mandatory drug use

[Taimishu]

Hey I thought the point of this post was government ordering parents to give kids medication if it is needed or if it causes side effects or not.
Where does vaccination come into this? as last I looked it is not compulsory, at least in the uk, and I believe not in the states.
The point is petty officials telling parents they have to medicate their kids or be prosecuted. If it was for a life threatening illness, yes, but otherwise they should butt out.

David

 

[OULobo]

Hey I thought the point of this post was government ordering parents to give kids medication if it is needed or if it causes side effects or not.
Where does vaccination come into this? as last I looked it is not compulsory, at least in the uk, and I believe not in the states.
The point is petty officials telling parents they have to medicate their kids or be prosecuted. If it was for a life threatening illness, yes, but otherwise they should butt out.

David

I agree, but I think the US/State gov. looks at it like not letting or making your kid go to school. The so-called condition makes the child less responsive to his educators, and do, if it is not controlled, it unnecessarily limits his ability to learn. Remember, "no child left behind", yeah right.

 

[theletch1]

I agree, but I think the US/State gov. looks at it like not letting or making your kid go to school. The so-called condition makes the child less responsive to his educators, and do, if it is not controlled, it unnecessarily limits his ability to learn. Remember, "no child left behind", yeah right.

This sort of over-reacting by members of the DSS has been going on a lot longer than the "no child left behind" initiative. Back in the seventies my punishments were handed out by parents that had control of their home and their children. By the eighties I was hearing things from parents along the lines of "I can't spank my kids or social services will get me." I think what began as "inhibits his ability to learn" became "inhibits the teachers ability to teach" became "inhibits the parents ability to not be parents". As happens far too often, what was created to aid has been corrupted and then mandated.

 

[shesulsa]

I apologize for my part in taking this thread off-topic.

I still agree that the DSS has way too much power here - this child should not be forced to take medicine that adversely affects his health for the convenience of teachers and in the interest of his learning. I really think this guy needs to do whatever he can to find a decent doctor (environmental M.D.?), nutritionist or developmental pediatrician (if at all possible) to help him out with this. If that's not possible, move.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Vaccination is indeed mandatory, if you want you kid to attend a public school--with darn good reason, I think.

To me the problem with Ritalin/overdosing kids stems from this stuff: a) a whack medical system, whack because it's interested in profits and technology, not medical care and people; b) lazy, overworked doctors; c) lazy, overworked parents; d) the culture of narcissism and the quick fix for everything; e) too many poor kids, and kids growing up in sterile suburbs; f) the shift to urban life over the last two-three generations; g) drug ads from drug companies; h) the growing intolerance of difference in human behavior; i) a grossly-underfunded, overloaded educational system increasingly run by corporate heads and Education majors.

Was there anybody I missed offending, there? Just lemme know, and I'll get right on it...

 

[Phoenix44]

How many kids don't get squat, so that the parents with the money and education and clout can get extra?

And as long as we're being scientific--got any stats on how reliable those titer analyses are? Any on how many kids per 100,000 fall ill anyway? Comparasions to vaccinated kid populations?

It's not the parents, it's the SENIORS. Seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population, yet they gobble up most of our nation's healthcare dollars--and mostly in the last 6 months of life. You are correct in your impression that children are the poorest segment of our population, and may lack healthcare so that the seniors can get theirs. Vaccinations, however, are free from the various state Departments of Health. That's right, you DON'T have to pay a private doctor for vaccinations.

You can get VERY reliable statistics on the relative risk of immunization vs disease. I'd suggest you check the CDC, NIH, WHO, or American Academy of Pediatrics. It is these data which determine which vaccinations are required. For example, the last case of smallpox was in the '70s, so the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of disease. That's why we no longer immunize the whole population for smallpox. (Yet)

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, it's the two opposite ends of the spectrum--the extremely old and the extremely young--who chew up the health care dollars.

I continue to insist that a) if we really were going to go for the greatest good for the greatest number, we ought to deny things like double-lung transplants and PET scans, and plow the money into vaccinations, maternal care, and Head Start, and b) none of this applies to me, because I need to have WHATEVER keeps me alive.

 

[loki09789]

It's not the parents, it's the SENIORS. Seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population, yet they gobble up most of our nation's healthcare dollars--and mostly in the last 6 months of life. You are correct in your impression that children are the poorest segment of our population, and may lack healthcare so that the seniors can get theirs. Vaccinations, however, are free from the various state Departments of Health. That's right, you DON'T have to pay a private doctor for vaccinations.

You can get VERY reliable statistics on the relative risk of immunization vs disease. I'd suggest you check the CDC, NIH, WHO, or American Academy of Pediatrics. It is these data which determine which vaccinations are required. For example, the last case of smallpox was in the '70s, so the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of disease. That's why we no longer immunize the whole population for smallpox. (Yet)

Of course children are 'poor' because they don't WORK or earn a living or vote or.... I hope what you are trying to say is that they are the most poorly medically funded by need and that Seniors are the most medically funded by need sector....

I heard somewhere that the measure of a civilization is how it treats its elderly and handicap.... it ain't perfect, but I would say that we are doing better than other countries, comparatively considered by population and ratios.

I think the point is discussion about the idea that you can be charged for child endangerment/abuse/neglect for refusing to provide your child with a prescribed drug. As I said, if you went to the doctor, filled out the prescription and have acknowledged the doctors prescribed treatment, you could be put under the microscope.

As far as the 'lousy parenting' commentary: I would say that it is more about uneducated parenting or basing parental decisions on how it will reflect on the parent instead of how it will benefit the child. Acknowledging a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD can feel like you have failed your child through parenting skills or genetics or both, hard to deal with. How many times have you seen a child throwing a tantrum in a store/be unruly at church or what ever and decided that the parent just doesn't know how to deal with that child and get caught saying/thinking "if that was my kid, I would....". on the training program videos, they show a mother with an ADHD child. The kid is flopping around and throwing a tantrum in the mall. Is she a bad parent because she doesn't raise her voice, yell, yank at the kid... or is she behaving in the exact way that will reduce the emotional agitation that the child is experiencing? If the child doesn't respond as quickly as we think he/she should, does that mean that she isn't doing her job?

How is it possible to know what is best for your child when you don't understand the physiological and developmental problems that your child is dealing with? How can you be a lousy parent at the same time that you 'know best' what your child needs? We have training programs and licensing for so many things, but parenting is a huge responsibility with NO formal grooming program to prepare people for it. I don't suggest that we require parenting licensure, but it is ironic that we assume that some guy/girl with no better than a high school degree will 'know what is best' for a child, but are unqualified to be a sales rep because they don't have a college degree....

The media and the generally uninformed public are fond of accusing parents and doctors of falling into the 'silver bullet' mentallity of medication. When you are on the inside and it is your child, you are offered (or at least should be by responsible medical professionals - of which make up the majority) the 'system' of management and care techniques that include meds, but isn't left to the drug.


I think, like many things, there is a real problem with instant gratification and easy solutions when it comes to these issues. The 'problem' IMO isn't the medical industry as much as families/parents who allow themselves to think that the drugs will be the answer/treat the child with guilty consciences because they feel that the childs condition is somehow their fault. The absolute worst is when parents/guardians treat children as if they are choosing to be 'special needs' and are doing it just be a pain....

 

[Phoenix44]

Of course children are 'poor' because they don't WORK or earn a living or vote or.... I hope what you are trying to say is that they are the most poorly medically funded by need and that Seniors are the most medically funded by need sector....

No that's not what I was trying to say, although some of what you say is true. What I meant was that children are the MOST likely to be living in poverty, and seniors are the LEAST likely. That's probably in part because Social Security and Medicare provides a safety net the rest of us don't have. I love it when a senior says, "I'm on a fixed income." I think "Wow, that's great! For the past 5 years, I've been on a declining income, and I have no health insurance or employee benefits."

I also agree with you that while some kids have ADHD, some kids are just spoiled brats--a fact which our society seems reluctant to accept. We're all familiar with the brat running around a restaurant irritating the patrons while his or her parents just smile and beam, because "Isn't she adorable?"

However, I work with kids, and kids with ADHD are just qualititatively different. They don't just throw tantrums--they are simply unable to sit still or follow a line of thought. Their brain structure may be different as well. But I agree that it's easier for a parent to say, "My child has a focus problem," than "My kid's a spoiled brat."

 

[loki09789]

No that's not what I was trying to say, although some of what you say is true. What I meant was that children are the MOST likely to be living in poverty, and seniors are the LEAST likely. That's probably in part because Social Security and Medicare provides a safety net the rest of us don't have. I love it when a senior says, "I'm on a fixed income." I think "Wow, that's great! For the past 5 years, I've been on a declining income, and I have no health insurance or employee benefits."

I also agree with you that while some kids have ADHD, some kids are just spoiled brats--a fact which our society seems reluctant to accept. We're all familiar with the brat running around a restaurant irritating the patrons while his or her parents just smile and beam, because "Isn't she adorable?"

However, I work with kids, and kids with ADHD are just qualititatively different. They don't just throw tantrums--they are simply unable to sit still or follow a line of thought. Their brain structure may be different as well. But I agree that it's easier for a parent to say, "My child has a focus problem," than "My kid's a spoiled brat."

Not even going to touch the agism and misdirected frustration of your current employment/healt coverage state (which I sincerely hope changes for the better). As far as ADD/ADHD though it is an impulse control problem that starts with an underdevelopment of the part of the brain that controls judgement that can be complicated by either a lack of effective adult/parental supervision (two income family with a latch key kid, single parent with little or no way of establishing consistent supervision...truly dysfunctional adult models...). The degree of the problem is dependent on how severe either or both of these areas are.

Actually my point was that it is HARDER for parents to accept a diagnosis or even seek one when there is something that they can't seem to 'parent' away about their child that is severe enough to affect social interaction or academics. It is easier to say that 'he is different', or 'I was just like that' or even worse accuse teachers (it is true in some cases though) of wanting the child to be drugged so that his/her class runs smoother than to accept the responsibility of taking action. As a parent I understand the desire to say that I am the one who does for my child. It sucks having to hand over that care provider position to someone else (teachers, doctors....) and I tend to micro manage and make assumptions because of that. Now, as a teacher, I understand that I am not the only one (thank god because I was feeling really stupid....).

I think, to put a side spin on my previous point, the extended childhood of our current times is part of the problem as well. We have 19 year olds, legally adults, who have the accountability, maturity and 'poor me' mentallity of 13 year olds in our 'civilized' culture when at 13 in 'primitive' cultures you will probably find more adult qualities than in our legally voting 19 year old. This is partially necessary because of the higher volume of 'cultural collateral' that is needed to be productive (mainly technology and systems knowledge), but I think it is partially due to the "don't hurt my baby" mentallity that children are to be protected from everything - including failing on their own merits. If kids are not allowed to fail, fall down, and experience losing they will never learn how to assess what to do better the next time.

Failure has become the demon to be feared. I say that, within reason and practical safety, kids should be allowed to fail on their own merits, otherwise how can they really 'earn their rewards' at the other end of the spectrum of experience.

 

[OULobo]

Vaccination is indeed mandatory, if you want you kid to attend a public school--with darn good reason, I think.

To me the problem with Ritalin/overdosing kids stems from this stuff: a) a whack medical system, whack because it's interested in profits and technology, not medical care and people; b) lazy, overworked doctors; c) lazy, overworked parents; d) the culture of narcissism and the quick fix for everything; e) too many poor kids, and kids growing up in sterile suburbs; f) the shift to urban life over the last two-three generations; g) drug ads from drug companies; h) the growing intolerance of difference in human behavior; i) a grossly-underfunded, overloaded educational system increasingly run by corporate heads and Education majors.

Was there anybody I missed offending, there? Just lemme know, and I'll get right on it...

Good recap, those are some of the most greivous problems that parents and children face now.

I heard somewhere that the measure of a civilization is how it treats its elderly and handicap....

I always heard it was how it treats it's criminals.

Acknowledging a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD can feel like you have failed your child through parenting skills or genetics or both, hard to deal with. How many times have you seen a child throwing a tantrum in a store/be unruly at church or what ever and decided that the parent just doesn't know how to deal with that child and get caught saying/thinking "if that was my kid, I would....". on the training program videos, they show a mother with an ADHD child. The kid is flopping around and throwing a tantrum in the mall. Is she a bad parent because she doesn't raise her voice, yell, yank at the kid... or is she behaving in the exact way that will reduce the emotional agitation that the child is experiencing? If the child doesn't respond as quickly as we think he/she should, does that mean that she isn't doing her job?

Many parents now, don't care about how good a parent they are being or refuse to see anything they do as a failure. Instead they seek some excuse, the most available and least blaming being an unforseen and unavoidable handicap, like ADHD. That takes all the blame off the parent and acts as a "get out of jail free card" for all the improper parenting. The doctors don't want to fight a parent that is persistant and insistant that their child has ADHD (despite the parent's lack of expertise and the parent's skewed viewpoint).

The example you give of the child and the fit is usually reserved for autism, as they are usually uncommunacative, but I guess it could happen often with severe ADHD.

You are so right on target with the whole "silver bullet" / "one pill cureall" mentality of today's society.

 

[OULobo]

I say that, within reason and practical safety, kids should be allowed to fail on their own merits, otherwise how can they really 'earn their rewards' at the other end of the spectrum of experience.

I learned that really well in college. :uhyeah:

 

[loki09789]

I always heard it was how it treats it's criminals.

The example you give of the child and the fit is usually reserved for autism, as they are usually uncommunacative, but I guess it could happen often with severe ADHD.

You are so right on target with the whole "silver bullet" / "one pill cureall" mentality of today's society.

Considering in the US, through the Corrections System inmates are fed dietarily sound meals planned by hired experts, provided with educational and spiritual opportunities, recieve medical coverage, can develop a trade skill if college isn't their thing, are required to maintain health and hygiene standards (to the point that the entire facilities are maintained better than most people's homes) and that they are even allowed to participate in sports/recreational activites we aren't doing too bad there either. There is corruption/abuse/inequity for sure, but compare our corrections system to most other countries and we are treating criminals pretty well.

The example was directly from the video on ADD/ADHD and was an example of how token reward systems work when dealing with kids with it. If it had been just something I saw in the mall chances are I would be right there with the rest of the world because part of my reaction would be "lady, just grab the kid by the arm and walk him out of here. If he can't behave, he doesn't deserve to be here - teach that kid some manners..." We all have that reaction at times, but I have had to learn to remember that I live in a country of civil liberties and for good or ill, she can parent how ever she sees fit as long as she isn't endangering her child (or at least gets caught).

I remember reading essays and articles from earlier eras that expressed the same mentallity relative to their own time. "Everyone wants it easy", "No one wants to take the time to do it right the first time"... and all that. I guess all I can do is take charge of my own life and my actions and hope for the best....I still think it is true for our age though.

 

[loki09789]

I learned that really well in college. :uhyeah:

Unfortunately, I had to learn that in the service....MUCH STRESS. I remember my DI once saying to me "Martin, you are all effort and no skill...DROP!" I did a lot of push ups and pull ups.

 

[OULobo]

Unfortunately, I had to learn that in the service....MUCH STRESS. I remember my DI once saying to me "Martin, you are all effort and no skill...DROP!" I did a lot of push ups and pull ups.

Ha, I did a lot of inner contemplation, mostly on how to hide the grades from my parents and mostly over a frosty beverage to ease the sting of failure.

OT - You're right on the with the criminals thing though. I think if we do base our civility on how we treat our criminals, then we are far above most of the rest of the world. I think the same is true of our elderly and handicapped. I have also heard the "A civilization can be measured in how it treats. . ." used with it's homeless and it's teachers. Those are the areas where we need some work.

 

[Phoenix44]

Not even going to touch the agism and misdirected frustration of your current employment/healt coverage state (which I sincerely hope changes for the better)

loki, that is not "ageism." Unfortunately IT'S FACT, documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data indicate that the median wealth of young families, with heads of household <35 years old (ie homes with little kids) is $5,786. With heads of households ages 55-64 wealth is $91,481--that remains stable until around age 74, then drops to about $77,654. I didn't make this up: seniors ARE the wealthiest segment of the population. I also didn't invent the term "Selfish Seniors" to indicate those who vote increasing benefits for themselves at the expense of children. It is generational warfare.

Having said that, I thank you for your good wishes.

 

[loki09789]

loki, that is not "ageism." Unfortunately IT'S FACT, documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data indicate that the median wealth of young families, with heads of household <35 years old (ie homes with little kids) is $5,786. With heads of households ages 55-64 wealth is $91,481--that remains stable until around age 74, then drops to about $77,654. I didn't make this up: seniors ARE the wealthiest segment of the population. I also didn't invent the term "Selfish Seniors" to indicate those who vote increasing benefits for themselves at the expense of children. It is generational warfare.

Having said that, I thank you for your good wishes.

Well, they worked their entire lives, earned the promotions, degrees and wage increases/retirements..... with the degree driven market of our current situation anyone under the age of 35 (this includes me) will not have the clout, pedigree or the connections by in large to command that statistic. Also, This age group is FAR more likely to have to worry about coverage and health benefits for small children than someone our grand parents age. I don't begrudge my father his income, retirement or the healt benefits he earned along the way. He worked hard for that - I saw it everyday, but didn't appreciate it until I had a son of my own.

Be careful of stats btw, how many of those under 35'ers are minimum wage/laborer/part time and other low paying/low training requirement jobs skewing the comparison you are trying to make? THere are probably far fewer McDonalds counter workers at the senior end of the income spectrum messing with the statistical curve/average. It might be more honest to compare benefits/income coverage of career/job descriptions instead of the ages. I can understand why you should be earning a higher wage if you are working in your degree field than someone pumping gas, but why should there be such a disparity in health coverage provided by your employer? That is more a more reasonable inequity to me.

I call it agism because the comparison isn't reasonable or fair.

 

[Rich Parsons]

loki, that is not "ageism." Unfortunately IT'S FACT, documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data indicate that the median wealth of young families, with heads of household <35 years old (ie homes with little kids) is $5,786. With heads of households ages 55-64 wealth is $91,481--that remains stable until around age 74, then drops to about $77,654. I didn't make this up: seniors ARE the wealthiest segment of the population. I also didn't invent the term "Selfish Seniors" to indicate those who vote increasing benefits for themselves at the expense of children. It is generational warfare.

Having said that, I thank you for your good wishes.

Phoenix44,

Could you send me a PM with the link, this sounds interesting to me for more private reading.

I would like to see the 35 to 54 ranges as well, and see how the numbers are calculated, all the boring reading and calculations in stuff .

As to the average, I agree with Paul M. about skewing, yet, it only raises another issue. I think the skewing is also skewed by directors and VP's and such who are still working at this age.

Thanks

:asian:

 

[MA-Caver]

I am replying late to this topic, because life just gets in the way sometimes. But I hope I am staying on topic in regards to the kids on ritalin subject and not vaccinations or the other stuff that seemingly strayed.

Taylor told KOAT-TV he is not putting Daniel back on Ritalin, no matter what the consequences for himself may be. "Yeah, I'll go to jail for it," he said. "I'll go as long as I have to go."

One part of me says "good for him", another part says "well...that's not the brightest idea because now he's just deprived his son of his father and the state can put the kid right back on ritalin and dad (or mom) isn't around to stop them."

loki09789 wrote: <snip>The father could have consulted with the doctor for an alternative to Rit. (Aderral, Stratera... lots of choices) that might be more balanced for his son. If he is dead set on keeping his child off drugs, he could seek out schools specifically set up to manage ADHD/ADD children...

Ok but how do we KNOW for 100% sure that a child has ADHD or ADD? Do we really understand exactly what those two are. Or are they just a pseudonym for parental laziness and inattentiveness?

rmcrobertson wrote: Clearly, some of these kids need their drugs. Problem is, all the studies I've seen on this say that the kids who really, really need their drugs are a minority of the kids who actually get them.

That's been my thought for a long time. Far too many kids are misdiagnosed and don't need it. I won't deny that ADD/ADHD does exist... it's just not as frequent as doctors/teachers/psychologist think it is.

rmcrobertson wrote: The problem appears to be a practical one: a) drug companies are pushing the hell out of these drugs for ADD/ADHD (gotta love that free market system!); b) consumers (and I mean consumers, not parents) go in and demand drugs for themselves and for their kids; c) most physicians have no idea how to properly evaluate and prescribe for these kids, and they don't take the time to find out; d) a lot of these drugs require careful monitoring and titrarion of dosages, and most kids don't get it; e) some parents do have irratgional fears that don't get addressed (similarly, ever talked to some yutz who won't have their kids vaccinated?); f) these kids also need lots of behavioral work and psychotherapy, and they don't get it because it's expensive.

Exactly because it's expensive. Pharmaceutical companies make billions off their products. Example, when I was bitten by a rattlesnake a couple of years ago, the pharmacy bill alone was $16K. I was given anti-venom, ONE shot of morphine (2 mgs), some antibiotics and lord knows what else. It's highly doubtful that they (the pharmaceutical companies) will reduce the flow of income because it's bad for their customers. On another discussion board, one poster is a doctor who said that he receives weekly at least a dozen incentives to "push a particular drug", these incentives range from free dinners at high-dollar resturant (via coupons), to thousands of bonus miles on commerical airlines, to paid vacations at various resorts. To qualify he fills out an order form for X number of "free-samples." The incentives are shipped right along with the samples. That is kinda scary when you think about it. By the way, the doc basically quit the mainstream and went into private practice and is prescribing alternative meds...natural meds... that says something doesn't it??

rmcrobertson wrote: Apparently, we have a majority of kids on drugs who don't need them, and of the ones who really, really do need their drugs, the majority are way over-medicated. Lovely. We also have an enormous population of fat, out-of-shape, whiny kids who never get to go out and run around screaming till they fall in the creek, like kids are supposed to be doing, because we're too lazy, too stupid and too cheap to arrange a society reasonably. Brilliant.

Yes, the sarcasm is noted here. I remember seeing kids very hyperactive, overweight, whiny kids, and others causing problems/disruptions in class (heh, I was one of them :uhyeah: ), in my various schools (60's and 70's), there weren't many but they were there. Were these kids ADHD or were they just... kids?

OULobo wrote: I don't even want to get into the whole Ridilin thing. Every parent that can't face their own inability or unwillingness to handle their children instantly diagnoses the kid ADHD in their own head because they saw an episode of Dateline or know another child supposedly with it that acts this way, so it must be the case. Doctors loosely diagnose ADHD and prescribe Ridilin to the kid because the parent won't accept that it's bad parenting or lack of attention to the child, and won't leave without the stuff that calmed the neighbor's hyper kid down.

Yeah, adults...be it teachers or parents not wanting to deal with the stress of a screaming kid find it a lot easier to allow the docs to prescribe the "kid-stone" drug. It's better for the docs to make the quick diagnosis so that he can see as many patients in a day as possible (more money).
Am hoping that folks reading this are aware of what Ritalin is (mostly) made of?? It's a type of amphetamine. Something to think about. Pre-puberty kids can't handle the intense adrendealin rush created by amphetamines and it over-loads/shocks their system so much that they're really in a stupor. Thus calm, placid and generally "a good kid." It's a small wonder that the suicide rate for kids on these meds is abnormally high. The docs say..."well it's time to take them off the ritalin" ... probably because as the kids' hormones start changing and going into effect, the amphetamines will have their (usual) effect of it's street name... SPEED! and the kids being taken off the drug go into a deep depression because they're addicted and their bodies are crying for more but they aren't getting it...so suicide.

loki09789 wrote: I remember reading essays and articles from earlier eras that expressed the same mentallity relative to their own time. "Everyone wants it easy", "No one wants to take the time to do it right the first time"... and all that. I guess all I can do is take charge of my own life and my actions and hope for the best....I still think it is true for our age though.

Right, nobody wants to take the time or the effort. What's also sad/scary/trouble-some is there's an outcry against it...but that's all it is... an outcry. What exactly is going on up there on the hill(s)? Lawmakers aren't doing investigations...at least none known publically anyway. Are they receiving the same incentives from the same pharmaceutical companies? Is it called hush/ignore money?

theletch1 wrote: <snip>For the conspiracy theorists among us...how long until mandatory psychotropic drugs are ordered for the masses?

Yes, how long indeed? A people controlled are a people unable to protest. It's so subtle folks. It doesn't even look like a conspiracy does it?

 

[Phoenix44]

I personally no longer get too excited about the problems in the US medical system--because I don't think it can hold up this way much longer.

NO ONE should profit from the public and private health care dollar except the doctor, nurse, or other health care provider. These people deserve to be paid for their services. Drug companies deserve a REASONABLE, not exorbitant, payment for drugs.

Our current health care system siphons off money for CEOs, stockholders, and armies of clerical personnel and reviewers. And multiply this HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of times for each and every insurer and managed care organization. Meanwhile, doctors are paid less for a complete consultation than a manicurist gets for a pedicure, and asthmatics are denied appropriate medications because some HMO thinks the inhaler isn't "medically necessary."

Stephen Wiggins, founder and former CEO of Oxford Health Plans, quit under allegations of financial and managerial problems. He was awarded a $9 MILLION severance package (which was eventually challenged). $9 million in health care money!!! How much Hepatitis vaccine could THAT pay for? And that's just ONE insurer.