By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 said:
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.

Good thing the NHS isn't the only way to run a drug plan, then.

My province recently adopted a public drug coverage plan. It pays for most drugs, but doesn't usually extend to the latest and most expensive products by default, so people are encouraged to opt for the cheaper option but have the option of paying for more expensive drugs with private insurance or out of their own pocket.

My friend recently developed blood clots which required a treatment of blood thinners. A cheap drug was covered by the public plan, but she wasn't able to use that drug because it conflicted with another drug she was using. The alternative was a $7,000 treatment not normally covered by public insurance. She submitted a form for a special exception due to medical necessity and the province agreed to pay 80% of the cost on the 'arbitrary' grounds that she really needed the treatment.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.