Bearing in mind that accommodation is quite frequently the single largest outgoing in many people's finances (i.e. commonly approx. 30% of income), do you really think that the cost of medical treatment should exceed this? Do you really think that medical treatment should be an individual's single largest outgoing cost?
As for giving money to scientists/doctors/researchers, that isn't really the case either. See [1] - the cost of prescription medication appears to be largely determined by "what the market will bear", rather than how much a drug costs to research and develop.
Perhaps the NHS shouldn't - not paying for Humira would essentially obliterate AbbVie's UK market, which would make a considerable dent in their profits... I guess that would probably make them re-think their pricing structure!
However, presumably the treatment is "worth" the NHS paying for it - even if it is massively overpriced. I can't really pass comment on their medication choices.
I think medical treatment SHOULD be the largest cost. Do you really think something else is more important ? At least non-sick people will have money this way.
I understand, what the market will bear. But that's for everything ? (market bearing rents in sf)
Still, drug companies are more prone to invest their $$ in drugs compared to landlords, don't you agree ?
Of course I'm not ok with spending 30% on rent + 30% on meds. But it's more insane that we do on rent, I think (or move house and commute 2 hours, waisting your life)
I'm trying to fathom your point. Regardless of how much rent or mortgages cost, do you think it's acceptable or fair for individuals with chronic illnesses to bear the cost of a treatment which would cost them more than their rent (i.e. an additional cost which healthy people wouldn't have to pay?). That sounds like a pretty bad deal if you ask me - not only would one have to deal with a chronic disease, one would also have to budget for a (very considerable) additional expenditure which healthy individuals wouldn't have. At the end of the day, that is what makes the price of Humira unfair and immoral - its ability to severely financially disadvantage its patients (by being priced disproportionately compared to the cost of R&D / production).
Now, if you're talking about spreading the cost of all medical care across the entirety of the working-age population (essentially, national insurance) - that's a more sensible proposition. In fact, that's (broadly speaking, of course) what the NHS does in the UK - and the system works quite well.
As for giving money to scientists/doctors/researchers, that isn't really the case either. See [1] - the cost of prescription medication appears to be largely determined by "what the market will bear", rather than how much a drug costs to research and develop.
[1]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/25456...