Any new herpes treatment on the horizon?

[WCSDancer2010]

...helping people manage the symptoms and emotional scars right NOW is exactly why we are on this forum. You cannot control what the "powers that be" will research and fund but you can control how you deal with and manage your life with herpes right now. If we don't have a cure, we need to put our energy into supporting those living with it until we do.

 

Amen @fitgirl... :)

[fitgirl]

When you are new to the virus your body and your head space are different for sure. The symptoms are often worse in the beginning but they are also more prevalent to you because they are new. Dealing with the physical pain and the emotional fears can be overwhelming. We ALL want a cure for herpes! What you will learn is that as time goes on, it does get better and it does get easier. As a veteran of the virus, I have felt all the same things at some point but I have found an immense shift in my life that has been positive as a result of the challenges associated with HSV. If you focus on everything that is GOOD in life you will find that the virus only has the power to bring you down if you let it. It's all a process.... I can tell you for certain, my life is BETTER and more enlightened than it was before H. I have deeper, more connected relationships and I embrace the virus as part of what builds my character. I own it, it doesn't own me.

[chikitta13]

I've generally accepted the virus in my mind. Now I'm ready for my body to follow! But I will say my ability to accept hsv is in no small part due to this website. As always thanks for all the feedback and support from those with experience!

[Beachdude1984]

@beachdude you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in this field so I want to propose a question ( I wish we still had cityofangels around for this sort of discussion), I had one of those " be careful what you wish for" moments while looking @ at vaccine info. lets say a really good therapeutic comes along, reduces shedding 90%, OBs by 95%, lowers load to almost non transmittable. Then a few years later an actual cure comes along, however, lo and behold, whatever mechanism the therapeutic uses makes the cure non viable for those who have taken it! is that even possible??? I know one of the key avenues being looked at for a herpes specific cure is trying to turn off its ability to fool the body into leaving it be in the nerve. seems like if its forced into a state of dormancy by another avenue that

 

Seeker,

 

I had a long reply typed out on my phone but it froze and I lost it. I'll try again later on a PC.

[Beachdude1984]

Just as reality check of what a "Cure" may cost you when it comes:

 

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/pharma-drug-bankrupting-america

 

In the first year of marketing, Sovaldi and Harvoni are already blockbusters, reaping a remarkable $12.4 billion of market sales in 2014, more in just one year than the $11.2 billion price that Gilead paid in January 2012 to buy sofosbuvir from a biotech start-up named Pharmasett.

 

The standard defense by the drug companies of these astronomical prices is that drug discovery is costly and their high profits reimburse the R&D costs. Here is where the story of Sovaldi gets even more interesting. The total private-sector outlays on R&D were perhaps $300 million, and almost surely under $500 million, meaning that the decade-long R&D outlays were likely recouped in a few weeks of drug sales.

 

As far as company costs go, R&D is just one part of the equation. The required three phase trial process for FDA approval requires thousands of paid volunteers, doctors, nurses, lab technicians, etc. And then if the drug gets approved, it has to be mass-produced in a sterile environment to very stringent standards. This is why smaller biotech firms almost always sell their drug patents to large pharma companies, or at the least partner with them. The small guys just simply do not have the money and/or facilities. And then let's not forget that for every one drug that is approved and becomes profitable, dozens (hundreds?) of others fail in animal or human trials. The money spent on those drugs is a total loss.

 

I'm not exactly defending large pharma companies, because I know they are some of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the world, but I am just pointing out that there is much more to it than what is indicated in Dancer's excerpt.

[WCSDancer2010]

 

As far as company costs go, R&D is just one part of the equation. The required three phase trial process for FDA approval requires thousands of paid volunteers, doctors, nurses, lab technicians, etc. And then if the drug gets approved, it has to be mass-produced in a sterile environment to very stringent standards. This is why smaller biotech firms almost always sell their drug patents to large pharma companies, or at the least partner with them. The small guys just simply do not have the money and/or facilities. And then let's not forget that for every one drug that is approved and becomes profitable, dozens (hundreds?) of others fail in animal or human trials. The money spent on those drugs is a total loss.

 

I'm not exactly defending large pharma companies, because I know they are some of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the world, but I am just pointing out that there is much more to it than what is indicated in Dancer's excerpt.

 

Read the whole article. It explains how the small biotech sold out at a huge profit and how much a "rational" drug pricing system should have brought the investors for their R&D investment.

 

In the first year of marketing, Sovaldi and Harvoni are already blockbusters, reaping a remarkable $12.4 billion of market sales in 2014, more in just one year than the $11.2 billion price that Gilead paid in January 2012 to buy sofosbuvir from a biotech start-up named Pharmasett.

 

...............

 

We can therefore estimate that private investors spent perhaps $300 million in R&D outlays for sofosbuvir over the course of a decade, and perhaps well below that sum. Those R&D outlays were likely recouped in a few weeks of sales in 2014.

 

With a rational U.S. drug pricing system, private investors would expect to earn a reasonable multiple of their R&D for a highly successful drug, perhaps even 5 to 10 times the R&D outlays, in order to reflect the long time horizons and high uncertainties surrounding drug development. Yet at a treatment course of $84,000, the multiple for Sovaldi looks to be around 40 times or more.

 

With a rational drug pricing system, Gilead might have paid $1 billion rather than $11.2 billion for the drug, and Prof. Schinazi might have pocketed $40 million rather than $440 million. Sovaldi would most likely still have been developed and brought to market on the same timeline, but with taxpayers spared of perhaps $10 billion a year in outlays.

 

As for the cost of making the drug?????

 

According to researchers at Liverpool University, the actual production costs of Sovaldi for the 12-week course is in the range $68-$136. Indeed, generic sofosbuvir is currently being marketed in India at $300 per treatment course, after India refused to grant Gilead a patent for the Indian market. In other words, the U.S. price-cost markup is roughly 1,000-to-1!

 

Then to add insult to injury, as it were:

 

Gilead has worked the political system to protect its windfall by ramping up its lobbying activities. That soared to $2.2 million in 2013, the year of FDA approval, and $2.9 million in 2014, the first year of sales. The lobbying helped to smooth the way to the massive uptake of the drug and the substantial financing by the U.S. Government of Gilead's inflated prices.

 

Sorry - but I always suspected this was the case for most drugs (given that you can buy the same drug in most other countries for far, far less) but this article just proved what I have always suspected... Drug companies are screwing us (and not even bothering to use lube) and they WILL bankrupt the healthcare system one day....Cost to produce... $300 ... cost to the consumer $84,0000 ... That makes highway robbery look like child's play :(

[Beachdude1984]

@beachdude you seem to be fairly knowledgeable in this field so I want to propose a question ( I wish we still had cityofangels around for this sort of discussion), I had one of those " be careful what you wish for" moments while looking @ at vaccine info. lets say a really good therapeutic comes along, reduces shedding 90%, OBs by 95%, lowers load to almost non transmittable. Then a few years later an actual cure comes along, however, lo and behold, whatever mechanism the therapeutic uses makes the cure non viable for those who have taken it! is that even possible??? I know one of the key avenues being looked at for a herpes specific cure is trying to turn off its ability to fool the body into leaving it be in the nerve. seems like if its forced into a state of dormancy by another avenue that could be blocked.

 

Seeker,

 

I've seen this question answered by researchers and experts, and the short answer is that no one knows. Everything in development is so new that thorough testing has not been conducted to identify potential drug interactions. However, the general concensus is that two therapies taken simultaneously should have an additive effect, and should not "cancel each other out." In the case of a vaccine, consider what a vaccine is actually doing. A vaccine, whether it be for HSV or anything else, simpy exposes your immune system to a specific antigen, thereby eliciting an immune response to that antigen. This immune response response is not anything unnatural beyond what your immune would ordinarily do, only the response would be many magnitudes (hundreds, if the vaccine is effective) greater than what your immune system would naturally conduct against natural infection of a wild-type virus. An elevated level of HSV-specific antibodies due to vaccine treatment should not, in theory, reduce the efficacy of any future therapy or cure. One potential avenue of possible HSV cure research is exploring a way to "trick" the entire latent viral reservoir into activating all at once, thereby making it vulnerable to the immune system and existing anti-virals. I can only assume that a vaccine-induced super immunity would only aid, and not hinder, such a therapy. Speaking of potential HSV cures, only one has actually been formulated, patented, and tested on animals. That one would be DRACO, and it works by killing every viral-infected cell in your body. I can not imagine any scenario where any therapy taken previously would inhibit this drug's mechanism of action. But like I said, at this point, no one knows for sure. Another thing to keep in mind is that any systemic suppression drug (acyclovir, famvir, currently unavailabe pritelivir) is only going to remain in the body as long as someone continues to take the medication. If a concern arises for the potential of these type drugs to interfere with a future therapy, one simply has to stop taking the suppressive drug and it will be metabolized and excreted in a matter of days.

 

I hope that long-winded response sonewhat answers your question and is not as clear as mud.

[Beachdude1984]

Dancer said

"Sorry - but I always suspected this was the case for most drugs (given that you can buy the same drug in most other countries for far, far less) but this article just proved what I have always suspected... Drug companies are screwing us (and not even bothering to use lube) and they WILL bankrupt the healthcare system one day....Cost to produce... $300 ... cost to the consumer $84,0000 ... That makes highway robbery look like child's play"

 

Dancer, I agree that in the instance of this specific drug, the profit margin may appear to be a bit excessive at first glance. Fortunately, this is probably an exception and not the rule. Such are the woes of a free market economy, I suppose. Simple economics dictate that if enough people can not afford the drug (i.e., it ceases to become profitable), then the price will have to be lowered until it is affordable and enough people buy it to make it profitable.

A simple and easily recognizable example of this is the price of gasoline. As consumption diminishes, the price falls.

 

Would you prefer a government-sponsored health care system, such as that in the UK? Where someone can not even obtain suppressive valacyclovir treatment in the absence of constant symptoms? There is a reason that the U.S. health care system is far and away #1 in the world, and government intervention is not the reason.

[fitgirl]

Whoa!!!! #1 Healthcare in the world??? You mean in research and drug development? Yes that may be true but "government sponsored" Healthcare provides ALL people with the critical (and not so critical) care regardless of whether they can afford it. I'm not sure how it works in the UK but here in Canada, we get exceptional treatment and care from top physicians. You can get suppressive treatment without issue and we pay ZERO premiums in Alberta (other provinces have small premiums and you only pay if you can afford to). So....yes, I would rather that kind of Healthcare.

[Beachdude1984]

I mean R&D and quality of care. The top physicians and surgeons in the world practice in the U.S. No one travels from the U.S. to other countries to have surgical procedures done, except a small handful who desire cosmetic surgery at a smaller price. No one goes without critical care here either; by law hospitals must treat any patient, and 911 medical responders answer every call, regardless of the patient's financial status. You do pay for your health care via taxes, whether you realize it or not. Nothing is free. Socialized health care versus privatized health care is largely an idealogical argument, and not the intent of this thread. I'm not sure if this forum is the appropriate place for such a debate, anyway. So we will have to agree to disagree.

[seeker]

our healthcare system works for those with good insurance and or deep pockets. you see I am one of those who fall in that "makes too much to get any help for healthcare but too little to afford it" my premiums for absolute crap bronze plans with a 6300$ deductible UP FRONT is 1/4 my income beyond monthly bills NOT counting, food, gas, emergencies, weather related non work days, etc. but ive been told BY GUN POINT I have to buy it because my money helps keep the system running for others. yep. it wasn't the affordable care act, it was the insurance industry subsidy act. fuck all of em and the big lobbyist limo they rode in on. last year I used @ 200$ for healthcare. in 2016 the penalty on our taxes will be equal to having a crap plan that gives you nothing in healthcare! literally nothing. ok I guess if I get cancer it only costs me 6300$ but guess what? I can pay 10$ a month for the rest of my life and they cant do diddly about it. Americas healthcare system need to be blown up, complete redo. if we the self glossing best and brightest in the world U S A U S A chanting people cant take any of the oh every industrialized country in the worlds systems and tweak them then our so called civilization is a joke.

 

think about this for a moment. im in florida, our governor ran a healthcare company, He made several 100 million himself as CEO. they were working for medicare!!! yes a fuckin govt ran healthcare program! how the hell did they get enough out of it to make ungodly profits?????? forget for a second that they were busted bilking the system and got the largest fine, ever in the history of the US but they made enough money running it for the government that their CEO could walk away with 200 million dollars in personal wealth. WTF is wrong with us????? how is that acceptable???? and that's not the only company that does this, add in Medicaid, veterans benefits etc,

 

as to R&D a huge amount of it is done at state universities that get a stipend from these corporations who then own the paten and get ALL the profits. I remember in the 90s it was estimated that over 90% of "R&D" for pharma was done by some sort of governmental group. and state run unis are those. do the grad students working on it get anything? nope, the uni? nope just a stipend up front that is nothing compared to the windfall for the corp.

[Beachdude1984]

Good points about government overreach, seeker. I agree that Medicare is one of the most diseased, abused, and absurd entities in our bloated Federal government that is becoming increasingly more socialized every year. I'm not saying that the traditional U.S. model of privatized health care was perfect- it was far from it. But so far the federal government has done a grand job of botching the whole situation, instead of making the improvements that were necessary.

 

The root of the problem is corrupt politicians, from both sides of the party isle. Without a corrupt government, corporate corruption will largely cease to exist. Exile lobbyists from D.C., institute limitations on "campaign contributions," and clean house in Congress, including the institution of term limits. The federal government lost touch with its citizens long ago and has been and playing with tax revenue like it was Monopoly money for decades, but the American constituency is either too apathetic or too brainwashed to take action. 15% approval rating for Congress, yet a 85% incumbent re-election rate. Wait, what? #mindblown

 

It's a very real possibility we will have another Bush vs. Clinton ticket in 2016- your state's Jeb Bush against Billary. Good old-fashioned D.C. blueblood corruption at its finest. I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil of only two viable candidates. Makes me sick to my stomach, to be honest.

 

Sorry for derailing the original intent of this thread, but politics gets me pretty fired up.

[fitgirl]

Hey fellas, its ok to get fired up about this. All threads are organic in nature and that's ok. Dialogue is good! (even if you are wrong :))

 

No system is perfect. And yes I know that taxes pay for our Healthcare, I live here in Canada, I get the tax bill. The point in all of this is that "regular" people should have accessible care and even though our taxes are insanely high, no resident goes without the care they need and that could be as small as wart removal or suppressive meds to open heart surgery and extensive cancer care. I think we can all agree, there are pros and cons to every system. All I can say, is that our ideals on this side of the border differ greatly from the American approach. @seeker makes the point clearly, whether you have herpes or cancer, Healthcare needs to provide access for all.

[Beachdude1984]

As seeker pointed out, there have been government-subsidized programs (Medicare and Medicaid namely, although both need major overhauling) in place for a while for qualified people. Those who are not qualified should be able to pay out of pocket or pay for private insurance coverage, or at least that was the theory (and let's not forget about all the young people who don't want/need health care or the tax burden of universal health care). I understand there are people who may slip through the cracks, but there are also quite a few private charitable health programs that provide care for the less fortunate. The Affordable Care Act (which was forced upon the American public against popular opinion, by the way) changed everything, and was a big step toward a system more resembling that of Canada or the UK. Some people, like you apparently, may believe health care is a God given right, but other people, such as myself, believe government-mandated health care violates the basic tenants of founding American ideology, in the form of government overreach, violation of personal liberties, and redistribution of wealth. If anything, it needs to be made a state issue, just like the myriad of other controversial topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc ad nauseum). The federal government should stick to it's original intended purpose, which is enforcing the constitution, settling disputes between states, and protecting the country against foreign threat. It has no business sticking it's nose in the business of health care.

 

I could go on and on about the federal government; the ACA is just one of many examples of federal overreach.

 

P.S. I speak strictly in terms of American policy, I have no business or concern in domestic policy in foreign countries.

[WCSDancer2010]

***WARNING*** Rant ahead!!!

 

I've lived with both a "single payer" type system (in the UK) as well as our US "insurance" system ... and I will tell you that *personally* I feel both systems are broken. Neither rewards people for trying to keep good health ... and now with the ACA it won't matter if you get lung cancer from smoking, diabetes from a poor diet, or whatever, you will get insurance to take care of you.... but people like me and @seeker who hardly use the system have to pay the same amount as everyone else. I personally am uninsured because I really hate paying for a lot of unnecessary/elective/"self-induced" (as in, your poor health choices caused) procedures .....when I am doing my best to maintain a reasonable state of health through diet, exercise, personal growth (aka/ mental flossing :) ), and generally not abusing the system.

 

We have an obesity epidemic that is being "cured" through gastric bypass (why are people not made to at least *try* a dietary "rehab" of sorts ... as alcoholics have ... before such a massively invasive operation is performed ... AND... before they get soooo big they have no other choice???) ... I have a client who just had a bypass who just had no willpower (by her own admission) ... so this was the "easy" way out for her because rather than her being held accountable for her actions, she's been forced to eat less ... AND if she gets something like Cancer she will likely die first of malnutrition because she'll never be able to eat enough to deal with the therapy/healing. I can't wrap my head around the fact that there isn't a system in place like a rehab where she could have been required to go to FIRST to teach her better eating habits and exercise and where therapy may have helped her to get to the bottom of her issues with food.

 

We have people with high cholesterol who are being chemically "controlled" to keep their numbers where the CDC *currently* believes they should be (I say currently because many of these numbers get changed from time to time) ... yet noone tells these people that the *numbers* are not the issue ... the thing that determines whether you are at risk for coronary heart disease is INFLAMMATION ... which you can get measured with 2 tests ... C-reactive Protein and Homocyctine levels ... if those levels are not up, it means your arteries are not inflamed and thus not "sticky"... so the cholesterol won't build up... but insurance would rather pay for drugs than tests that might keep people from having to be on those drugs.

 

We have people on High Blood Pressure Meds who have HBP because of the weight (mentioned), smoking, other medications, and stress ... yet again they are not *required* to stop smoking, lose weight, or go for counseling BEFORE going on those medications ...

 

We have women who pre-arrange to have an epidural (Cost - $1500-$2200) before they go into labor because they don't want to feel the pain ... yet women have managed to make it through labor for THOUSANDS of years without it.... but because their insurance pays for it, they just order it (you can bet most would deal with the pain if it came out of their own pockets). (BTW, when I looked the price up, I came across a forum where someone asked the cost ... and the majority said "FREE ... my insurance paid for it". Yeah... they don't get it that *someone* paid for it in their premiums :( )

 

And yet the ONE thing that is "unhealthy" in my body - my TEETH - are not covered (yet many will say that the health of the mouth is responsible for the health of the rest of the body) ... I'm in the middle of paying off a $15k bridge (included 3 root canals and 2 extractions) that wouldn't have been covered if I had been paying insurance all this time. :(

 

Yet the National Health Service in England has plenty of holes in it too. I have a permanent nerve/muscle injury in my left buttock from a fall off of a horse that they elected to not treat. I got a hematoma the size of my fist in the muscle that took 6 months to dissipate (they also did nothing about that) and still have a loss of muscle tone there. My ex sister in law was nearly down to crawling before she got her hips replaced. I had to fight like hell to change my OBGYN Dr for my second child ... the first wanted to force me into having a Cesarean ... he had already scared me into one unnecessary one ... but they "system" didn't allow for the change ... I got it but I had to pitch a fit to get the change.

 

So - is there an alternative?? I believe so.. I had a Health Savings Account for several years. In that system, your payments are less because you have a higher deductible ... BUT - you also pay about $250/pp into a savings account (pre-tax) that is yours to use for that deductible, for aspirin, massage, or any other health related cost ... AND if you don't use it up, it rolls into the next year... over the course of your lifetime if you manage to keep your health (and this would encourage you to do so) it becomes a sort of retirement account that you can use when Medicare kicks in. IMO it's a win/win all around. Now, maybe hybridize this between a NHS type system and our system ... the $250 could be a health tax ... and medicine would be run like it is in Canada and such ... (to control drug costs and such) BUT, the patient would have *some* responsibility for the cost (up to a maximum amount each year...possibly waived for certain chronic conditions over time) so that it's in each persons best interest to *try* to maintain their health.

 

IMO the problem is that our country (and many other countries) have created a society that EXPECTS insurance to pay for *anything* health related. I get MANY calls from people asking if I take their insurance ... but insurance won't pay for massage here so I can't ... and when they learn they would have to pay out of pocket they choose to take the anxiety/HBP/pain meds that the insurance will cover rather than come to me. WE have to find a way to make sure that when people have something catastrophic happen, that they are covered ... but also something that will reward them for at least *trying* to maintain better health....

 

Apologies for adding to the side-track ... but with being in a medical branch (despite what Insurance companies think) of the medical profession, I see a LOT and I am tired of there being no accountability on the part of the patient to become proactive in their health :(

 

***rant over*** :)

[Beachdude1984]

Good points Dancer, appreciate your insight. I'll keep this short, because I am about to go to bed. I am fairly certain that pre-ACA, gastric bypass surgery was usually considered cosmetic unless the patient was at risk for severe and fatal complications such as blood clots and heart attack. Anyway, the whole intent of privatized insurance was it is designed such that the patient can pick and choose what kind of coverage he/she desired. A la carte, if you will. Catastrophic coverage with a high deductible and very low premiums? Fine. Individual comprehensive coverage? Fine, but the premiums are based on risk factors such as age, weight, smoking habits, drinking habits, etc. High risk patients pay more than low risk patients- only fair. A young, healthy person who rarely has issues and does not want insurance? Fine, pay out of pocket. Prescription drug coverage or no? Patient's choice. Point being, anyone can tailor a plan to his or her specific needs. Under the ACA, each citizen is required is carry a certain minimum amount of coverage. So you are now required by law to carry more insurance than may be necessary, and you suffer higher premiums for it. Anyone enrolled in the government insurance pays the same premium, regardless of the state of one's health, and is automatically accepted due to the pre -existing condition clause. The risk is shared, and the 25 fit male pays the same premium as a 50 year old obese, smoking, alcoholic. Can't even afford the premiums? No problem, the federal government will give you vouchers to cover it, courtesy of the tax-payers. Where is the fairness in any of that? There is no personal accountability, as you stated. Another big issue I have with the ACA is the clause that allows children to remain covered under their parent's insurance until age 26. What?! I was raised to understand that someone became an adult at age 18, and was required to make his/her own way in life from that point onward. So now we all pay higher premiums to cover the 25 year old deadbeat who lives with his parents and won't work. Fantastic. The whole system obstructs free market enterprise, invites federal intrusion into citizen's lives, and interferes with personal liberty. The Supreme Court ruled against the argument that the ACA is unconstitutional, stating that it is technically a tax, therefore making it constitutional. Tax= a synonym for redistribution of wealth, if in relation to a social program such as the ACA. The law can be repealed, changed or replaced if Congress approves. This change would required a republican majority house and senate, and a republican president. With a democratic president, the house and senate would required a 2/3 's super majority to override the guaranteed presidential veto. Don't hold your breath. The ACA flies in face of American ideology of a small federal government with a limited scope of power (except during wartime). States were originally intended to have the most power regarding issues within their own respective borders, with little intervention from the federal government. My, how have things changed.

 

 

[ihaveittoo]

I have to say I'm with @Beachdude1984 on this one. Well said.

[WCSDancer2010]

I agree with you too @Beachdude1984 ... tho the law for insurance to cover till 26 was a blessing for my daughters ... they are both incredibly hard working ...my oldest daughter is now a 28 single parent and has a 4 yr old daughter ... graduated with her Associates Summa Cum Laude while working a job, dealing with a BF with a heroin habit that she finally left him for when she caught him stealing the rent she had been saving from her job, and raising a baby. It was good to know that she could go to the Dr when necessary under my e-husbands insurance. She's now in a job that will give her insurance soon. My other daughter got her Bachelors and needed emotional counseling and birth control during that time ..which thankfully was covered by my ex.

 

Not all 18+ kids are lazy ... but MOST won't be able to walk right into a job after High School that will promise them insurance and neither will they have a job where they can afford to pay the premiums ... even with credits. Perhaps there should be some requirement for them to be in school or work to get that perk ... but we all know that won't happen :/

[Beachdude1984]

I understand that concern, Dancer. Private insurance often offered extended child coverage under more comprehensive plans prior to the government mandate. Some Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans offered this service (I think the age cutoff was 25), and I benefited from it under my parent's BS/BC coverage until I was able to secure my own insurance in my early 20's. My point is that it should be an optional service that individuals can freely opt in or out of based on their own needs. It should NOT be universally applied to everyone by government mandate, thus increasing everyone's premiums.

 

Another thing to consider: prior to the ACA, roughly 80% of Americans had some sort of medical coverage (Medicare, Medicaid, or private coverage), with 20% having no coverage at all. The ACA was passed in 2010, and although I understand it did not go into complete effect until 2014, insurance coverage among the populace has only increased 3.5%. So now we have roughly 83.5% of the population covered, and 16.5% uncovered (not sure if this number includes those receiving federal vouchers) and paying tax penalties. So, for a landmark bill that comes at a cost of billions to tax payers, that has completely destabilized the insurance market, that has forced millions of people to either change plans, get dropped completely, or forced into paying much higher premiums, we have a 3.5% increase in enrollment. Personally, that does not sound like a good investment and favorable trade-off.

 

The American public (who still highly disapprove of the ACA in its current form) has the capability to change this in 2016 with the power of the vote. I encourage everyone to do their part in the democratic process. Frankly, with voter turnout hovering around 50% during major election years, it makes me angry at my fellow Americans for their complacency and apathy. Does everyone not understand that tens of thousands of patriots have died in the last ~250 years to preserve this unique liberty that very few people worldwide enjoy?

 

/end rant

[seeker]

first thing that needs to be done, a constitutional amendment stating the corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE NOR HAVE ANY OF THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE AND MONEY IS NOT SPEECH. get the money out of politics and it will begin to fix things. personally I feel more than a few beheadings and life jail terms are in short order for ALL of the previous administration and a fair amount of this one plus pretty much all of congress and several of the SCOTUS. oh and beachdude, not sure if you watch john stewart but he had a comment about congress and its approval. I didn't want to out it here because some would be offended but.......

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/01/stewart-incoming-gop-congress-herpes-its

 

@ 2 minute mark on video and..

 

WARNING IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE TO HERPES JOKES DONT WATCH!!!!

 

 

 

[Beachdude1984]

Yea I watch him from time to time. Despite the fact his personal ideals usually contradict my own, I enjoy his humorous spin on politics. No doubt he is funny, intelligent guy.

 

I know his main intent was simply humor, but I wouldn't make an analogy between herpes and congress. The Federal government has had a far more negative impact on my life than herpes.

[WCSDancer2010]

I know his main intent was simply humor, but I wouldn't make an analogy between herpes and congress. The Federal government has had a far more negative impact on my life than herpes.

 

Yup!

 

 

[Beachdude1984]

Dancer said-

 

"Yup! "

 

In recent news, Obama vetoed the Keystone pipeline, and gave the FCC full authoritative control over the internet by signing the Net-Neutrality Act. Coincidence that Warren Buffet, one of the largest contributors to the Democratic National Convention, owns a near monopoly on railcar transport of oil from Canada to the US?

 

After 15 years of abysmal policy from the White House, the snowball continues to roll.

[whitedaisies]

@beachdude1984, actually people fly out of the USA for special treatment all the time. As I understand it, Michael Douglas flew up to Quebec to get special treatment for throat cancer from Hpv. Lots of examples of people going elsewhere.

 

Different countries have different specialities.

 

I personally would rather have health are for all and pay more tax so others who cannot afford have health care. While I am and continue to be frustrated with my diagnosis, I still stand by national health care with all it's issues.

 

Anyway I am late posting....I had to take a break for a while.

[ihaveittoo]

I think most of the people that leave the US for medical treatment do it so they can get drugs and procedures that are not approved here. Not every country is as strict as the US seems to be on such things.