempts phagocytosis (to devour), but is injected with HIV's RT (reverse transcriptase, which is the key element to infection) and mutated. The time to digest and breakdown the virus is just not as efficient as the virus' injection, rendering the immune system useless.

Now, if we could hinder the effectiveness and speed of the RT HIV uses, the immune system could handle the rest. That's exactly the line of medicine people work with. Yes, it always works rather well, and reduces the virus count drastically when first applied. However, mutations arise in the virus' RT coding, making the medicine a person first takes useless against the new strand of RT. There are several virulent mutations, each of which are given specific names: HIV-1 (original), HIV-2, HIV-3, and I think there are a few more. Only the virulent mutations are given specific names, since other mutations are too small and/or easily removed.

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but besides the people born with AIDS (and that needle thing, which totals to a very small margin of the people), it's really a person's own fault for acquiring the disease. I always thought AIDS would decrease as time passed, since people would be more wary of the disease - but no - we've got too many people having fun.

Anyway, to get to the point of the thing, there's a reason why medication for HIV in particular is expensive, since you always have to keep switching medication, take a stab in the dark as to which mutation the person has, and then recommend a new drug; all the while testing new blood samples.

I also understand where insurance companies are coming from, since they are probably losing much more than they do with other people using the insurance. Although it is technically wrong, is it also not technically wrong for someone else to pay for your own vices? I mean, isn't insurance supposed to be something that pays for an incident/happening that is completely unforeseeable? Does HIV/AIDS really fall into that category? I would say not...

In short, there are ridiculous prices, but there's always a reason behind it. As for the whole drug addict thing, I think there's just a quantitative aspect to it: it's possible to help more drug-addicted people than HIV-infected persons with the same amount of money.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=violet]Well, this subject is a lot different than what I thought it would be, but anyways....

I think it's ridiculous that many insurance companies in the United States don't cover birth control and these same companies will cover Viagra and other impudency drugs.

Before I became covered by the military's insurance plan (best one ever, you don't have to pay for anything:love: ) I was paying about $75. for three packs of Ortho-Trycycline. Each pack lasted about one month and I had to get a three pack every three months.

Also, I have clinical derpression (you wouldn't know it if you knew me, but the Dr's say I have it so....) and I had to take Paxil. Even with the insurance coverage from my old job I had to pay about $75. out of pocket for a 1 month supply. I found that pretty crappy.

I think the worst part of drug costs is for all the ones the senior citizens take. My mama has to take about 4 different ones in the morning and 5 at night. I shudder to think about how much those are. The majority fo seniors are on a fixed income and Medicare or whatever they're covered by usually doesn't cover all the cost and that's probably why so many of the ones in gthe northern states drive to Canada.

In conclusion I would also like to say:
I do think that feminine hygein products are grossly over priced. It's not like any woman chooses to have their period. But I think it would be time consuming for a Dr.'s office to be swamped with perscriptions for Tampax Pearl and Always with Wings. Besides the makers of these products know they have a market and women will always need things like these until Menopause-then watch out.[/color]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AzureWolf [/i]
[B]
I don't want to sound like a jerk, but besides the people born with AIDS (and that needle thing, which totals to a very small margin of the people), it's really a person's own fault for acquiring the disease. I always thought AIDS would decrease as time passed, since people would be more wary of the disease - but no - we've got too many people having fun.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I just want to point out that it's unfair to make generalizations. There are people who get HIV (men and women) who either don't know their partner has the disease (neglect on the part of the partner), or who actually have a condom break or something like that. So, yes, while there are a lot of careless people...we should be careful not to say that everyone besides those born with the disease are automatically at fault. There's also the risk of being infected via blood transfer, for example.

In any case, I agree that the current system for dealing with medication (especially life saving medication) is inadequate. And I dislike the way that poor countries are being denied access to cheaper versions of big-name drugs.[/color]

[Panda]

Hot topic here. I am on alot of medications. I pay alot for my health insurance and have a co-pay for all my meds. At the begining of the month they (the pharmacy) had a computer glitch and it wasn't showing my insurance as being valid (something was wrong with the insurance company's computers). I would have to pay full price for my meds if I wanted them right away. The cheapest of the 8 meds I take is $50 for 30 pills!

Needless to say I decided to wait until things got sorted out which was only a couple of days....but because I was off my meds getting back on them really made me sick...thus, missing a couple of days of work. It is terrible. I have to work so I can afford my insurance and meds, but without the meds I can't work so things like this really mess me up. (One of my meds is a chemo drug and that just is icky...and expensive.)

I do believe people need to try to work to pay for their meds, but there should be some room for special cases. No one should have to go without meds.

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]In reference to the thing about the pads/tampons:

What kind of obscure, pointless, senseless argument is this? Should toilet paper be free, too? After all, other perfectly natural bodily functions are equally involuntary. Unless you don't plan on eating.

If some one has the time to argue against pricing sanitary pads, while they could be out doing great things, then there really is nothing that can be done for them.

Anyway, I wasn't attacking you personally, I just found the argument kind of amusing. (yes, I am, in fact, a girl, so I have a right to make an argument here)

Apparently, in Canada, heroine etc... addicts are able to get free drugs from the government, as well. I am not informed very well as to the ways of our health-care, so I wont try to make any arguments based on assumptions, but I do agree that those with diseases should have priority over those who are addicted to drugs when it comes to funding.

And you can't blame people with STDs, like some one stated above. After all, unless you're

[FONT=Arial Black][B][COLOR=Red]SPOILER ALERT[/COLOR][/B][/FONT]

Himura Kaoru, you're not going to knowingly put yourself at risk.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I just want to point out that it's unfair to make generalizations. There are people who get HIV (men and women) who either don't know their partner has the disease (neglect on the part of the partner), or who actually have a condom break or something like that. So, yes, while there are a lot of careless people...we should be careful not to say that everyone besides those born with the disease are automatically at fault. There's also the risk of being infected via blood transfer, for example.

In any case, I agree that the current system for dealing with medication (especially life saving medication) is inadequate. And I dislike the way that poor countries are being denied access to cheaper versions of big-name drugs.[/color][/QUOTE][font=Georgia][color=blue]Ah, yes, that's a good point. You know, until you mentioned it, I never thought of that possibility. Well, in that case, the partner for being neglectful and risking his/her partner isn't the best person in the world, I'd say. I mean, that means he/she [i]you-know-what[/i] with someone else and then [i]you-know-what[/i] with the uninfected partner. The person who gets AIDS out of someone else's carelessness is not in any fault, IMO.[/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=blue]However, for the condom breaking thing, why play with fire? Not the best idea to express love to someone who could kill you.[/color][/font]

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf]
[font=Georgia][color=blue]However, for the condom breaking thing, why play with fire? Not the best idea to express love to someone who could kill you.[/color][/font][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Especially when there are other way of expressing your feelings for another person that mean at least as much, if not more.

As far as the distribution of AIDS drugs, it?s a very difficult choice. Drug companies sped millions of dollars and use up thousands of man-hours to create drugs that benefit only a small portion of the population. When the government tries, out of compassion, to help those who are less fortunate by regulating the drug companies and forcing them to accept price caps, they?re hurting the drug companies.

Overall, you have to value human life over the profits of companies. However, this unfair treatment of drug companies is not only against the spirit of capitalism but also terrible for business. There should definitely be some major government funding for drug research, possibly a co-op program that could be beneficial to both groups.

That?s my take on it.[/color]

[MarkM]

Well we can get medicine for a much smaller price from Canada (this applys for the USA). But we can thank Bush for allowing that to happen ...

Old ladies eat cat food because they spend their money on drugs.


sad sad sad,

-Mark