Californica makes another "law"....

Looks like another drug company-sponsored law. People with HIV need a complex regime of medication to stave off full-blown AIDS. They have to take so many pills they almost rattle. HIV proliferation would definitely be a big profit-earner for these parasitic drug companies.

Yep. The drug companies are screwing (literally ;-) everyone over... my most recent post-radiation drug is not covered by my insurance, costs me $540.06 per month :-(

Does the typical 77-year-old have the assets to cope with that? ...Jim Thompson

In countries with universal health care, they don't have to worry about it. That's every advanced industrial country except the US.

All Jim needs to do is move to another country, and he'd solve that financial problem.

Pretty steep I must admit! Thanks to our wonderful health service over here I pay the equivalent of around USD73 a *year* which covers an *unlimited* amount of medication. Older people emerge from pharmacies with carrier bags bulging with all the meds they're on. No wonder taxes here are so high!

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 5:30:54 PM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote: ..

But on average less for health care than you would pay in the US.

kevin

You're out of touch. These days they have combination meds, the once daily pill has a blend of three potent antivirals, is covered by most insurance a nd may run $50 monthly. See combination HIV medicines, some of which have b een around so long they're generic.

What's the name of that drug?

No one will take him in, mainly to avoid the additional burden to their healthcare, illness is a big exclusionary factor. If he had millions to invest then maybe some would make an exception.

That was my co-pay in my case! 30 pills were 10k/mo, glad insurance covered it, but I had to use their Speciality Pharmacy.

You can see if there is a generic that may be covered, appeal the insurance company's decision not to cover and check with the mfg to see if there is any fiancial assistance programs. For instance Novartis has a program that could have provided 3/months of the drug I was taking if I could not afford it. Hey, most people that are sick usually are not working.

Cheers

Asswipe statement. Most countries with socialised health care do not give immigrants who got there yesterday full healthcare.

There are exceptions, like for people coming from countries. There are all kinds of deals involved.

You think you just move there ? That is like people in the US moving to Florida to get a better deal on bankruptcy. They closed that loophole.

You really are in your own little world, huh.

Mainly true, but not completely. Treatments available on the NHS have to be evaluated by NICE for cost-effectiveness. They frequently conclude that the latest (and most expensive) treatments for some cancers and rare diseases are not cost-effective, and so are not available on the

Not quite.

It is per QALY, not year, and the cost includes ICER which is a measure of more the total cost to society (e.g. reducing drug dependency reduces drug-related crime).

The QALY (quality adjusted life year) is important since it tends to trap out the idiocy of paying ridiculous sums for an extra few months of crappy life.

Fortunately the criteria are openly published and discussed; FFI a suitable starting point is

"NICE has never identified an ICER above which interventions should not be recommended and below which they should. However, in general, interventions with

effective. Where advisory bodies consider that particular interventions with an

should provide explicit reasons (for example that there are significant limitations to the generalisability of the evidence for effectiveness). Above a

acceptability of the intervention as an effective use of NHS resources will specifically take account of the following factors..."

I wonder what makes jurb think that? You think that they'd want somebody like Jim running around untreated, infecting their citizens?

He may not be rabid, but he looks very like it.

Not your little world, obviously.

Impossible, unenforcible-in-any-just-way law that probably let the few real infected criminal sociopaths out there walk (the dumb ones are likely in prison already anyway) while tying up courts with the usual relationship-drama BS of it being consensual initially but then the relationship goes sour and groundless accusations start getting thrown around that the medical and legal system has to waste time investigating

Death panels.

to

itely

t it. That's every advanced industrial country except the US.

They assess treatments, not individuals.

And their taxpayers paying for it through their nose. So it's not really free.

The average cost of health care per head in the US is half-again higher than the more extravagant European equivalents - France and Germany. It's closer to twice what the British pay for their national health service.

Socialised medicine is cheaper. It is not free, but it is typically freely dispensed to those who need it. You can't waste it, so that isn't a problem.

Yes, it's *ruinously* expensive. The taxes that fund it are *crippling* the economy and discourage people from looking after themselves to stay healthy. Only someone as ignorant as Bill Sloman would try to suggest otherwise, because he lives in his own little world where reality never intrudes.