EPTThe government isn't going to cave on this, because that would open the floodgates. Remember that really hideously expensive autism treatment that BC parents took their health plan to court over? They didn't get it.
Sorry mate.
Drug Cost A Likely Death Sentence - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
The government isn't going to cave on this, because that would open the floodgates. Remember that really hideously expensive autism treatment that BC parents took their health plan to court over? They didn't get it. Sorry mate. | ||
|
Trentelshark
Canada385 Posts
On June 22 2011 11:31 Voltaire wrote: I thought Canada had universal healthcare? Or is this friend in the US? We do, but what most from outside Canada don't realise is the system makes the yes/no decision to treatment, particularly experimental or in this case absurdly expensive to the point the manufacturer should be ashamed. It isn't a free-for-call get whatever you want and changes need to be made for it to continue to hold up financially. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 22 2011 11:48 Fruscainte wrote: All of it? Don't fool yourself. Especially since this is considered a "pre-existing condition", they would at the most pay for maybe half of it. No insurance company (AKA a business) would spit out 500k a year for some guy spending less than a fraction of that in his payments. Even here in America with perfect insurance he would be paying a shit ton out of pocket. That sucks though OP. Sorry but this is a load of BS. Spitting out huge sums of money to people that pay a fraction of it in premiums is exactly what insurance companies do. That's like the "definition" of insurance. For example, my brother has an illness that requires him to get treatment multiple times a year. Each treatment costs $15,000-$20,000. My parent's pay a 1 time $300 deductible per year and after that it's entirely free. Maybe $300/year is a "shit ton" out of pocket to you but I think that's a pretty good price. | ||
|
Aldehyde
Sweden939 Posts
On June 22 2011 12:03 Wombatsavior wrote: This reminds me of Dr. Burzynksi incident thats been on going for a good 20-30 years now or so. It's about the FDA's war against his different cure for cancer that does work. They try to throw him in prison while at the sametime approving him for clinical trials, but now there's a long full length documentary showing his side of the story. They were showing the full length up to June 20th. + Show Spoiler + + Show Spoiler + http://www.burzynskimovie.com/ <-- If it has you interested Man... That's sad. | ||
|
Eufouria
United Kingdom4425 Posts
On June 22 2011 23:29 BlackJack wrote: Sorry but this is a load of BS. Spitting out huge sums of money to people that pay a fraction of it in premiums is exactly what insurance companies do. That's like the "definition" of insurance. For example, my brother has an illness that requires him to get treatment multiple times a year. Each treatment costs $15,000-$20,000. My parent's pay a 1 time $300 deductible per year and after that it's entirely free. Maybe $300/year is a "shit ton" out of pocket to you but I think that's a pretty good price. The insurance companies aren't going to insure someone for $300 per year if they know that they will be paying $500,000 per year for their treatment, which would be the case here since its pre-existing condition. They don't want to help you, they want to make money. When they sell insurance they want you to pay for it, and then never need it. Effectively they are gambling on you staying healthy, which would be better than a company hoping you get sick like the drug companies, except when you do get sick, they are going to try and worm their way out of paying, which would probably happen here even if it wasn't pre-existing. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
The death sentence is the disease not the cost of the treatment. The expensive drug treatment at least offers some hope for those with plenty of money. The drug companies are clearly targeting the extremely wealthy in the niche market as they recoup their research and clinical trial investments. Per the online article, the treatment wasn't even available on the market two years ago and the disease was considered terminal. One option is to pretend that the expensive treatment never existed and go on thinking of the disease as terminal. The other option is to raise the money. | ||
|
JouriCarver
United Kingdom59 Posts
| ||
|
ThreeAcross
172 Posts
On June 22 2011 23:53 Eufouria wrote: The insurance companies aren't going to insure someone for $300 per year if they know that they will be paying $500,000 per year for their treatment, which would be the case here since its pre-existing condition. They don't want to help you, they want to make money. When they sell insurance they want you to pay for it, and then never need it. Effectively they are gambling on you staying healthy, which would be better than a company hoping you get sick like the drug companies, except when you do get sick, they are going to try and worm their way out of paying, which would probably happen here even if it wasn't pre-existing. His parents aren't only paying $300 a year. That is just the deductible. They will pay a monthly charge (bi-weekly, monthly, whatever) as well. It really depends on when you got your insurance to when you become ill. Being on an employer plan, I pay my fees directly from my checks then my deductible (if needed) and the rest is covered up to $1 million. If I had the condition and then tried to get insurance, through an individual plan, it is a different story. Home and car insurers take the same gamble as health insurers. They have you pay a fee for protection and hope that nothing happens. | ||
|
ThreeAcross
172 Posts
| ||
|
Mottz
Portugal101 Posts
In order to make some pressure on the pharmacuticals(probly misstyped) | ||
|
samaNo4
Spain245 Posts
On June 23 2011 00:21 Mottz wrote: He should make his story public, like world wide, get connection with some tv stations and spread the word. In order to make some pressure on the pharmacuticals(probly misstyped) This, not to make pressure on pharmaceuticals, it won't work. But goverments always like to show a good image and thus somebody could pay it for him. I think it's his best option. Show himself on TV and hope an angel falls from heaven. I don't blame companies though, developing a drug costs bilions of dollars and they ahve to make profit from somewhere. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
I agree. I'm sure there are plenty of worthless miracle drugs and treatments out there that can be bought much cheaper from non-certified or persons that spend less money on hour-long advertisements. | ||
|
Levistus
1134 Posts
seriously though, that's really sad. i wonder how many cures are there for the deadly diseases that are kept secret. i hope your friend gets cured asap! | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On June 22 2011 11:35 Kamais_Ookin wrote: What's the point of a cure if pretty much 99% of the people can't afford it? I understand profits and stuff but come on now... The scientists who develop the cures aren't in it for the money. 99% of the time it's a government job, where they are paid a fixed rate in line with other government employees of similar rank. In the US most cures are found by the NIH, 27 federal health organizations, where the highest paid researchers earn about 100K a year, despite being the people most likely to cure cancer, and other big named diseases. Pharmaceutical companies, AKA the Devil to most doctors and scientists, are the ones who make the cost of living so damned expensive. | ||
|
Warillions
United States215 Posts
| ||
|
Roeder
Denmark735 Posts
Tax-money. It's the same in Denmark. But yeah, TL;DR to read every single post, but isn't there some where (il)legal or not? It's a life, for Christ sake. Also; Facebook, twitter, anything. I'd gladly throw along a message on facebook for people to join it - the bigger the facebook group is (as long as it's actually something worth supporting), the more publicity it gets. | ||
|
Selkie
United States530 Posts
Supply and demand curves. These companies need to hire an economist =D | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On June 22 2011 23:53 Eufouria wrote: The insurance companies aren't going to insure someone for $300 per year if they know that they will be paying $500,000 per year for their treatment, which would be the case here since its pre-existing condition. They don't want to help you, they want to make money. When they sell insurance they want you to pay for it, and then never need it. Effectively they are gambling on you staying healthy, which would be better than a company hoping you get sick like the drug companies, except when you do get sick, they are going to try and worm their way out of paying, which would probably happen here even if it wasn't pre-existing. Well of course he can't just come to the states and buy insurance and have it covered. He couldn't do that in any country. But if he were born in the states we would have no idea what his situation would be and whether his insurance would cover it or if he we would even have insurance. But saying perfect insurance would at most pay for half of the treatment is patently false. In fact one source I read said that some Canadians are able to get the treatment and that is because they had private insurance. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On June 23 2011 01:35 BlackJack wrote: But saying perfect insurance would at most pay for half of the treatment is patently false. In fact one source I read said that some Canadians are able to get the treatment and that is because they had private insurance. Bingo. Canadians generally have to pay for their prescription drugs, as it's most often not in their provincial health insurance (there are exceptions, hence the wishy-washy language). It's not like Canadians don't pay for private medical insurance, we do. It's just that the private insurance covers supplementals like (most) prescription drugs, eyeglasses and dental. | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
| ||
