stevenlmeyer: "I think Dr. Teo should be commended for pointing out a REALITY that anyone with half a brain understands."

I think pointing out the obvious is an exercise best let to the talking heads who are paid to entertain the masses.

stevenlmeyer: "We need a debate."

We need to debate the obvious? Surely not.

Yet again Pericles,
Has put the cherry on the top with his usual impeccable logic.
WHAT steven and rstuart fail to understand with their perjorative 'any one with half a brain ' comment is that there is a big difference between being told something andbeing able to emotionally accept visa vie AGW.
In addition to this there is always other alternatives.
My concern is not for short term temporary extention of life of say the very elderly but for the life of say of a AIDS sufferer there there is a cocktail of expensive drugs for protracted period of time. To deny these people the drugs based on wealth issues to me is obscene.
My final point is that the current health systems can be be improved by implementing a change of ethos.

Pied piper,
My condolances. I too lost an aunt at 43 from lung and liver cancer. She was a vego who never smoked or drank and highly religious.
As I said there are more than fatness etc as factors.

examinator: "there is a big difference between being told something andbeing able to emotionally accept visa vie AGW."

Eh? What are you saying?

Whether someone chooses to emotionally accept a fact is their business. Not only do I not think it isn't my responsibility to ensure they accept it, I think trying to force them to do so is downright wrong. Ye Gods. I enough trouble with the runner's of this world insisting I emotionally accept some facts that are bleedingly obvious to them, without you joining their club.

Examinator

Nobody is saying that only fat people get heart attacks or that only smokers get lung cancer. All we can say is that if you control your weight, eat sensibly, stay fit, refrain from smoking or abusing alcohol you decrease the RISK of getting these diseases. What is more the decrease in risk is substantial.

But there are no guarantees. You may do all these things and get a stroke today.

My understanding is that in Australia HIV infected people do get the cocktail of drugs needed to keep them alive.

Imagine that a new anti-retroviral comes on the market. It prolongs life indefinitely. People who take the new drug never get full-blown AIDS. When they do die they die of something else.

The new drug costs $2mn pa.

You say it ought not to cost that much, that the manufacturers are scumbags who should make it available at a reasonable price. But that is the price they set. They tell Medicare "take it or leave it".

What should Medicare do?

Pericles

In effect the government is providing a sort of insurance policy. Insurance polices have to have limits.

But there will ALWAYS be borderline cases. There will always be instances in which it is not clear whether the "policy" covers some new treatment.

Pericles, Examinator

If the life of one of my children were at stake I would be arguing for exceptions; NO sum would be too high to extend their lives. Never mind $2 mn per year. I would regard $100 mn per year as cheap at the price.

Nobody could expect me to be unbiased in such a case which is why I should NOT be allowed to be the decision-maker if the life of one of my children was at stake.

That is why we need rules set out in advance and administrators who apply them impartially. That is also why the rules need to be as clear and unambiguous as is humanly possible. And, yes, the rules do need to consider cash limits and cost-effectiveness within the context of Medicare's budget limitations.

*You say it ought not to cost that much, that the manufacturers are scumbags who should make it available at a reasonable price. But that is the price they set. They tell Medicare "take it or leave it".
What should Medicare do?*

This is where our Govt subsidised pharma scheme, is in fact a great
advantage. Drug manufacturers are not silly, they price their products
according to what each market will bear. Huge margins on no sales
is not profitable, especially since all of these drugs have only
so many years to get their money back, before they become off patent.

So there are large variations between countries, in drug pricing.

I gather that our scheme has some way of deciding how much a drug
costs, versus the benefits it actualy provides. If its too expensive,
it won't be subsidised, which means virtually no sales.

This keeps the price of drugs in Australia at some realistic
level, for if manufacturers charge too much, they won't sell any.

Sounds like you've arrived at an answer, stevenlmeyer.

>>...the rules need to be as clear and unambiguous as is humanly possible. And, yes, the rules do need to consider cash limits and cost-effectiveness within the context of Medicare's budget limitations.<<

One of the rules might be a solid definition of a "life-ending", as against merely "life-threatening", disease. Each would, I suspect, need to have upper limits imposed on dollar value and timeframe - along the lines $x a day for y months.

You might also find that with these rules in place, private insurance companies would offer a top-up policy, which would allow you to extend treatment for a defined period.

That would allow you to anticipate a situation where...

>>NO sum would be too high to extend [my children's] lives. Never mind $2 mn per year. I would regard $100 mn per year as cheap at the price.<<

And you could put your money where your mouth is, ahead of time, for a few bob a day.