Kasz216 on 25 August 2009
| theprof00 said: My friend also brought up an argument that people are going to want the most powerful drug available, and if someone dies because they were given a "second rate" drug (one that isn't touted as the best defense) they will sue. I feel that some of these first rate drugs are the kind you described; they are lifelong treatments with side-effects which are treated by other drugs. It would seem that if, for example, a 5$ drug with a 49% effectiveness could substitute a 100$ drug with a 52% chance, and nobody could be allowed to sue if effectiveness falls in the crack, things would be much better. What are your thoughts? |
How about 30% instead of 50%?
Or one group gets the 50% and another group gets the 30%?
For example people under 45 get the 50% and people over 45 get the 30%?
Or those in Ohio get the 50% and some in Louisana get the 30%?
Or those who are sick in January - April get the 50% and May-Decemeber get the 30% because the program started costing too much money.
These are cases that happen in NHS that are less then ideal but happen due to the NEED to ration... so it ends up being arbitrary.
