American Health care.

[The Kid That Talks Sense]

GlaxoSmithklineBeecham. End of. Most abhorrant company in the world. The reason the USA and many other nations are f***ed. They should be disolved and prosecuted.

That is one of our finest companies!

HOW DARE YOU.

 

[Nibble]

That is one of our finest companies!

HOW DARE YOU.

It is not one of the finest. It is one of the biggest.

 

[Napper]

It's not a patch on the NHS which the tories would run down

Be Warned

 

[User removed 4]

Presumably those objecting to foreigners receiving health care here would also be willing to foot the bill for emergency treatment entirely themselves should they be injured in a car accident while on holiday in France: after all, why should the French taxpayers stand for it?

And what about the thousands of ageing Brits retiring to the Costa del Sol and then falling ill with common geriatric complaints. Do the Spanish tell them to piss off back to the UK for hospital treatment? I suspect not (though, rather like Helter Skelter, I have absolutely no statistics upon which to base this argument. But it doesn't seem to matter).

Your argument is flawed and is i suspect attmepting to mask the true nature of the problem, which is health tourism.
You castigate helter skelter for not providing any evidence to back up his claims and then conveniently ignore the evidence i have provided, why is that ?
As far as i know the french taxpayer doesn't foot the bill for accidents , its covered by your holiday insurance or you are expected to pay.

As for the ageing brits in spain ? at first my opinion was that the spanish shouldnt be expected to pay, but this is a country that has benefited massively from EU(ie british) cash, and you have to consider the input these people have on the local economy, they are not a drain on the taxpayer in the same way as your beloved health tourists are, i just wonder why so many people seem so self loathing and keen to jump into arguments on the opposite side to anything that remotely purports to take the side of british interests.

 

[Acker79]

i just wonder why so many people seem so self loathing and keen to jump into arguments on the opposite side to anything that remotely purports to take the 'british' side.

What?

 

[User removed 4]

What?

edna's post.

 

[Acker79]

edna's post.

Yeah, it just sounded like you were intimating that anyone who, like one previous poster argued, thinks helping those less fortunate than themselves is a good thing to do, i.e. will argue that we should accept health tourists because we have the means to help them (even if it does stretch our resources) are being "anti-british". Or that denying help to people that need it is british. And rather than jump on you for it, I was after a little clarification.

I thought if I tried to explain it any more than just "what" I would get a little side tracked with a rant about patriotism, and how citing the position opposite to one's own as unpatriotic is how american conservatives muddy debates, and so on. I kept it brief to control myself. I've had a bit of time to reflect, so that's why I've expanded on my "what" this time and not in my last post.

 

[User removed 4]

Yeah, it just sounded like you were intimating that anyone who, like one previous poster argued, thinks helping those less fortunate than themselves is a good thing to do, i.e. will argue that we should accept health tourists because we have the means to help them (even if it does stretch our resources) are being "anti-british". Or that denying help to people that need it is british. And rather than jump on you for it, I was after a little clarification.

I thought if I tried to explain it any more than just "what" I would get a little side tracked with a rant about patriotism, and how citing the position opposite to one's own as unpatriotic is how american conservatives muddy debates, and so on. I kept it brief to control myself. I've had a bit of time to reflect, so that's why I've expanded on my "what" this time and not in my last post.

By all means help people when we HAVE THE MEANS to do so, but we obviously dont when people are being denied life saving drugs.

 

[Acker79]

By all means help people when we HAVE THE MEANS to do so, but we obviously dont when people are being denied life saving drugs.

I was under the impression most "life saving drugs" are denied on a basis of cost effectiveness, not that we can't afford them because money's a bit tight, but "it's not worth the cost" (a cold business decision that devalues life, granted) and often because the "life saving drug" is actually "an experimental drug that might not even work".

 

[User removed 4]

I was under the impression most "life saving drugs" are denied on a basis of cost effectiveness, not that we can't afford them because money's a bit tight, but "it's not worth the cost" (a cold business decision that devalues life, granted) and often because the "life saving drug" is actually "an experimental drug that might not even work".

You're correct, but as far as i'm concerned , if a drug saves my life it's cost effective, i fail to see how it's not consdered cost effective to buy the drugs that save the life of a leukaemia sufferer who has paid into the system all his life , but it is considered cost effective to spend £15000 a year on saving the life of an african immigrant with HIV who has paid a large nothing into the system, i wish no ill on these people and take no pleasure in their misfortune , but my view is look after your own first and then perhaps start to spread some charity around, no doubt there will be some on here keen to debunk my view , but i defy anyone to truthfully tell me that if someone they loved was denied drugs,that would save their life on the basis of 'cost effectiveness' , they wouldnt be highly pissed off at the thought of someone who had never paid a penny into the system having £15000 a year spent to save their life.

 

[Acker79]

You're correct, but as far as i'm concerned , if a drug saves my life it's cost effective, i fail to see how it's not consdered cost effective to buy the drugs that save the life of a leukaemia sufferer who has paid into the system all his life , but it is considered cost effective to spend £15000 a year on saving the life of an african immigrant with HIV who has paid a large nothing into the system, i wish no ill on these people and take no pleasure in their misfortune , but my view is look after your own first and then perhaps start to spread some charity around, no doubt there will be some on here keen to debunk my view , but i defy anyone to truthfully tell me that if someone they loved was denied drugs,that would save their life on the basis of 'cost effectiveness' , they wouldnt be highly pissed off at the thought of someone who had never paid a penny into the system having £15000 a year spent to save their life.

But if I'm right, as you agree I am, it's not an "either/or" thing. It's not that I have been denied life saving drugs because some immigrant got the money spent on him.

Sure I'd be aggrieved, to say the least, that they'd be willing to spend an equivalent sum on an immigrant, but I wouldn't blame the immigrant or ask them to stop treating them.

If he doesn't think the drug is cost effective, he's not going to think it's cost effective just because they saved some money by not treating some immigrant.

And also, since it's not an either/or thing, the idea of their being a 'british side' to the argument is misleading.

 

[User removed 4]

But if I'm right, as you agree I am, it's not an "either/or" thing. It's not that I have been denied life saving drugs because some immigrant got the money spent on him.

Sure I'd be aggrieved, to say the least, that they'd be willing to spend an equivalent sum on an immigrant, but I wouldn't blame the immigrant or ask them to stop treating them.

If he doesn't think the drug is cost effective, he's not going to think it's cost effective just because they saved some money by not treating some immigrant.

And also, since it's not an either/or thing, the idea of their being a 'british side' to the argument is misleading.

i disagree,i think it is an either or thing in reality, if the money wasnt being spent on an immigrant ,i suspect the cost effectiveness criteria would be different, as budgets would be larger.

 

[drew]

Because a government run health care system would be infinitely worse than the system that is already in place.

Spin.

I don’t need too. I know, I’m just saying that people who believe the spin this government spouts then do some research yourselves.

Don't be a dick and give your source. If you've got an arguement then support it with fact.

You're correct, but as far as i'm concerned , if a drug saves my life it's cost effective, i fail to see how it's not consdered cost effective to buy the drugs that save the life of a leukaemia sufferer who has paid into the system all his life , but it is considered cost effective to spend £15000 a year on saving the life of an african immigrant with HIV who has paid a large nothing into the system, i wish no ill on these people and take no pleasure in their misfortune , but my view is look after your own first and then perhaps start to spread some charity around, no doubt there will be some on here keen to debunk my view , but i defy anyone to truthfully tell me that if someone they loved was denied drugs,that would save their life on the basis of 'cost effectiveness' , they wouldnt be highly pissed off at the thought of someone who had never paid a penny into the system having £15000 a year spent to save their life.

But these aren't life saving drugs are they? We are talking about the cost effectiveness of drugs that extend life by a relatively short period and not necessarily with any improvement in the quality of that life. For argument sake, if it cost £1m per day to keep someone alive for just another seven days, would you agree it is worth paying for (through your taxes) or do you think it would be better spent on, for example 50 hip operations.

Is that a decision you could make day in and day out or would you pass the buck.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

BBC News - US halts Haiti victim evacuations in 'medical bill row'

 

[User removed 4]

But these aren't life saving drugs are they? We are talking about the cost effectiveness of drugs that extend life by a relatively short period and not necessarily with any improvement in the quality of that life. For argument sake, if it cost £1m per day to keep someone alive for just another seven days, would you agree it is worth paying for (through your taxes) or do you think it would be better spent on, for example 50 hip operations.

Is that a decision you could make day in and day out or would you pass the buck.

I think they are, but good attempt at muddying the waters anyway.
NHS refusal to give me drugs is death sentence | News

 

[Acker79]

I think they are, but good attempt at muddying the waters anyway.
NHS refusal to give me drugs is death sentence | News

You probably shouldn't accuse him of "muddying the waters" then provide an example of something he was saying. That drug "could extend his life expectancy by as much as decades."

Could. Might not make a difference. (And in the final paragraphs it mentions the trust want more evidence of the drugs effectiveness)
20 years = decades. Some might argue that 11 years = decades because the first ten years is one decade, the 11th year is the start of a second decade.

But going with 20 years, that still leaves him at 55ish, still a young age to die, and it will be what he has now that kills him. It doesn't cure him, it doesn't give him a normal life expectancy.

It isn't muddying the waters to bring this up.

 

[User removed 4]

You probably shouldn't accuse him of "muddying the waters" then provide an example of something he was saying. That drug "could extend his life expectancy by as much as decades."

Could. Might not make a difference. (And in the final paragraphs it mentions the trust want more evidence of the drugs effectiveness)
20 years = decades. Some might argue that 11 years = decades because the first ten years is one decade, the 11th year is the start of a second decade.

But going with 20 years, that still leaves him at 55ish, still a young age to die, and it will be what he has now that kills him. It doesn't cure him, it doesn't give him a normal life expectancy.

It isn't muddying the waters to bring this up.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, to simplify it, i'd rather spend what money the NHS does have on something that MIGHT extend the lifespan of someone who has paid into the system all their life than on anti hiv drugs that MIGHT extend the life of an immigrant who has paid f*** all.

 

[Acker79]

We'll have to agree to disagree then, to oversimplify it, i'd rather spend what money the NHS does have on something that MIGHT extend the lifespan of someone who has paid into the system all their life than on anti hiv drugs that MIGHT extend the life of an immigrant who has paid f*** all.

I believe I'm supposed to say "corrected for you "

 

[User removed 4]

I believe I'm supposed to say " i've deliberately overcomplicated the sentiment behind your post "

corrected for you

 

[Acker79]

corrected for you