I have a few real-world examples that I'd like to share. My ex-wife had a disease that was eating her from the inside out. She got treatment for it under Blue Cross, insurance I had through my employer. While waiting for her to come out of the doctor's office one day, I talked with a guy in the waiting room that had the same problem. He was from Canada. He said that the same treatment is available in Canada, but he wasn't approved due to costs. The same high-dose Chemotherapy that cures Leukemia, was not approved for Scleroderma, even though the disease was hardening the inside of his lungs, slowly diminishing his lung capacity. He remortgaged the house and flew to Johns Hopkins in Baltimore once a quarter for check-ups/treatments. Otherwise, he would have had to receive the cheaper Methotrexate, which is not effective when the disease attacks the lungs. He would have died. I know my ex is still alive, I doubt he is if he ran out of money because Canada wouldn't pay for the specialized treatment.
Regarding drug costs, I am quite concerned about gov't control. My current girlfriend was designing drugs, working as a post-grad, that would prevent the growth of HIV in an infected person. The grant money provided to her department ultimately came from pharmaceutical companies, the same ones that charge a whole lot of money for their brand name drugs, before the patent expires and they go generic. If those drug companies do not charge what they do, then there is no money for research and development. That's directly from the mouths of scientists and professors at Hopkins. New drugs for curing diseases will not be developed without this money, and only gov't grants for drugs the gov't wants to invest in will be distributed. Yes, drugs cost money, but that same money paid may save someone's life down the road. If the gov't steps in to control pharma costs, our drug design programs will be stalled.
She now works in a pharmacy, where pharmacists are researching liability insurance. They never needed it before, but the current house bill requires them to modify prescriptions to reduce costs. Not just replacing name brands with generics, actually changing name brands and even dosages! If the gov't thinks you can get by with a less dose of Prilosec over a prescribed does of Nexium, the pharmacist will need to dispense the lower dose Prilosec. This is completely stupid, but reinforces the fact that this is about costs and not care.
I can't get behind this type of reform. I know that if times are tough and I have to do without healthcare, I may have to take my licks. But, if I can adjust my life to ensure I have coverage of some sort, I'll gladly pay up for it. My parents taught me that I only get what I pay for. If I was in someone else's shoes, I might feel different, but with the facts I have and the experiences I've been through, that is my humble opinion.
