Get This, A Shine Story With An Illustration of Anti-Obamacare

[Kathianne]

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/real-benjamin-buttons-brothers-matthew-michael-clark-aging-193400085.html


Real Benjamin Buttons Brothers: Matthew and Michael Clark Are Aging BackwardsBy Piper Weiss, Shine Staff (http://shine.yahoo.com/blogs/author/piper-weiss-shine-staff-ycn-1137177/) | Healthy Living (http://shine.yahoo.com/blogs/healthy-living/) – <abbr title="2012-11-26T19:34:00Z">Mon, Nov 26, 2012 2:34 PM EST</abbr>

By the looks of their home, Tony and Christine Clark are raising two rambunctious 7-year-old boys. Model train tracks and Monopoly pieces are scattered on tables and cartoons flicker on the TV set.

But the Clarks' two sons are grown men who share only the same interests and emotional fluctuations of little boys. Like the character portrayed by Brad Pitt in the 2008 film "The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AmPA1byBOya.u8ky92SJj_RlbqU5;_ylu=X3oDMTFnMTF lb21tBG1pdANCbG9nUG9zdEJvZHkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhQ mxvZ0JvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTMwMDRuNm9hBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDNmI2ZDE1N2ItNzJiYS0zNGRkLWEwOGUtMTgyZjBmM2 Q0YTYxBHBzdGNhdANoZWFsdGh5bGl2aW5nBHB0A3N0b3J5cGFn ZQ--;_ylv=0/SIG=12m0rg37r/EXP=1355650117/**http%3A//movies.yahoo.com/movie/the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button/)," Matthew, 39, and Michael, 42, are aging backwards.

...

"The likelihood that they're on a terminal course is fairly certain, but who knows?" says Dr. Kintner, who is familiar with the Clark case but didn't meet the brothers. "If they were citizens of U.S., we'd try to get them to the National Institute of Health for diagnostic work, but in the UK the system is different. There is no comparable organization with genetic diseases, so it's a little more difficult there."

Dr. Kintner estimates there are several million cases of one of the estimated 40 types of leukodystrophies in the U.S., but an exact number is hard to pinpoint. The different forms of the disorder are still being identified and tests for each known type are still being developed. "It's going to take a long time," says Dr. Kintner. "I hope in my lifetime I see a cure for some of them."





Say goodbye to the times the US was the hope, no more. Lights out.

[fj1200]

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/real-benjamin-buttons-brothers-matthew-michael-clark-aging-193400085.html


"If they were citizens of U.S., we'd try to get them to the National Institute of Health for diagnostic work, but in the UK the system is different. There is no comparable organization with genetic diseases, so it's a little more difficult there."

Say goodbye to the times the US was the hope, no more. Lights out.

I don't think most will recognize the link from one statement to the other but I think the US market has subsidized the HC costs of other countries by our system supporting development of new drugs, techniques, etc. at a higher cost than would be paid for overseas. I admit my hypothesis might be hard to prove but new drugs being able to be sold less expensively there than here is an example IMO.

[taft2012]

I don't think most will recognize the link from one statement to the other but I think the US market has subsidized the HC costs of other countries by our system supporting development of new drugs, techniques, etc. at a higher cost than would be paid for overseas. I admit my hypothesis might be hard to prove but new drugs being able to be sold less expensively there than here is an example IMO.

Other countries generally sell reverse-engineered, non-FDA approved, generic knockoffs of unknown effectiveness and/or safety.

If it works and its safe, you got a bargain.

If it's ineffective against your disease and has dangerous side-effects, you're out of luck.

[fj1200]

^I'm talking about drug companies selling FDA approved drugs overseas though.

[taft2012]

^I'm talking about drug companies selling FDA approved drugs overseas though.

I understand that.

In the USA, drug companies have a patent period where patents are protected for (IIRC) 19 years. Generic versions can not be marketed during that period.

That 19 year period includes all the years the compound goes through FDA testing, which can last more than 10 years. This allows a pharma company about 10 years on the market to recoup all research and development costs for that drug, for all compounds attempted and failed (which is about 99% of compounds patented), and then earn a profit.

There are only a very few nations that enforce that patent period, essentially they are the few nations that have a pharma industry of their own.

In the other countries, brand name manufacturers are compelled to sell at lower prices to compete with generic knockoffs, of unknown safety and effectiveness, because the patents are disregarded.

In any other industry our Department of Commerce would swoop in and demand respect for our patents. With Pharmas, liberals will not hear of it. Hence, the USA is subsidizing the entire world's development of new and life saving medications.

[fj1200]

Hence, the USA is subsidizing the entire world's development of new and life saving medications.


... I think the US market has subsidized the HC costs of other countries by our system supporting development of new drugs, techniques, etc. at a higher cost than would be paid for overseas.

I'm glad we agree. ;)

[aboutime]

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/real-benjamin-buttons-brothers-matthew-michael-clark-aging-193400085.html



Say goodbye to the times the US was the hope, no more. Lights out.


Kathianne. You may not agree with me on this, but. Along the same lines. According to new law, and Obamacare. This kind of idea seems to be somewhat sanctioned by the Govt. In that parents may now keep their 26 year old children on their Health Care Insurance policies. What's to stop Obamacare, or the Govt. from regulating a higher age that allows Elderly children (like those described above) to become the norm, across the board? Why would any child over the age of 18 feel any need to LEAVE the safety net of the parent's home?

[Kathianne]

I don't think most will recognize the link from one statement to the other but I think the US market has subsidized the HC costs of other countries by our system supporting development of new drugs, techniques, etc. at a higher cost than would be paid for overseas. I admit my hypothesis might be hard to prove but new drugs being able to be sold less expensively there than here is an example IMO.

I do believe the introduction of new drugs and medical procedures will be the first casualties of Obamacare. There is no point.

[fj1200]

I do believe the introduction of new drugs and medical procedures will be the first casualties of Obamacare. There is no point.

I'll disagree about the short-run effects, drugs and procedures currently out there or in the pipeline probably won't be affected to much because those costs are already spent and sunk. It's the out-year developments which will be harmed because the return has been reduced but people will be less likely to make that connection because it will be years down the road.

[Kathianne]

I'll disagree about the short-run effects, drugs and procedures currently out there or in the pipeline probably won't be affected to much because those costs are already spent and sunk. It's the out-year developments which will be harmed because the return has been reduced but people will be less likely to make that connection because it will be years down the road.

My take is there a few 'in the pipeline'. The regulations that began to strangle R & D aren't incipient with Obamacare, no, this just makes it worthless for any reason to bother any longer.

[fj1200]

My take is there a few 'in the pipeline'. The regulations that began to strangle R & D aren't incipient with Obamacare, no, this just makes it worthless for any reason to bother any longer.

Darn you for making me look up incipient. I was referring to the new taxes on medical device companies, 2.3% of revenue IIRC, that would begin to hit not to mention higher capital gain taxes. Overall I think it will decrease incentives along the chain but not eliminate it entirely, I imagine there will still be research funding it may just be found elsewhere, universities, non-profits, etc. where private firms can then take over.

[Kathianne]

Darn you for making me look up incipient. I was referring to the new taxes on medical device companies, 2.3% of revenue IIRC, that would begin to hit not to mention higher capital gain taxes. Overall I think it will decrease incentives along the chain but not eliminate it entirely, I imagine there will still be research funding it may just be found elsewhere, universities, non-profits, etc. where private firms can then take over.

LOL! 'incipient.' I get you on medical devices and why. That's actually a large leap for me, but enough about me.

From what I can understand of this mess, the only 'breakthroughs' would come from those with the curiosity and financing to do so. Since the financing is likely to be non-existent, we'll be left only with those able to limit themselves to the remedies of old and adapt.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I do believe the introduction of new drugs and medical procedures will be the first casualties of Obamacare. There is no point.

Exactly and that is the point, at least one of them. Those that are for global population control are dead set against raising our life expectancy with modern medicine and its research that keeps adding years to our lives. Obamacare is about many kinds of control, controlling what they believe to be overpopulation is one of them. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Exactly and that is the point, at least one of them. Those that are for global population control are dead set against raising our life expectancy with modern medicine and its research that keeps adding years to our lives. Obamacare is about many kinds of control, controlling what they believe to be overpopulation is one of them. -Tyr

Hmm, I didn't hear that as one of the selling points for ACA.