Lies, Euthanasia and the National Health Service

Oneofthediaspora · #71 25th August 2009, 01:04 PM

Ah, I get it. That sort of thing is called "immediately necessary treatment" over here.

Like if you are in a car crash etc.

My point was that the National Insurance scheme that we have is a very comprehensive scheme but certain drugs are not included in it because their evidence base is not robust enough to justify the cost. The patient can pay for the drugs themselves if they want.
They may also purchase private health insurance eg. with Bupa; but if the NHS won't pay for the drugs , you can bet Bupa won't either.

Gawron · #72 25th August 2009, 02:17 PM

Posted by oneofthediaspora:

“I have posted a link to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.”

Interesting that none of the internal links on that website work. No matter, I can find a working path to the NICE website.

“My advice to you would be to have a look at it. That way you would have a much better idea what you are talking about.”

I’m not going to go away, Doc, just because you mock, belittle and look down your nose at me.

“If this scheme does not cover you for certain drugs that the NHS do not think are effective and/or too expensive then you can buy them yourself.”

But under a nationalized health care system, very few people would be able to buy drugs not covered by the state. Without competition, there is no incentive for a private company able to dispense the drug to make them affordable for the masses.

“You can bet that if the NHS won't provide them then no private insurance scheme will even come near providing them.”

Unless that private insurer can be paid for them. Or is there something else you are leaving out here?

Q&A: The Herceptin judgement

Quote:

The Court of Appeal has decided that a breast cancer patient should receive the drug Herceptin after a long-running legal fight.

The decision could have widespread implications for other cancer patients, and for the provision of drugs in the NHS in general.

The fact that the law courts have decided that Ms Rogers should be given Herceptin would appear to set a precedent for other hundreds of other cancer patients in a similar position.

But Appeal Court judges said the ruling would not "open the floodgates" as only women who met the clinical criteria for Herceptin would qualify for the drug.

It is estimated that around 5,000 women could be able to get the drug because of the judgement, costing the NHS around £100m a year.

However, their ruling calls into question the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which is supposed to determine which drugs should be made widely available on the NHS.

It could also affect judgements by local NHS bodies about the many other new treatments which doctors want to provide.

End Quote. Link: BBC NEWS | Health | Q&A: The Herceptin judgement

As I read this it appears that patients are litigating against the NHS in an attempt to force them to fund the dispersal of certain drugs because they can’t afford to pay for them themselves, and the manufacturers are not going to just give them away. Rogers said “she was prescribed the drug by her doctor but has been refused it by local health bosses, and has borrowed £5,000 to fund her treatment”, and accused the primary care trust of putting "money before life".

This woman did purchase the drug outside of the NHS system while she could, but litigated against the NHS in a attempt them to pay for the drug because it was just too expensive outside the NHS system. And thus the hidden flaw in the design. Drug companies through private insurers are perfectly willing to sell their product, but without competition there is no motivation to make them cost effective, especially when the government can be counted on or forced to foot the bill.

Posted by oneofthedisapora:

“Now people over 59 receive cardiological treatment and people with inoperable brain tumours are given treatment.”

Your choice of words isn’t lost on us peons. No-one has denied that people over 59 receive such treatments, as some do. But NICE determines which ones receive these treatments and which ones don’t. If this were not true in some fashion, then explain why NHS Doctors go outside of the system themselves?

NHS Doctors prefer private insurance

Quote:

In England, all residents receive free medical care from the National Health Service (NHS), which is run by the Department of Health. Many critics of nationalized health care would say that publicly provided medical care is often of inferior quality to that of medical care provided in the private market. A recent Times (UK) article “Doctors opt to have private operations” substantiates that claim. The article cites a recent survey of 500 physicians, in which 41% elected to pay for private insurance even though 90% of those surveyed worked for the NHS. Why would a physician pay for medical care when they received free medical care from the NHS:

“Dr Sarah Burnett, a consultant radiologist in London who worked in the NHS for 15 years, said she took out private medical insurance while she was employed in the state service because she was unimpressed with the level of care she witnessed first hand.

‘NHS treatment is not a pleasant experience in any way — from the standard of the food, to ward cleanliness and the chance of catching MRSA,’ she said.”

End Quote. Link: http://healthcare-economist.com/2006...ate-insurance/

You keep harping that everyone is lying about the NHS while at the same time even Doctors within the NHS don’t seem to want any part of it. On the lying charge, you posted this:

“Hannity said that Mr. Cook glued his tooth back because nationalised health care is not very good.”

Since you refuse to provide any evidence to support this, such as a link to Hannity’s words, or perhaps a news video, I tried to find it myself. I did find this link on Hannity’s website:

Down's Syndrome man starves to death at Kingston Hospital

Quote:

Kingston Hospital has been told it must learn the lessons from the tragic case of disabled man Martin Ryan who starved to death after going for 26 days without food.

End Quote. Link: http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/w...9642-22703737/

And this:

Investigation reveals appalling neglect by NHS of people with learning disabilities

Quote:

The ombudsmen found patients with learning difficulties were treated less favourably than others, resulting in "prolonged suffering and inappropriate care". When relatives complained, they were left "drained and demoralised and with a feeling of hopelessness".

The investigation upheld complaints of maladministration against seven NHS trusts and two local authorities involved in the six unrelated deaths between 2003 and 2005. It also criticised the watchdog, the Healthcare Commission, for failing to deal properly with complaints.

Ann Abraham, the health service ombudsman for England, said: "The recurrence of complaints across different agencies leads us to believe the quality of care in the NHS and social services for people with learning disabilities is at best patchy, and at worst an indictment of our society."

End Quote. Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ty-neglect-nhs

But I would appreciate it if you could substantiate your claim on Hannity’s comments, so that they can be read in context and then discussed. Further, if all that is being said over here by those on the right is simply lies, why do I keep finding a wealth of articles from your own press on how bad the NHS system is?

As for this:

Posted by oneofthediaspora:

“The IBD are the biggest liars of the lot…”

I addressed this on your other thread, posting where the IBD retracted the comments on Hawking from the article you cite. But, you keep harping on this topic as if the IBD is still out there promoting this claim. Now who is being disingenuous?

Gawron · #73 25th August 2009, 02:26 PM

Posted by oneofthediaspora:

“They may also purchase private health insurance eg. with Bupa; but if the NHS won't pay for the drugs , you can bet Bupa won't either.”

From the BuPa website.

Quote:

Our highest level of cover includes full cover for eligible out-patient consultations, and extensive cover for eligible private hospital treatment. Provides cover for out-patient complementary medicine and cover for psychiatric treatment

End Quote. Link: http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/he...alth-insurance

So perhaps they will.

Oneofthediaspora · #74 25th August 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Gawron

Posted by oneofthediaspora:

“I have posted a link to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.”

Interesting that none of the internal links on that website work. No matter, I can find a working path to the NICE website.

“My advice to you would be to have a look at it. That way you would have a much better idea what you are talking about.”

I’m not going to go away, Doc, just because you mock, belittle and look down your nose at me.

“If this scheme does not cover you for certain drugs that the NHS do not think are effective and/or too expensive then you can buy them yourself.”

But under a nationalized health care system, very few people would be able to buy drugs not covered by the state. Without competition, there is no incentive for a private company able to dispense the drug to make them affordable for the masses.

“You can bet that if the NHS won't provide them then no private insurance scheme will even come near providing them.”

Unless that private insurer can be paid for them. Or is there something else you are leaving out here?

Q&A: The Herceptin judgement

Quote:

The Court of Appeal has decided that a breast cancer patient should receive the drug Herceptin after a long-running legal fight.

The decision could have widespread implications for other cancer patients, and for the provision of drugs in the NHS in general.

The fact that the law courts have decided that Ms Rogers should be given Herceptin would appear to set a precedent for other hundreds of other cancer patients in a similar position.

But Appeal Court judges said the ruling would not "open the floodgates" as only women who met the clinical criteria for Herceptin would qualify for the drug.

It is estimated that around 5,000 women could be able to get the drug because of the judgement, costing the NHS around £100m a year.

However, their ruling calls into question the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which is supposed to determine which drugs should be made widely available on the NHS.

It could also affect judgements by local NHS bodies about the many other new treatments which doctors want to provide.

End Quote. Link: BBC NEWS | Health | Q&A: The Herceptin judgement

As I read this it appears that patients are litigating against the NHS in an attempt to force them to fund the dispersal of certain drugs because they can’t afford to pay for them themselves, and the manufacturers are not going to just give them away. Rogers said “she was prescribed the drug by her doctor but has been refused it by local health bosses, and has borrowed £5,000 to fund her treatment”, and accused the primary care trust of putting "money before life".

This woman did purchase the drug outside of the NHS system while she could, but litigated against the NHS in a attempt them to pay for the drug because it was just too expensive outside the NHS system. And thus the hidden flaw in the design. Drug companies through private insurers are perfectly willing to sell their product, but without competition there is no motivation to make them cost effective, especially when the government can be counted on or forced to foot the bill.

Posted by oneofthedisapora:

“Now people over 59 receive cardiological treatment and people with inoperable brain tumours are given treatment.”

Your choice of words isn’t lost on us peons. No-one has denied that people over 59 receive such treatments, as some do. But NICE determines which ones receive these treatments and which ones don’t. If this were not true in some fashion, then explain why NHS Doctors go outside of the system themselves?

NHS Doctors prefer private insurance

Quote:

In England, all residents receive free medical care from the National Health Service (NHS), which is run by the Department of Health. Many critics of nationalized health care would say that publicly provided medical care is often of inferior quality to that of medical care provided in the private market. A recent Times (UK) article “Doctors opt to have private operations” substantiates that claim. The article cites a recent survey of 500 physicians, in which 41% elected to pay for private insurance even though 90% of those surveyed worked for the NHS. Why would a physician pay for medical care when they received free medical care from the NHS:

“Dr Sarah Burnett, a consultant radiologist in London who worked in the NHS for 15 years, said she took out private medical insurance while she was employed in the state service because she was unimpressed with the level of care she witnessed first hand.

‘NHS treatment is not a pleasant experience in any way — from the standard of the food, to ward cleanliness and the chance of catching MRSA,’ she said.”

End Quote. Link: http://healthcare-economist.com/2006...ate-insurance/

You keep harping that everyone is lying about the NHS while at the same time even Doctors within the NHS don’t seem to want any part of it. On the lying charge, you posted this:

“Hannity said that Mr. Cook glued his tooth back because nationalised health care is not very good.”

Since you refuse to provide any evidence to support this, such as a link to Hannity’s words, or perhaps a news video, I tried to find it myself. I did find this link on Hannity’s website:

Down's Syndrome man starves to death at Kingston Hospital

Quote:

Kingston Hospital has been told it must learn the lessons from the tragic case of disabled man Martin Ryan who starved to death after going for 26 days without food.

End Quote. Link: http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/w...9642-22703737/

And this:

Investigation reveals appalling neglect by NHS of people with learning disabilities

Quote:

The ombudsmen found patients with learning difficulties were treated less favourably than others, resulting in "prolonged suffering and inappropriate care". When relatives complained, they were left "drained and demoralised and with a feeling of hopelessness".

The investigation upheld complaints of maladministration against seven NHS trusts and two local authorities involved in the six unrelated deaths between 2003 and 2005. It also criticised the watchdog, the Healthcare Commission, for failing to deal properly with complaints.

Ann Abraham, the health service ombudsman for England, said: "The recurrence of complaints across different agencies leads us to believe the quality of care in the NHS and social services for people with learning disabilities is at best patchy, and at worst an indictment of our society."

End Quote. Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ty-neglect-nhs

But I would appreciate it if you could substantiate your claim on Hannity’s comments, so that they can be read in context and then discussed. Further, if all that is being said over here by those on the right is simply lies, why do I keep finding a wealth of articles from your own press on how bad the NHS system is?

As for this:

Posted by oneofthediaspora:

“The IBD are the biggest liars of the lot…”

I addressed this on your other thread, posting where the IBD retracted the comments on Hawking from the article you cite. But, you keep harping on this topic as if the IBD is still out there promoting this claim. Now who is being disingenuous?

Third time lucky. Here's how it works.
You pay National Insurance, this covers your healthcare. As with all insurance it won't pay for everything but it covers you for most things. This is baseline. Every man, woman and child has it as a safety net.
If you want, you can also purchase private insurance. Then you can get seen quicker, receive treatment faster and be treated in private hospital.
You won't get anything that the NHS doesn't cover because the insurance companies simply won't pay out, but you can get it faster and more comfortably.
You can pay for care out of your own pocket.

That's the British system.
Not too difficult to grasp.

I don't have private insurance. Some doctors do. It's their choice.

How are you getting on with the NICE website ? Learned anything interesting about the treatment of inoperable brain cancer and cardiology in the over-60s yet ?

Here's a tip for you, try googling Sean Hannity, Fox News and Gordon Cook.
You might even see footage of Sean Hannity eating a big pork pie and running around with his pants on fire.

IBD - this thread is about smear campaign against the NHS. The IBD lied. They did not apologise to the British people.
Is it it right to lie for political gain ?

We found some new liars whilst this thread has been running. The Next Right or some such-named impartial media outlet. They lied about the coronary heart disease in the US and the UK.
I'll post the links in the next post for you as you don't seem to like checking facts but seem willing to swallow any lie that fits in with your political standpoint.

ps. I don't want you to go away. We're only just getting to know each other.
It would be good if you could get your posts a little tighter and less rambling though. Thanks.

TheNewWorldMan · #75 25th August 2009, 02:44 PM

Well of course private insurance is probably going to be better and give superior care. If you can afford it. And that bolded qualifier is at the center of this debate, because we have tens of millions of people in both Britain and the U.S. who could not afford private coverage as good as the NHS.

What about them? Or do they not count?

Oneofthediaspora · #76 25th August 2009, 02:47 PM

For my friend Gawron:

Originally Posted by Oneofthediaspora

And why should I trust "The Next Right" ?
The simple answer is "I shouldn't and neither should you."

In 2005 the age standardised mortality rate from coronary heart disease in the USA were 187.7 per 100,000 population for white males and 213.9 per 100,000 for black males.
White females had an age-standardised mortality for CVD at a rate of 110.0 and black females at 140.9.
Figures courtesy of the American Heart Association
Cardiovascular Disease Statistics

In England during this same period the age standardised mortality rate from coronary heart disease was 166.83 per 100,000 for men and 76.25 per 100,000 for women.
The average rate for the whole of Britain was 188.0 per 100,000 for men and 89.4 per 100,000 for women.
Figures courtesy of the British Heart Foundation
England and mortality

Neither the American Heart Association or the British Heart Foundation are politically motivated or affiliated organisations.

It would appear that The Next Right can be added to the list of organisations willing to lie about about another country's health system for political gain.

Steve Petersen · #77 25th August 2009, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by TheNewWorldMan

Well of course private insurance is probably going to be better and give superior care. If you can afford it. And that bolded qualifier is at the center of this debate, because we have tens of millions of people in both Britain and the U.S. who could not afford private coverage as good as the NHS.

What about them? Or do they not count?

If people can afford better care via private insurance, why shouldn't they have the option? Less drain on government system. They still pay the taxes that support the government system.

My guess is that it would be cheaper for the government to pay the premiums for private insurance for people who can't afford it rather than the current system in the UK.

Oneofthediaspora · #78 25th August 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Gawron

Posted by oneofthediaspora:

“They may also purchase private health insurance eg. with Bupa; but if the NHS won't pay for the drugs , you can bet Bupa won't either.”

From the BuPa website.

Quote:

Our highest level of cover includes full cover for eligible out-patient consultations, and extensive cover for eligible private hospital treatment. Provides cover for out-patient complementary medicine and cover for psychiatric treatment

End Quote. Link: http://www.bupa.co.uk/individuals/he...alth-insurance

So perhaps they will.

Eh ???

Which bit of that link even suggests that Bupa will pay for Herceptin or any other drug not funded on the NHS ?

Are you trying to deceive also ?

Here's a little sport for you:
If you can find any private insurance company in Britain who will fund Herceptin I will donate £100-00 to a charity of your choice.
If you can't, you donate $100-00 to a charity of my choice.

Fancy it ?

Oneofthediaspora · #79 25th August 2009, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

If people can afford better care via private insurance, why shouldn't they have the option? Less drain on government system. They still pay the taxes that support the government system.

My guess is that it would be cheaper for the government to pay the premiums for private insurance for people who can't afford it rather than the current system in the UK.

This is a sensible post. I agree with you.

I am all for people within the British system accessing health care via private insurance. It does indeed take the strain off the NHS and the system works better for it.

Re. the second part of your post, I believe this is similar to the French model. I couldn't swear to that though.
Their system is probably more efficient than ours but more expensive.
On the whole it works well.

TheNewWorldMan · #80 25th August 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

If people can afford better care via private insurance, why shouldn't they have the option? Less drain on government system. They still pay the taxes that support the government system.

My guess is that it would be cheaper for the government to pay the premiums for private insurance for people who can't afford it rather than the current system in the UK.

Now the goalposts are moving...

No one is saying there should be no such thing as private insurance. The debate is whether or not we should have some level of universal coverage. I believe we should, using the Pareto Principle (simplified here): 20% of possible problems account for 80% of traffic. For all the anecdotes of rare and exotic diseases and procedures covered or not covered, the vast majority of traffic to health care providers is for much more mundane, prosaic causes: minor injuries, respiratory infections, dental care, management of chronic conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, and depression, and so forth.

Under the current U.S. system, if you're uninsured, you either do without these things, or for some go to your local emergency room. This is insane. You've got uninsured people running around suffering, often spreading their diseases to others too. I really see no earthly reason we can't have a national health care system to cover the basics and promote public health. After all is said and done, it would likely be cheaper than what we have today, if you measure the cost savings of triaging non-emergency conditions to clinics and other lower-cost facilities, of treatable communicable diseases being treated and not spread to others, restoration of lost productivity as the sick can be treated better and faster, etc.

And yes, we will have to discuss uncomfortable (to us, anyway) topics like the horrendous expense of end-of-life care. I think we as a culture have a difficult time acknowledging that our days on this Earth are numbered, and that we all, eventually, die. Does this mean we set old people on a snowdrift? Of course not. But this does mean that there is a time when it is appropriate to shift the emphasis of medical care from fighting to preserve life to managing a dignified, reasonably painless death when death is in fact the inevitable outcome of a medical condition.

I would not want society, or anyone else, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend my life a few months...especially if I would be in pain and tethered to a hospital bed the whole time. I'm a firm believer in living wills. When I get to the point I can no longer enjoy a (mostly) independent, reasonably functional life--when I am in pain and require assistance to perform even basic bodily functions and whatnot--then it is time for me to take my place at my Father's house. I'd rather that money be spent providing drinking water and farm equipment to a village in Africa, or computers for a classroom in Central America, or life-saving immunizations to Third World children.