Drugs aren't cheap depending on the condition, regardless of brand or manufacturer. My wife and I make a very good salary; but our kid's drugs cost enough that with all the downsizing and cost cutting in the world, we'd still end up either broke or not effectively treating our little guy (I've estimated the cost at about $20k this year, and it would get larger as he grows up and needs larger doses). This sort of plan doesn't just affect & benefit low income earners, but a broad spectrum.
Covering my kid's expensive drugs means a few things in our situation:
-he can grow up not being in a protective bubble, benefitting his physical and mental health because he'll be 'normal'
-less time off work dealing with complications as they arise
-when he's of age, less time being absent from school
-fewer long term complications that can & will result in more costly treatment options in the future
That being said, I do believe there should be equity. My kid's drugs are completely covered by the government. I'm reading here that some cancer drugs are not. That's not right. Parents have enough to deal with when their kids are sick, with universal health care, finances shouldn't be one of them. All kids deserve a shot to be productive when they grow up; burdening the parents isn't being fair to people without kids (or without sick kids), it's helping to let them keep up with their peers and benefit the next generation.
|