So let's see, in the UK they can't get the drug, because it has been ruled not cost effective. Are you saying the FDA never claims a drug isn't approved for a particular disease?

Will health insurers pay for drugs not approved by the FDA?

And again where's the difference when you can't get the drug because someone says it's not cost effective, or you just can't afford it?

I think if you check, you'll discover the drug companies will only help those who are below the poverty line. (Usually those on Medicare or Medicaid. Remember those socialized medicine programs.)

Everyone else just has to go without, or go bankrupt trying to pay for the drugs.

Yeah, I'd be quite happy if I got what I wished for!

Marc
Living with MCL

I know that you're bitter about your own situation,

I'm bitter? I didn't know that! Thanks for straightening me out.

But just to set the record straight, I'm not bitter about my situation, unless you're talking about the fact I'm bitter about having cancer, and even then it wouldn't be true.

In fact, I think getting cancer "may" have been one of the best things that could have happened to me. It has taught me to look at life from a totally different perspective.  I've learned to enjoy life a lot more, and focus on the here and now, and not plan for what might never occur.

Other than that, I have health insurance, and I've got plenty of money to last me longer than I expect to need it.  Oh, I don't plan on outliving my money either.  

What I am bitter about is a health care system that treats health care like a commodity distributed according to the ability to pay, rather then according to need.

What I'm bitter about is a health care system that discriminates against the most vulnerable in society, by burdening them with undue costs with no regard to the consequences to society, and then rationalizing that it was their fault for getting sick and not planning well.

And you still keep going back to the use of HSA's. That's just for the healthy and the well off, like myself (not the healthy part though), to help defer some of the expenses in paying for routine health care.

But if you can barely put food on your table, and pay for rent, then how are you going to contribute to an HSA?

Get real! HSA's were never meant to benefit the consumer. They're just a ploy by the health insurers to make people think about going to get care when they are sick, and not using any of the health insurance companies money, increasing their profits.

And if you don't believe that, just try buying such a policy if you're sick. You won't be able to, simply because health insurers know you'll end up using it, and costing them more money in the long run.

And you mean to tell me, if I had MS the drug companies would help me pay for my drugs?  I find that hard to believe.  

And how come only in the case of MS?  Why not for all drugs? 

Marc
Living with MCL

Why don't you tell me why I might have gotten that impression?

As for your characterization of HSA's as "for the healthy and well off:" that's just silly.

The fact is, HDHP's work just fine for any income level. The "healthy" part is irrelevant: underwriting is underwriting, regardless of product.

It's your blog, so it only seems fair to let you have the last word.