cholesterol medicine

I agree with you. If high cholesterol cannot be controlled by diet and excercise, which in my case it cannot because it is inherited it is best to take the statins. Like you I am on Simvastatin, but I have 40mg, with no side effects.

That's interesting; my HDL was 110!  Statins can affect the memory.

Yes - and are becoming implicated in the development of dementias. So are PPIs (omeprazole and co). Is the high use of statins and PPIs amongst the general older population contributing to the Alzheimer's epidemic? 

That is a great possibility.  Too much medicine prescribed unnecessarily, let the body function without all of that.  Yes, of course med is needed for many ailments, but let's not overdo.

And to be honest - which is worse? I have no desire to have a long, lingering, distressing end of life. Don't try to tell me that patients with dementia don't know what is happening to them. The people I know with it do - and it is not only upsetting for them, it is distressing for their relations who care for them and face a double bereavement as they lose the person as a person if you see what i mean.

Now they are saying that statins should be given to all (or most) people for benefits. duh...          another congregation of  confused folks!  Too much. An overmedicated population !

Makes more money for the pharmaceutical companies! I take enough - really no desire to take more. there does seem to be less use of all these things here. Although when I was in hospital 4 years ago suddenly they felt it was necessary to give me a PPI and a statin. That didn't last long though - the statin made me so ill I stopped after a week. Then I discovered that to get the PPI I was going to have to pay for it myself - and it really wasn't cheap! I decided that if it wasn't covered by the state it couldn't be that essential and I'd never taken one before without any trouble!

They reckon at least a third of patients are in hospital due to over-medication - bad effects, contraindications and even double prescribing! 

That's a shame. Good thing you are so knowledgeable.  They have made some wonderful inroads in the medical field, but so much of is is troubling.  Here it seems the insurance cos. run the medical field.  Doctors are afraid of lawsuits, so much, so much, and it's a lucrative field!

The prices of drugs in the US are horrendous - the particular form of prednisone I take is about 100 euros a month here in Europe, in the US it is priced at about $2,000! Apparently you can get vouchers to get it for a similar price to us - but I assume the price they quote is what the insurance companies are asked to pay. 

With my plan I don't pay anything if I get it thr Exress scripts.  If I buy it locally at a pharmacy they charge $10.00. Before I married miy husband 2 years ago, I had an RX plan for $45.00 a month, some of the meds were no charge, some minimal charge.  I wasn't taking pred then.  My ExpressScripts plan is a benefit my husband gets since he is retired military, air force, and as his wife I get the benefit (One of the benefits of being married to an OCD person who is always right, no matter, HaHa).

I don't know what kind of cheap stuff I'm taking, but I pay 10 or 15 dollars a bottle for prednisone.  My rosuvastatin is 45 dollars for a 3 month supply.  That's not my insurance lowering it I promise you;  my insurance is Obamacare rubbish.  Of course, your general statement that drug prices in the US are horrendous is spot on in general.  However, the generic stuff is good and quite cheap.  I take Metformin to help with my blood sugar problem;  the price?  free.  That's not my insurance again, its just that some supermarkets here give some of the cheaper generics for free, or nearly free.

That will be the ordinary, plain white pred, it is pretty cheap anywhere - mine is a timed-release form with an outer coating, hence it is brand name only. My question though is why other countries are able to negotiate better prices. Our generics are about the same price as yours - depending on the country of course, we pay a standard prescription fee anyway, whatever the cost of the drug to the state. In the UK for example, the prescription fee CAN be higher than the cost of the drug to the pharmacy. In that case they are supposed to tell you so you can pay the lower figure.

My understanding is that in nations with socialized medicine negotiate for their entire country and get better rates.  For example, many years ago an Australian friend bragged that the aids cocktail drugs were free there, whereas they costed 12-15,000 a year for U.S. patients.  Exactly so.  However all of those drugs were iresearched and invented in the US (one exception in France and that was based on American research). and the US does not have socialized medicine, so the patient must pay retail or in the case of those lucky ones with good insurance, their company would have negotiated a somewhat better rate.  All bad for us Americans, and good for everyone else, eh?

So here's the 64,000 dollar question;  if and when the U.S. turns to socialized medicine, which companys will devote 1 billion dollars and ten years of research for each new drug that only eeks out a marginal profit?  Right now in effect, the American consumer indirectly subsidizes those on socilaized medicine...and of course the evil drug companys that produce these minor miracles...but I digress.

They don't do too well at present - most of the new drugs are little better than the previous ones doing the same thing. There are relatively few totally novel drugs being developed. But we won't get into that discussion here.

Mark sorry to disagree but you have described perfectly a myth that socialized medicine is bad and at the same time that somehow there is some good in outrageus pricing in US, which is only benefiting drug companie's profit...If U.S. implements ( not in a next 4 years for sure) socialized medicine, US drug companies will  have to survive just like

Novartis and Roche from Switzerland,

AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline from UK,

Bayer and Merck KGaA from Germany,

Teva Israel,

Takeda and DaiIshi Sankyo Japan 

and many others...

I don't think socialized medicine is bad, I think its second rate.

and that is based on?

It isn't second rate for the millions who would not be able to afford private medicine charges and remain unable to access any proper healthcare - as was the case in the USA.

Unlike Canada, we in Europe have always had the option of private medicine if we want and can afford it, that is no different from the USA. Except the figures I have seen make even private medicine here more cost-effective than in the US where they spend more per capita for poorer care.

What it DOES ensure is that, whatever you have and however much or little money you have. you will be looked after without you running the risk of being made bankrupt. I really don't like to think what my husband's cancer treatments would have cost if we had had to pay it up-front out of our own pockets. I don't ever have to make a choice of do I go to the doctor or do I eat this week. 

If that is what socialised medicine is, I'll take second rate.

I've lived in England, Canada, and Australia and experienced socialized medicine on all 3.  My opinion is based on my personal experience.

 

I am sure the pharmaceutical companies are not going to negotiate prices which hurt their bottom lines.  You are being overcharged in the US, but so are we in NS, and many other places, universal medicare or not.

Research should probably be more in the hands of public institutions, not necessarily government which often does meddle and mess things up.  But universities, public research facilities, etc.  And research should be directed not only at the money-spinning diseases of the rich and overfed but also ailments which affect other demographics.  

And every country should be devoting more, much more, effort towards health care, not sickness care.  

I totally agree, you certainly wouldn't catch me statins if I didn't have to, with this news about Alzheimers it looks as if we are damned if we do and damned if we Don't!

Mark I lived in Europe, Canada, US and now in Japan. Most of that moving was because of the job in medical imaging for about 20 years.  I worked for 2 of the 4 largest manufacturers of medical equipment in the world and can tell you that weather you walk in the hospital in Canada, US or Japan, equipment ( thus capability) is for most part the same. What is different is accessibility. In most countries everyone is covered and can seek medical treatments if they need. What is different in US is that large percent of population ( lower income) cannot afford healthcare.  All you have to do is look at statistics on longevity and some other stats to realize which system is better for population.  From that prospective US ranks way at the bottom of all developed nations ( ~#30 or below).

Your personal experience may differ. I did not see any issue with Canadian system, but that was back in 70's and early 80's.  I am very happy with healthcare in Japan and had no issue with any wait time or any restrictions or limitations on treatments.

I suspect one's view of whether socialised medicine is good or bad depends on your income and access to private healthcare - and no other criterion.

You wouldn't be right in my case, Eileen;  I promise you, I'm not rich by any means, but I have always worked hard to take care of myself and my family and have never asked the gov't for help.  However, I don't think socialized medicine is bad...not necessarily anyway.  When I say its second rate, its a considered judgement.  if you can't choose your doctor, or your hospital, or the level of care you get;  in other words if one size fits all, that's second rate.  That doesn't make it bad, just second rate, and that is the best the gov't (any gov't)  will ever be able to do.  I don't think America could even do as good a job with socialized medicine as Britain or Canada.  We'de be sure to make a pig's breakfast of it;  Obamacare is the proof.

Yes, my personal experience differs.

Ah - but you see that is the point. We DO have choice in almost all the systems in Europe. I can choose which hospital I go to within the region and with permission can go anywhere in Italy. Here and in Germany the only really fixed "choice" is the first doctor you see who then makes the other referrals but one's GP is always likely to be the most local. After that - which is the most suitable hospital for what I need done if it is elective? Emergencies are different.

However - this isn't the only forum I'm on and I have plenty of experience of people in the USA who are not on Obamacare who are having to wait months to see the rheumy of their choice. Who are not diagnosed properly,some of whom have an even worse time of it than many of us. And it is costing them a small fortune unlike us.

For those of us on limited incomes (mine isn't particularly limited as it happens) the option of socialised medicine means security - and pretty good medical care without significant extra expenditure. For those of us with the same resources as you - we have the same total freedom as you do to take out private healthcare cover and go pretty much anywhere in Europe we like. 

I have been able to choose my doctor.  When needing a referral I can request referral to the specialist recommended by others, if I want to.  Living in a relatively small community there isn't much choice regarding which emergency department to go to,but generally speaking I would go to the one nearest my home (15 minutes by foot) and we have a large medical school at our most significant university so the quality of care here is excellent.  Our problem is wait times, and that is caused by the government not funding enough physicians and support staff.  The care we get, at least in my community, I can't speak for the rest of the country and I know we hear the occasional horror story in the news, is top notch.  

Sounds like the gov't is treating you right.  Best of luck to you.

What I forgot to mention is that even with socialised medicine, we are not "asking the government for help". We pay taxes, part of which is for social benefits, including healthcare and a pension. It isn't free. And strangely, there are many people who would happily pay a bit more in tax for this purpose. However - that is not what Conservatives do.

I am on Medicare, The insurance we have for the elderly and disabled. I am able to choose my specialist and don't even need a referal. I also live in a decently large city. The largest city in Kansas. But I still had to wait 2 1/2 months for a rheumatologist. They are just in high demand here and she came with a lot of high recommendations which is what made me choose her.

While I lived in US and even now I have endless discussions like this with my friends. They too have misconceptions about socialized medicine.  I can recognize "talking points" from your post... "have never asked the gov't for help" or "you can't choose your doctor, or your hospital, or the level of care you get", etc. They are all wrong impressions propagated by media to help preserve current system. 

Let me tell you my experience... In Canada or in Japan... I was always able to pick my primary care doctor.. Lets me explain what happened with PMR.. Started in mid November 2015. First I went to one local clinic for physical therapy - literally walk in and waited about an hour or so to see a doctor - no appointment.  My pain was attributed to "too much exercise".. got painkillers... Week later, because I was not happy with outcome I walked in second clinic - same diagnosis ... After 3 weeks I went to my family doctor and explain symptoms and told him that I believe that there is something seriously wrong, beyond being tiered or too much exercise. Had blood work done and in couple of days he suspected that I might have PMR, so he referred me to hospital - rheumatologist. He made appointment for me and wait time was less then a week.  Rheumatologist did blood work, CT scan ( whole body),  MRI  and confirmed PMR diagnosis. All this was done within few days. I was on pred by Dec 10th .  Oh he also did bone scan for a baseline and stomach exam to see if I had any issue before pred.  All of this, all exams, all doctors cost me about 3-400 US$ ( and my co pay is 30%). 

This is real example of how socialized medicine works.  US medical cost per patient is ~9K$, about 2x of the average of developed countries. Most of the overhead is for administrative cost of insurance companies (20%), additional cost for billing in doctors offices ( 15%) and profit margin of the private insurance.  I wish US just expands Medicare to all... but you are correct in one assessment Obamacare is not a solution.

Medicare is available for all that reach 65.  We paiy throgh our social security; folks that earn lots of money paiy more.  the minimum now is about $117 a month and does usually rise each year. A big advantage of it is what they allow as payment of various procedures, and certainloy does keep overcharging in check.  EX: A couple iyears ago I went to the hospital for an outpatient surgery.  My hospital bill came close to $12,000.  Medicare allowed close to $2,000.  Amazing.  Medicae pays approx. 80% and if we have a supplement policy that will pay the rest usually.  The supplement policies can be expensive, as are the RX plans.    We are hoping the new pres. elect does NOT rock that boat. (Ha!)

Elijo, Social Security tax is different from Medicare tax, although they are both tax witholdings from the wages.  SS tax is 6.2% of gross and has cap at $118500, while Medicare rate is 1.45% and has no limit.  There is additional Medicare tax after Obamacare of 0.9% for people that earn more then 200k.  Administrative cost for Medicare is far, far less (5%< then in private insurance industry (~20%).

eileen, you mention there have been clinical trials talking about pmr as side affect from statins, i am very curious about this, because i think that is what triggered my pmr., i had been on crestor since last jan,  when my symptons were getting worse, shoulder, butt hams etc, i started reading up on the drug crestor, then decided on my own to stop taking, which i did on oct 5, week before i initially saw my gp, and was prescribed 40 mg pred, as he was sure i had pmr, i did say, i stopped crestor week before , and his response was, " you did the right thing" although no dr,s , him or my rheumy will say crestor could have triggered this pmr for me, so where can i read up more on that theory, and where and when were these clinical trials done please

No I didn't say that, I said there is one data sheet for a statin that mentions pmr as an occurrence during the clinical trials for that statin - a process that is done for every single medication you are ever offered. The vast majority of drugs probably include muscle and joint pain as a potential side effect. 

Statins cause aches and pains - it is a well known and common side effect. That isn't the same as PMR. If everyone who took a statin developed PMR it would be the most common vasculitis in the world - not just for the over 65s. There is no "theory" - it is merely mentioned in the data for that trial and off-hand I can't remember where to find the link. Unless you have a pretty good science background it wouldn't mean a lot anyway I'm afraid.

yes i was aware of the fact statins can cause muscle pain, aches etc, and i realize everyone who takes a statin does not suffer with pmr, but equally, not everyone is the same, and one individual can tolerate a particular drug with no side affects while another may not be able to,i will continue to find out more information regarding affects of statins, am interested, regardless of not having a good science background

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22844450

found some information, re trials, but moderated, 

You aren't allowed to post links without approval, the computer recognises them and stops them unless they are "internal" ones. 

 

oh , ok thank you, well it was interesting because it actually said results of trials showed possible that statins triggered pmr in some cases, 

Hi. am on Ranitidine. not sure if thats also a PPI .

Am guessing we just need them anyway. it sounds like you don't take anything...perhaps that why you have enteric coated pred' ?  not generally prescibed maybe?

Ranitidine isn't a PPI but does the same as a PPI by another route - blocks the production of stomach acid..

No, I don't take anything, never have. I have been on various forms of steroid: ordinary prednisolone, enteric coated prednisolone, Medrol (not coated) and Lodotra which is a form of prednisone with a coating but it isn't enteric coated, it is timed release, the coating breaks down after 4 hours. Got a bit gyppy with plain pred but yoghurt cured that. I suppose I'm lucky.