MovieChat Forums > Sicko (2007) Discussion > The Fleecing of Cancer Patients

The Fleecing of Cancer Patients

posted 14 years ago by ColorPicks
11 replies | jump to latest

I have said it before that drug companies are more likely to bring out a product that relieves symptoms than provide a cure.

It's like you don't want to build the perfect car or people only need to buy one and not replace it, it's better that they wear out and they have to keep repairing them and eventually buy a new one. This ensures you get money over a period of time and not just once at the beginning.

It's the same with medications it seems, why cure someone when they can keep paying and paying, and who better than those poor desperate souls that will die soon if they don't get your medicine?

"The fleecing of cancer patients

I don’t often criticize the pharmaceutical industry, because I am a capitalist at heart, and there are enough other, often ill-informed people out there to do it for me. I don’t begrudge the pharmaceutical industry its high prices on patent medicines. I do think that some of their practices are a little over the top. On the other hand, some of the major players in Big Pharma are considered some of the world’s most ethical companies.

Imagine my dismay, then, when I came across an article that I’d printed out from the New York Times back on February 15 about Avastin, a drug from Genentech that shows significant effect in terminal cancer patients suffering from colon cancer as well as late-stage breast and lung cancer. Avastin will cost upwards of $100,000 a year for treatment. While most patients that take Avastin won’t last a year, that breaks down to over $8,000 a month. (The average colon cancer patient on Avastin takes it for 11 months.) Naturally, insurance companies are reluctant to pay for the medication, and one can hardly blame them. (Contrary to popular belief, most insurance companies are not minting money.)

$8,000 a month.

What makes this price exorbitant even by my standards is how the price is justified. While there are drugs out there that are more expensive than Avastin, most of those drugs are for niche diseases which afflict only a handful of people. Avastin, on the other hand can be used for thousands of patients. Traditionally the high price of patent medicines has been explained away by talk of R&D costs, which as I mentioned yesterday, average $500 million per New Chemical Entity (NCE) regardless of whether that NCE actually makes it to market or not. Genentech, however, has justified their high price by citing the inherent value of life-sustaining therapies. That is, they’re using a patient’s desire to stay alive to justify the high cost of their drugs.

This, in my opinion, has crossed the line from being ethical to simple profiteering. Some patients aren’t taking other, similar medications because they can’t afford to, or because the benefits don’t outweigh the costs: Avastin and Tarceva (another cancer drug) cure cancer. They simply prolong life."

http://polyscience.org/2006/03/overpriced-avastin/

[–] mickeyone 14 years ago

Yes, this is what I realized from seeing the great film "Who Killed the Electric Car" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/). The way our wonderful capitalistic economic system works is, doing that which makes the most money is always what will tend to get done. So we don't get automobiles that last. Its important that they keep breaking down and need to be repaired to keep those auto-repairing service people employed (and obviously they CAN'T manufacture products like automobiles that will last and last, since that would dry up the market). And even though its quite possible they have discovered cures for various diseases, they dare not start using these, otherwise people would find out about them, start using them and, *gasp* get cured, thereby eliminating a very important source of revenue*. What they have to do is keep the patient alive but not cured, still needing their medication. That is what the most highly successful medications would need to do. Just like a virus does not want to actually kill its host, because then the virus will die too.

Incidentally, you might want to check out the first 10 minutes of this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261

* This idea I am talking about, should have a name, and I should be able to type it in google's search engine, and find all kinds of people talking about it. There should be a huge forum just talking about this one highly interesting aspect of our economic system. But that would in effect be people acknowledging it, which might then *gasp* lead to a cure. And I'm sure the powers-that-be sure don't want THAT to happen.

[–] set704 14 years ago

So we don't get automobiles that last. Its important that they keep breaking down and need to be repaired to keep those auto-repairing service people employed (and obviously they CAN'T manufacture products like automobiles that will last and last, since that would dry up the market).

Oh, please. The current automobile is so far ahead in quality than previous cars. When I first started driving, the odometer turned over 0.00 again when it went past 99,999.99 miles. Cars were not expected to last past 100,000 miles. Now the manufacturers have warranties lasting 100,000 miles.

[–] ColorPicks 14 years ago

Of course set you have the ostrich approach on this as well, do you feel sorry for people who are clutching to life being exploited my pharmaceutical companies?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mickeyone 10 years ago

The Light Bulb Conspiracy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbbF3oxf-E

[–] Amills23 11 years ago

I'm not arrogant enough to think only the smartest minds live in the US so its hard for me to believe that some of these socialist countries would have come up with something better if it has been discovered or invented.

Steve Job's is the number 1 person to look at that there's no cure for cancer there hiding. Cancer to the most part can be avoided by eating the right foods mainly fruits, vegetables, nuts, fish, and lean meats. Most cancers can be treated or cured if caught soon enough so check ups are important. Job's would have a good chance of still being alive if he got treatment right away but he tried the alternative root first and by the time he went to western medicine it was too late.

[–] linus-hirschi 8 years ago

i'm just answering to say what everybody thinks:

your comment's a bunch of rubbish

[–] tramky 13 years ago

Anyone who watches this combination documentary & editorial comments must know that most of it rings true. At many levels.

The America I knew is now a crazy place, and we are at each other's throats. And it is all about money & greed. We, as the people of this nation, are gullible & stupid, and that is revealed perhaps most clearly in the matter of health care.

I do not agree with Michael Moore's views on various issues, but I have appreciated his documentaries--every one of them. And "Sicko" is the most straightforward and unslanted. You can't slant the story of health care in America--it's already so stunningly unbelievable as it really is that no embellishments are necessary.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Amills23 10 years ago

The main problem with healthcare is not insurance most are scum bags but the main problem is health costs. We need to cut costs in healthcare. "Free" healthcare is not the way to go. The best way to to fix healthcare would be non-profit you still pay the doctors, nurses ext there wages just non-profit maybe even drop tax rates for healthcare workers to even lower the costs more. It's not the insurances companies fault heart surgeries average 150K or the average delivery of a baby costs 10K at non-profit there's no reason a heart surgery should cost over 20K and the delivery of a baby 3-4k. If healthcare was non-profit insurance shouldn't costs more than 70-100 a month for the average person.