Most of us aren't going to like this, but it seems there are studies which show that the cost of healthcare would go down significantly if, instead of trying to cure and treat everyone, it was allowed to let certain people be left without treatment options provided by insurance because they were die sooner and, therefore, take pressure off the ailing insurance industry.

Of course I don't buy into the "ailing" insurance industry quandary for one minute, but one can't ignore the studies. Though I couldn't find anywhere where the people who conducted these studies put their names on it, and the studies were done outside of the U.S., it seems that by following a recommendation that those who have diseases related to smoking, drinking, high cholesterol, and diabetes put a major drain on the healthcare industry because it costs a lot to keep all of them healthy, especially as they get into the senior categories, and if insurance companies didn't cover these costs it would bring the overall cost of healthcare down drastically for two reasons, one of those being some of us would pass away earlier, meaning we'd never reach old age, and of course these pharmaceuticals receive high usage, which means eliminating them would immediately give insurance companies a major break.

Personally, as someone who has one of the things mentioned above, I find it offensive, but it doesn't mean that insurance companies here in America aren't being creative. There are a number of insurance plans across the country that have altered the coverage structure of what they call Tier 4 pharmaceuticals, those being drugs that cost a lot, but don't have an overly significant number of people who need them. What's been instituted is a price sharing, some as high as 33% of the costs. And many people don't discover it until they go to pick up their prescription, because, unfortunately, most people don't read the literature that their insurance companies send to them. One gentleman showed up at a pharmacy to pick up a prescription for his form of cancer and was handed a bill for $3,200, which he couldn't afford to pay. Another woman with multiple sclerosis was handed a bill for $325, which she put on her credit card, but acknowledged it's not something she'll be able to keep up with.

This one isn't going away, as more drugs are being found that can help the masses with their issues, and those people who have maladies that aren't necessarily common. I don't think, in this instance, there's really anyone to blame. The cost of testing is enormous, and with class action lawsuits the makers of these drugs are going to test even more. The cost of drugs does match up with how many people potentially will use it, just like any other business. And the number one problem with controlling the cost of insurance is related to drugs.

I don't have an answer, so I'm not even going to try.