Journal pudge's Journal: Legislators Demonstrate Why State Health Care Is Terrible Idea 14
SB 5892 is a measure to save costs in state-sponsored health care programs. The state has already been allowed to rewrite doctor prescriptions, but SB 5892 goes further.
It says, "A state purchased health care program may immediately designate an available, less expensive generic product in a previously reviewed drug class as preferred, without first submitting the product to review by the pharmacy and therapeutics committee."
It adds, "If, within a therapeutic class, there is a therapeutic alternative over-the-counter drug available, a state purchased health care program may automatically designate the over-the-counter drug as the preferred drug."
We know that generic and OTC drugs are often not the same, including differences in side effects, drug interactions, and methods of working.
There's plenty of other new powers the law would give to the state over doctors' wishes. Perhaps even worse is limiting doctors' abilities to prescribe drugs for treatments not listed on the drugs' labels, which removes the ability of doctors to prescribe new and promising treatments for a wide range of medical problems.
Not only does this bill have the negative immediate effect of reducing the potential quality of care for lower income Washingtonians, but it should serve as a warning to all of us, as many people want government to subsidize our health care, and we are seeing proof that the government is quite willing to sacrifice our care for money.
I have word there's a hearing tomorrow; I'll post when I get details.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
If the state manages health care (Score:1)
they should act like the "dumb pipe", not an HMO. The only thing they need to look into is fraud, but they should lay off everything else. All medical decisions must only be made by the doctor and the patient, everyone else should butt out, outside the safety issues of course. The micromanagement you describe should never be tolerated. It's unfortunate that a power struggle or turf war will ruin the whole thing. But with a disinterested public, that is likely what will happen. That is the root of many probl
Re: (Score:2)
The micromanagement you describe should never be tolerated.
But unfortunately, it happens anyway.
That is the root of many problems of the government. If you don't watch over the servants, they will steal the change off your dresser, and probably your cufflinks too.
What government doesn't do this? Show me one, and I'll show you a government that doesn't have the power to.
Re: (Score:1)
But again, I ask you, from where does the government derive its power?
Re: (Score:2)
But again, I ask you, from where does the government derive its power?
"Again"? Its just power is derived from the consent of the governed. That says nothing about its unjust powers, of course. Why do you ask? Are you implying that anything an elected government does is acceptable, because the governed give them the power to act?
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't say that I find it acceptable. I don't vote for the incumbent. However, the majority happens to disagree. They choose to keep the violators in place. It could be a result of their ignorance of the law, or it could be for some perceived personal gain. Not being a mind reader makes deciphering motivation very difficult. Even when I disagree, I try to see and describe the situation from their POV, and put mine aside. I hope journals and blogs can get people to investigate. I'm not in disagreement with
Re: (Score:2)
I just wouldn't call bad implementation as a reason not to have, in this case, state funded health care.
You missed point, which is not that this implementation will exist in such a program, but that it CAN exist.
Of course, it's not the main reason why we should not have state-funded health care: that is simple liberty. It is wrong to take from me to give to someone else for the sake of "charity." It is wrong to force me into a program I don't want to be a part of. And so on.
And at the federal level, it's unconstitutional, to boot.
Re: (Score:1)
Well jeeze, bad implementation CAN exist in any endeavor. I don't know where to go with this. Sorry, man...
Re: (Score:2)
Well jeeze, bad implementation CAN exist in any endeavor.
Exactly. And usually, these problems are fixed by taking your business elsewhere. Which is one big reason why the gov't shouldn't be doing these things.
Re: (Score:1)
The alternative to taking your business elsewhere is to replace management. The government and the market are driven by the same people...you and me. If we can't make government work, how are we going to do any better with the market? Both need strong oversight. Unless you want the whole world to look like the Mexican border or Somali coast.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative to taking your business elsewhere is to replace management.
And if you can't, then you are no better off, whereas if you can take your business elsewhere ...
The government and the market are driven by the same people...you and me.
Except with the market, you can take your business elsewhere.
If we can't make government work, how are we going to do any better with the market?
By taking our business elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
And if you can't...
You really believe that? I guess voting is a waste,huh? I mean what's the point if you can't do precisely that?
Re: (Score:2)
And if you can't [replace management in government] ...
You really believe that?
Do I really believe that sometimes you cannot remove politicians through voting? Yes, of course I believe that. Why don't you?
In fact, if I could always just replace management by voting, then there WOULD be NO point to voting, because if that were the case, it would only be because everyone had the same opinions, in which case voting would be unnecessary. You have it completely backward.
Well, to be clear.... (Score:2)
Generic and OTC drugs perform identically when they include the same active and inert ingredients in the same proportions, and manufacturing quality is identical.
However, this allows the state to substitute entire classes of drugs for "preferred" drugs, which is f***in' scary. For instance, let's pretend I take an ACE inhibitor of one kind and one dosage, and I know what the side-effects are because I have been taking it for years. Now they are saying that under the right circumstances (monetary interes
Re: (Score:2)
However, this allows the state to substitute entire classes of drugs for "preferred" drugs, which is f***in' scary.
I should be clear that this is ALREADY allowed [wa.gov], however, it has to go through a process. It's scary, but at least now it goes through a defined review process. This new one allows the health care program to substitute on its own.
Now they are saying that under the right circumstances (monetary interest of the state), they can substitute *any* ACE inhibitor of another kind and a different dosage.
Yep.
The bottom line is that only you, your doctor, and maybe your pharmacist know what is good for you as far as medication goes. The state, most certainly, does not.
Yep!