Xebedee

Do you suppose that Americans are more comfortable with the idea of businesses being in charge because its a "freedom" issue to them?
Odd really, because allthough the Govt. running it might be (to them) analogous to a loss of personal freedom, that Govt. is elected and therefore the general public would have a say in their system. Theoretically.

That logical disconnect is quite strange.

Xebedee

Shades of the tobacco industry lawsuits?
Its to do with the "litiguous mentality" Americans are raised with.

Giantaxe

The original article claimed it was "widely used". We've already established that an off-label use would not be funded by US insurance companies, or by medicaid or medicare. So realistically, how many people would have been springing for the $10k (?) a month this drug cost and how would it's use have been distributed across society? I think readers of the NY Times would be extremely surprised that a supposedly "widely used" drug could only be funded by individuals themselves. I stick by my comment that the Times' comment was misleading at best.

Tracym

I think assuming someone is making a knee-jerk response is quite pathitic myself though - you know what they say about assuming...

I have personal experience of someone waiting under a socialized system - with probably equally dire consequences as that woman. Maybe even worse. She, after all, isn't diagnosed as terminal at this point. So I have no sense of humour at all at this point of people talking about "knee jerk responses".

I don't think anyone should have to wait for treatment for life-threatening diseases. And changing the pre-existing condition rules would solve this type of problem under the insurance system. She is somewhat at fault also - she lied about her conditions.

At least there is the option of going to court, and there is some possibility of a solution, which happened in this case. I don't think one can generally sue the government and win. If the govt just didn't have any appts available, going to court would not help.

Do I think they may eventually change the pre-existing condition stuff? Yes I do. HIPAA changed it for group policies - individual would be the next step.

Tracym

The company offers a discount on the drug for people making less than $100,000 per year.

Also, some insurance might be covering it - they aren't required to, but it is possible some are.

As you may notice in that article, a doctor said she was using it frequently herself (at a university) and that it was widely used.

Actual numbers, I do not know. But it does appear to have been fairly widely used, from what I can tell.

Hiro11

No, not really. Democracy offers indirect control at best. Majority rules and all that. With private health care (despite it's current drawbacks), each person directly makes their own decisions.

Giantaxe

"only"? That's the entire flippin' problem! Not much point in having state of the art medicine if the access to it is such a mess.

fatbrit

The logical disconnect is also there with evolution, global warming and those who will vote for the same party who've been screwing the whole bloody place up for the last seven years. The success of Obama is the reaction to this from those who have finally woken up.

Giantaxe

Yes. The difference, however, is that one's "tax contribution" is related to income, a fairly good - but not perfect - indicator of ability to pay.

fatbrit

Most don't have too many decisions to make:

You're too poor to afford it.
You're employed and your employer offers you a small selection of plans.
You're self-employed and your health record affects your coverage.

Little old you suing a billion-dollar corporation is hardly an alternative way to get control.

Tracym

And some of the proposals re. health care reform address such concerns. Govt subsidies for those with lower income.

Providing the "best care" is an important thing. That basically says that many of the US citizens DO end up with the best care in the world. Not something to ignore, nor destroy.

If the uninsured are addressed, perhaps we migiht end up with the best system. Remains to be seen of course.

fatbrit

HIPPA was a bandage to stop the bleeding. A bandage over a bandage over a bandage. But the wound is septic and bandaging it again is still not going to heal it.

Giantaxe

I guess so. I was half-expecting her to tout this as a benefit of the US system:- sue your insurer and get rich. Can't do that with socialized medcine can you?

Giantaxe

I'm glad you now agree that access to healthcare is a significant problem rather than just replying with a kneejerk "They only lost out because of the uninsured".

Giantaxe

I'm sceptical without numbers to back this up. As I said, I am sure that an average reader of the NY Times would see the statement "widely used" and believe that insurance companies/medicare/medicaid were ponying up for the cost. And what is the cost for people earning under $100k?