Exhibit A on Health Care Reform

Since his announcement that he has prostate cancer, Senator Chris Dodd has been advocating health care reform using his own experience as an example:

“I didn’t wake up the morning of June 19th — when I found out I had prostate cancer — and worry about whether or not I have a health care plan or whether I would get access to good care,” he said. “I want every American to go wake up with that same sense of security.”

Thankfully, Mr. Dodd’s prostate cancer seems to have been caught early by a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test.  But the history of this test raises real questions about the health care reform plans that Mr. Dodd advocates.

The PSA test was developed by Dr. T. Ming Chu and a team of scientists at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York.  It was, as you might imagine, a difficult task made more challenging by the circumstances:

“Finding a prostate-specific antigen wasn’t easy, especially in the face of the cancer community’s skepticism about tumor markers.”(The Man Behind the PSA Test).

But the facts speak for themselves. Thirty-five years ago, the cure rate for prostate cancer in the U.S. was just 4%. Today, it is better than 90%.  And observed survival rates in the U.S. are even higher – 99.3%

It isn’t that way everywhere. In Europe, observed survival rates are 77.5% – more than twenty percent lower than in the U.S.  The reason?

“That in turn stems from the more intensive screening for cancer carried out in the United States, where a reported 70% of women aged 50 to 70 years have undergone a mammogram in the past 2 years, one-third of people have had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the past 5 years, and more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.” (Zosia Chustecka, “Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe,” Accessed 7/31/09)

There is no doubt that America’s health care system is in need of reform. But it is in need of reform not because the overall quality of the medicine practiced is in question – it is because it costs far too much. Driving down the cost and expanding access should be the goal for reform – not stifling innovation.

But when proposals include a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” designed to regulate medical procedures and choose only the most “cost-effective” ones to use, then it puts the innovative ability of America’s health care system at risk.

The PSA test still encounters criticism by medical professionals, even while early detection has the survival rate skyrocketing. Europe doesn’t use PSA tests as frequently because of the controversy over effectiveness – and government-managed innovations would likely face the same scrutiny here in the U.S. under the currently proposed reform plans.

So while Mr. Dodd champions health care reform, his own case should be Exhibit ‘A’ for caution about the current reform proposals.

Advertisements

30 responses to “Exhibit A on Health Care Reform

  1. To judge from these clips, it looks like the word is getting around: http://donpesci.blogspot.com/2009/08/mccaskill-town-meeting-now-thats-town.html

  2. It isn’t that way everywhere. In Europe, observed survival rates are 77.5% – more than twenty percent lower than in the U.S. The reason?

    Heath, I think you’re operating from the same false assumption that Chris Healy is — that Sen. Dodd is trying to create a European-style single-payer health care system. He isn’t. Your criticisms do not square with reality, or the incorrect conclusions drawn by the USNWR article you hotlink to.

    The Health Benefits Advisory Committee only exists to make sure that plans in the federal health exchange meet minimum benefit requirements — they don’t have the power to limit care or ban treatments. Don’t take my word for it:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/health-choices-commissioner-does-not-decide-your-h/

    http://www.factcheck.org/politics/doctors_orders.html

    You’re assuming that any panel created by the government will somehow have god-like power to decide who gets what treatments. All that’s been suggested in legislation are mechanisms to assess effectiveness and recommend basic benefits packages — no one is suggesting a “big brother” style federal health care arbiter that dictates treatments across and and all insurance.

    Please do your homework and stop making offensive, unfounded assumptions about things you don’t understand.

  3. Rex,

    You are conflating the question – poorly.

    The Health Choices Administration is different from the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, and the US News & World Report article I cited distinguishes between the two very clearly.

    And to this “straw man” argument, its difficult to distinguish between those that want some middle ground in the health care reform debate when this is the reality of what is going on…

    If anyone needs to do some homework, it’s you.

  4. Heath,

    Have to disagree, mate – Senator Dodd IS right on the money in using his personal experience as an argument for major health care reform.
    The study you cite (didn’t that author die at the end of “Usual Suspects”??)

    actually does little to impugn attempts to repair our health care non-system:

    1) Senator Dodd talks about all of the Americans who would not be able to get the tests and treatment he got because they lack insurance or are underinsured – roughly 1/3 of our population. Without a doubt, if you compared prostate cancer survival rates between THAT group of Americans and Europeans (where the very idea of being “uninsured” is virtually unknown), you’ll see that un/underinsurance kills many American men who would still be alive in Europe. Which seems like a crime.

    2) Chiefly because of more testing, America records a far higher incidence of prostate cancer than does Europe – and nearly all of those early-detected cases survive five years. Studies show that early detection (at which the US excels) delivers little improvement in mortality. So a lower percentage of Americans die of prostate cancer because we FIND many more cases of prostate cancer – and the vast majority of those “extra” finds survive.

    There may be a good case for not reforming American health care, or for moving more slowly. There may also be a good case for adding 2 plus 2 and getting 113.

    I just have not heard either one yet.

  5. There may be a good case for not reforming American health care, or for moving more slowly. There may also be a good case for adding 2 plus 2 and getting 113.

    I just have not heard either one yet.

    I think you’re missing Heath’s point. In fact, he expressly said that “There is no doubt that America’s health care system is in need of reform. But it is in need of reform not because the overall quality of the medicine practiced is in question – it is because it costs far too much. Driving down the cost and expanding access should be the goal for reform – not stifling innovation.” There is, in fact, a need to reduce the cost of health care and expand coverage. The three of us — Heath, you and I — agree on this.

    You’ve offered nothing, however, to prove that this reform must be led by the government (the same folks who insisted that we had to pass the “stimulus” bill, or else we’d have 8 1/2% unemployment). Further, the only ones adding 2 and 2, and coming up with 113, are the fine folks at the Congressional Budget Office:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html

  6. Heath, I think you’re operating from the same false assumption that Chris Healy is — that Sen. Dodd is trying to create a European-style single-payer health care system. He isn’t. Your criticisms do not square with reality, or the incorrect conclusions drawn by the USNWR article you hotlink to.

    http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

  7. Jack,

    Actually, I think I hit Heath’s point right on the head (nose? tip??) He, and AHIP and Aetna and the Blue Dogs and the Yellow Dogs and the CBIA, are throwing out every possible excuse (AND some impossible ones) to preserve the status quo and the massive profits it creates. Knock down one false argument, and they slide smoothly to another. This crap has been going on since Teddy Roosevelt first proposed universal health care, like, 100 years ago.

    You’ve offered nothing, however, to prove that this reform must be led by the government (the same folks who insisted that we had to pass the “stimulus” bill, or else we’d have 8 1/2% unemployment).

    Uh, gee, the insurance industry has had at least half-a-century in their wonderfully competitive markets to reform health care – and they’ve failed miserably (as in, at least 47 million failures). Maybe it’s time to let someone else have a try??

  8. Uh, gee, the insurance industry has had at least half-a-century in their wonderfully competitive markets to reform health care – and they’ve failed miserably (as in, at least 47 million failures). Maybe it’s time to let someone else have a try??

    You have no reason, none, to believe that the government — our government, no matter who or which party is in charge — could do better, and no one in their right mind would look to our government to be the source of such wondrous, cost-cutting innovation.

    (Never mind that you’ve failed to knock down any argument, let alone one “false” argument.)

  9. Jack:

    TEN ARGUMENTS YOU WILL THOUGHTLESSY DISMISS FOR WHY GOVERNMENT WOULD DO A BETTER JOB RUNNING HEALTH CARE

    1) The private sector has royally f’ed up health care to earn HUGE bucks and has no reason (or intention) to stop. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. And we leave nearly 50 million Americans uninsured. That’s 10 Minnesotas. FUBAR.

    2) The federal government helped stop Hitler.

    3) We elect and un-elect our government. But we don’t get to vote for Aetna CEO.

    4) The federal government provides quality, affordable health care in all of the armed services.

    5) The United States market-based health care system is the most bureaucratic and inefficient in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. No health care program run by the federal government approaches even HALF that degree of waste in overhead.

    6) In the US, we trust ONLY our federal government with nukes that could blow up the planet 1,000 times.

    8) The federal government put a man on the moon.

    9) My mail delivery is great.

    9) Competition among insurers has proven to be ineffective (useless, really)in containing costs. Instead, it results in competitive practices such as avoiding the sick, cherry-picking, denial of payment for expensive procedures, etc. An insurance firm that engages in these practices may reduce its own outlays, but at the expense of other payers and patients.

    10) It works in every other industrialized nation in the universe.

    There.

    (And have at it, those of the long-closed mind!)

  10. It would be nice to see some more data on this statement: “. . . more than 80% of men aged 65 years or more have had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In fact, it is this PSA testing that probably accounts for the very high survival from prostate cancer seen in the United States, the authors comment.”
    Isn’t this the Medicare demographic? Could it be that federally managed health care is responsible for this great success?
    oldswede

  11. 1) The private sector has royally f’ed up health care to earn HUGE bucks and has no reason (or intention) to stop. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. And we leave nearly 50 million Americans uninsured. That’s 10 Minnesotas. FUBAR.

    No. As i said before, 86% of Americans are pleased with their health care. You’re just wrong.

    2) The federal government helped stop Hitler.

    The Constitution calls for a military. Where does it call for health care? (For that matter, where does it call for buying car companies and giving them to the UAW?) It’s not an insignificant document.

    3) We elect and un-elect our government. But we don’t get to vote for Aetna CEO.

    Nor should you be able to do so — unless you’re an Aetna shareholder. No one is putting a gun to James D’s head and making him buy Aetna.

    4) The federal government provides quality, affordable health care in all of the armed services.

    As a veteran, I’ll agree with most of your statement: “The federal government provides . . . health care in all of the armed services.” Moreover, over the last 30 years, military health care has become more and more private. Why?

    5) The United States market-based health care system is the most bureaucratic and inefficient in the world. Over 31% of every health care dollar goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. No health care program run by the federal government approaches even HALF that degree of waste in overhead.

    …and none approaches the private health care level of quality. What’s your point?

    6) In the US, we trust ONLY our federal government with nukes that could blow up the planet 1,000 times.

    See no. 2.

    7 ) The federal government put a man on the moon.

    Using military officers. See no. 2.

    9) My mail delivery is great.

    Mine too. FedEx is faster and more responsive, and I only pay for my own FedEx use. Sounds good to me.

    9) Competition among insurers has proven to be ineffective (useless, really)in containing costs. Instead, it results in competitive practices such as avoiding the sick, cherry-picking, denial of payment for expensive procedures, etc. An insurance firm that engages in these practices may reduce its own outlays, but at the expense of other payers and patients.

    (a) You have no facts in support of this argument. If it was easy to organize an insurance company, don’t you think there would be more of them? (b) Rationing. It’s real. (c) Do you own a home? If so, you probably had an attorney sit in on the closing, correct? Why would you pay an attorney to review your closing documents (so that you know what you’re getting into), and not have an attorney (or someone else who can read English) review your insurance policy in advance, and know what you’re getting into? If so, how is all of this the government’s responsibility?

    10) It works in every other industrialized nation in the universe.

    No, thanks.

  12. Ah, Jack… too predictable by far. Nothing we haven’t heard from Jim (for six years) and Rush (for-ever). I could rebut every response of yours (not empty bragging, I promise), or give you ten more reasons, and you aren’t going to concede a thing – truth be damned.

    Or I could use the time instead to make a chain of paper clips.

    Hmmm……

    (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)

  13. 10) It works in every other industrialized nation in the universe.

    Where it’s no coincidence the populations live in less square feet per-person, the number of privately held motor vehicles is less per-capita as is the average income and when the avg income is even close the disposable income is invariably substantially less per-person than here.

    Then we get to survival rates, where “other industrialized nations” really take a hit.

    Let’s now assume the oft repeated number 45 million uninsured is correct; where do we find enough doctors to care for these people?
    But since no one’s dropping dead in the streets now; how do you explain that?

    To offer to screw doctors even worse than Medicare/Medicaid do already (not to mention what’s “usual & reasonable” according to Blue Cross) yet offer nothing in the way of any malpractice caps?
    Where’s the logic (or the justice) in that?

    How about we start with some sort of catastrophic coverage so people don’t lose their homes due to zillion dollar medical claims; wouldn’t that make some sense?

  14. Or I could use the time instead to make a chain of paper clips.

    It’s too bad that you prefer paper clips to facts. I would have been very interested in hearing your response to Time’s 86% figure, learning where in the Constitution a right to health care is located, why you think that you should have a say in Aetna’s CEO, whether you’ve actually received “quality, affordable” health care from the military, and on and on and on. Oh, well.

  15. Back to the original topic:
    Medicare does indeed cover the PSA tests for people over fifty, you know, the ones with an effective prostate health plan. See here:
    http://www.medicare.gov/health/prostate.asp
    Now, instead of changing the subject to something irrelevant again, can the deniers here explain why this is a bad thing in other countries but not here?
    oldswede

  16. 1) The private sector has royally f’ed up health care to earn HUGE bucks and has no reason (or intention) to stop. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. And we leave nearly 50 million Americans uninsured. That’s 10 Minnesotas. FUBAR.

    I actually think that the federal government, through ERISA, has royally f’d it up. We have created a system whereby the only good way to get health insurance is through a third party payer policy obtained through an employer. In other words, you have to have a job and you don’t actually see any of the costs of your own health care. If we want to drive down costs then we should create a system that encourages people to buy their own policies and pay for them. Then we’d have a true market. As it stands right now, if you get sick and need a test done that costs $500, you go to the doctor and pay a co-payment of, say, $20. Then, the insurer and the doctor negotiate the payment for the remaining $480. It creates a dance whereby the doctor overcharges because he knows the insurer will whack him on some group rate. He also knows that if he orders the test he will get some mark up (profit) and help to innoculate himself from a lawsuit if things go wrong for the patient.

    Now, if you (and everyone) realized the expense of the test, it would create downward pressure on the cost of that type of test. Combined with some type of malpractice reform you could really drive down costs.

  17. Stark smartly asks the appropriate question: why do we link health insurance to employment at all?

    For 60-plus years, a misguided tax preference for employer-sponsored health insurance has distorted America’s healthcare market. The price of that distortion has been paid in higher costs, fewer choices, and mounting anxiety. The solution is to restore market forces by fixing the tax code, and liberating Americans from an employer-based system that has made everything worse.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/19/healthcare_shouldnt_be_linked_to_employment/

  18. From James post # 9

    ” The federal government put a man on the moon.”

    Let’s look at this claim more closely…….. Back in 1961 with just 15 minutes of human space flight experience JFK set this country on a path to the moon with a goal of getting there within 9 years. We know the results…….. It’s amazing what can get done when we can move past partisan party politics with a common goal in mind.

    But the vast majority of work needed to get there was largely accomplished by means of those hundreds of thousands of engineers, tool makers, scientists, etc from thousands of contractors in the private sector, not the federal government. Who do you actually think built everything? Who do you think actually developed all the technology and materials most of which didn’t even exist when the challenge was made, NASA??

    Now here we are 40 years latter with thousands of days of space flight history behind us and we do not even have the current ability to allow humans to leave low Earth orbit, nor will we for many more years . Beyond that the incompetence and arrogance of a Federal agency, NASA has since cost us two space shuttles, and their crews.

    Anyone who thinks the Feds cannot lose their way ( at least for a while) after a good start need to look no further than NASA.

    BTW I wouldn’t use the US postal service ( point #9) as an example of a finely tuned federal agency either. It appears they are losing money faster than Washington can print it. Maybe it actually costs them more than $0.44 to deliver a letter cross town, or cross country?

  19. Real reform won’t happen in the US without cost control. This means changing the delivery model

    Electronic Medical Records, a Public Option, Single Payer are steps on a path.

    The Veteran Administration in the US was successful because the agency head can optimize purchasing, bed space, doctor contracts, etc. He can run it like a private business and shift resouces where needed. A state like CT can’t do that. Hospitals would need to be treated as one health care system under the control of a health czar who can micromanage delivery costs and space utilization as if it was Walmart.

    >> VA’s complete adoption of electronic health records and performance measures have resulted in high-quality, low-cost health care with high patient satisfaction.

    A recent study found that VA outperforms all other sectors of American health care across a spectrum of 294 measures of quality in disease prevention and treatment.

    For six straight years, VA has led private-sector health care in the independent American Customer Satisfaction Index. <<

    http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1152

  20. An excellent article on the VA turnaround

    http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0702/0702.veterans.html

    Like the automotive and computer industries, improving quality and decreasing cost went hand in hand. “Over the first five years, we were able to show a 25 percent decrease in per-patient cost,” Kizer says. Today the system treats double the number of patients as in 1994, 5.2 million vs. 2.7 million. It spent only $4,092 (in 1995 dollars) per patient in 2006, compared with $5,691 in 1995. How many other plans can show a decline in per-patient spending coupled with demonstrably better care?

    Granted, a nationwide tax-financed medical monopoly with salaried physicians can institute groundbreaking, across-the-board changes. Patients have nearly a lifetime relationship with the VHA, so it has incentives for investing in prevention and disease management and, in general, keeping patients healthy. Private plans only wish they had these advantages.

  21. SouthernWreck

    This blog is rife with whining GOPers who mimic the circus geeks demonstrating against Dodd. You are the classic know-nothing I-got-mine-ers that birthed that foul user Rowland.

    The overall message is simple – Insurance companies, the big Pharma structure, is screwing the USA in every way. There is a huge segment of working America that gets the shaft, and goes without, or doesn’t get ahead.

    You know it’s true, you just don’t like the shake-up, the Change. But get outta the way you old farts, (I’m 58 so I know you – I’ve seen you in WalMart and Big Y). The change is coming.

    Heath’s argument is wicked specious:

    “Driving down the cost and expanding access should be the goal for reform – not stifling innovation.”

    How can you drive down the cost when the raison d’etre of the insurers is to screw the little guy – see Cigna’s Wendell Potter, with Moyers? That cat burned some bridges.

    Dr. J. Avorn, Boston Brigham and Womens:

    “There are a couple reasons that this is a specious argument. One is that according to their filings with the SEC, the drug companies only spend about 15 cents of every dollar on research and development. That’s compared to more than 30 cents in administration and marketing and more than 20 cents on shareholder equity. As an investment in R&D, I think any venture capitalist would say a company spending 15 percent on research is not a robust innovation engine…”

    “…if you really trace back where the seminal discoveries come from on which new drugs are based, it is federally supported research, usually funded by the National Institute of Health, and frequently conducted at universities or academic medical centers. The drug companies will then identify these discoveries and do hard, costly, and important work commercializing them. And they deserve compensation for that work. But it’s disingenuous for them to imply that all the discoveries occur in their walls.”

    MEDICARE, bitches – it’s been around since you were kids – the VA- our government freaking works, when the rubber meets the road, and the people running the show and solving the problems will be wonks who care, not yuppy Pharma execs ready to trounce the next guy to get the corner office! The people who finally made Potter puke.

    We’re gonna fix it – just like in 1932 – (and don’t give me Shlaes’ BS), and it’s gonna work, and obesity will get licked, and we’ll be healthier, and you can all follow your wives around WalMart bitching while you spend your SSA checks and get your cheap scrips!

  22. The VA’s “customers” also jumped out of helicopters into hot LZs, waded onto bloodsoaked beaches, and visited such scenic locales as Fallujah in exchange for care. I think taxpayers owe them the best care money can buy.

    But the question isn’t whether 25 million American veterans can get coverage under the current system. The question is how do we transfer the best of American health care – innovation, the high quality practice of medicine, and an 80%+ approval rate from current consumers, to a system that restrains cost and extends coverage to the 18-22 million Americans that are chronically without coverage.

    The government-driven model is hopelessly inadequate to meeting those goals.

    A market-driven alternative that gives doctors a bat and ball against frivolous lawsuits, reduces costs by forcing big insurance companies to compete against each other for customers (unlike the status quo, by the way) and extends basic coverage to the poorest members of our society is far preferable.

    But we aren’t even talking about plans that would do that – instead we are discussing sham plans that restrict choices, strangle innovation, and most importantly – don’t control cost.

  23. The Health Choices Administration is different from the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, and the US News & World Report article I cited distinguishes between the two very clearly.

    Nope, sorry. The HCA directs the whole exchange and program. The Advisory Board makes judgments on what plans within the exchange have to meet, minimum coverage-wise. Your article makes that clear! That’s not what’s I’m asking:

    Tell how EITHER of those are providing some ability to ‘ration’ care in a European single-payer fashion?

    Also, you’re citing youtube videos to describe what congressional committees are doing? How are folks poke supposed to take your concerns seriously at all?

  24. It’s too bad that you prefer paper clips to facts. I would have been very interested in hearing your response to Time’s 86% figure, learning where in the Constitution a right to health care is located, why you think that you should have a say in Aetna’s CEO, whether you’ve actually received “quality, affordable” health care from the military, and on and on and on. Oh, well.

    113! Yes!!

    (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========) (=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(=======)(========)(========)(========)(=======)(========)(========)

  25. 113! Yes!!

    A very substantive contribution to the discussion.

  26. 113! Yes!!

    A very substantive contribution to the discussion.

    Yes.

    113 is the total number of awkward, juvenile dodges used by right-wingers on this blog to sidestep the truth about our sucky health care system.

    This morning.

    Ciao!

  27. 113 is the total number of awkward, juvenile dodges used by right-wingers on this blog to sidestep the truth about our sucky health care system.

    You know not from whence you speak.

    My sister Nancy was born a little pre-mature in 1945 and quickly developed asthma, allergies and suffered respiratory problems.

    By 1953 she wasn’t expected to live past 10 or so….maybe 12 if she was “lucky”.

    The common treatment at that time often included relocation to a dryer climate.

    Phoenix or Denver?
    In early 1954 Nancy stuck a pin in the map at Denver and dad traveled out to find a job, housing, everything.

    Meanwhile in Dalton, Nancy winds up in the hospital with pneumonia for the 6th out of what would be 7 times prior to relocation.

    Nancy improved…..sometimes.
    She had the finest medical help and my parents spared no expense in her treatments.
    In 1957 for example; a typical year; they spent in excess of $10,000 keeping my sister going.
    Most people didn’t yet earn 10K a year during most of the 50’s and my dad didn’t make that much over it either.
    Health insurance was largely non-existent. We sure didn’t have any that would cover Nancy that was for sure.

    Nancy managed to make it through high school and by 18, despite constant medication by then usually self-injected (adrenaline among other things; but it did put her attacks down quickly so at least she could breathe) she was, to everyone’s amazement out and about and not anywhere near as sickly as she had been just a few years earlier.

    Prolonged use of adrenaline isn’t good as it wears out the heart among other things; and the body seems to develop a tolerance thus requiring more.

    The entirety of western Europe, Canada, everywhere but here had begun using inhalers.
    Unaware even of their existence thanks to the FDA, Nancy never saw one in her life.

    She had traveled to the family place on the Cape in the winter of `63 -`64 when pollen wouldn’t be a problem and had stayed into the spring only to find that the sea air on the Cape was clear enough that she could actually function there year around!

    She stayed on, met a nice Yarmouth Cop, married him and ran for office.
    My parents couldn’t believe it – I was yet fairly oblivious never having any idea my older sister wasn’t supposed to make it past my 6th birthday.

    In 1971 she and her husband traveled to Denver, Colorado for her annual check-up with some world renowned asthma specialist.
    She went into an attack the night prior to her appointment and my brother-in-law found her slumped over the back of an easy chair with her pocketbook open as if she was reaching for her medication.

    She was 26.

    Close the FDA

    Once again – Nancy never saw an asthma inhaler in her life, because the FDA saw fit to quite literally murder her and countless others with their moronic foot dragging “we’re here to protect you” nonsense.

    What would my sisters meds have cost were it not for the artificially high prices caused by the endless series of hoops the FDA puts pharmaceutical companies through?
    Is everyone in France, Germany, etc. in great danger due to their streamlined drug approval process?

    My sisters life was taken.

    Yet you think these people, these murderers should be in charge of the entire medical industry?

    It’s insanity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s