Cancer sufferer refused treatment by the NHS attacks David Cameron, forcing him to defend his £12billion foreign aid bill
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz22yA1uxUr
Disgraceful
Cancer sufferer refused treatment by the NHS attacks David Cameron, forcing him to defend his £12billion foreign aid bill
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz22yA1uxUr
Disgraceful
I'm sure this kind of situation makes everyone angry.
What really puzzles me is this: How can a National Health Service vary so much regionally?
We've all heard plenty about this 'post code lottery', and it really does happen. But why? How?
'Moral obligation' ???
We are not running a damned church here.
I do realise that there is a lot going on behind the scenes where all this overseas aid is concerned....and it's a pity government doesn't have the sense to explain this.
However, to start talking about MORAL OBLIGATIONS, given the recent history of the banks and media in this country and their cronies in the establishment, is just plain insulting.
The prime MORAL obligation of any government...elected and paid by the people, is to take care of THOSE people in sickness and in health.
whats the saying charity begins at home,most of these countries have more rich people living there so why dont they dig into there own pockets, its getting harder to think whats good about growing old in this country, yes the nhs everyone seems to say but i am sure thats not enough to keep me here
How much did it cost India and Pakistan to become nuclear powers and to fight wars against each other ?
Don't give me that guff about 'moral obligations'.
did i hear not long ago that india just spent millions for new jets built in france for there airforce, and i was watching a program about india and there multi millionairs, asking them about there country and would they be prapared to pay extra in charity to help there fellow people, there answer was we pay enough in our taxes,
'Breaking promises to the poorest people in the world would not be the right thing to do,' he added, saying without the aid more foreigners would seek asylum in Britain.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz22yvj5r5n
Spend some of the millions wasted on these leeches protecting our borders and sorting out the UKBA
is it something to do with hospitals being part privately run ?Originally Posted by Terpe
'more foreigners would seek asylum in Britain'.
Well that just about takes the biscuit.
Are we EVER going to have people running this country who have some BACKBONE ?
BACKBONE, that went out with Thatcher
Cameron is no different to the rest of them. Hes a lying toerag.
Yeah, and funny how (apart from Churchill) in other countries she was probably our most respected leader.
There is quite a few that wont agree with you on that Graham.Yeah, and funny how (apart from Churchill) in other countries she was probably our most respected leader.
i agree with Graham, come on lads who has any backbone in politics now, to tell the truth i cant name many in any party now days, they all look so young or just so old, plus also to me they seem more like celebritys when they are on tv rather then leaders
I blame Thatcher for a lot of todays problems. Greed has taken over in society ,just look at the situation with bankers. Council houses sold off and never replaced.
I love hearing people moaning about Gas and electricity bills. They didn't think about that when they were buying the shares under Thatcher.
only shares i brought where tescos, and the bloody ex got all those
I didn't agree with all of Thatcher's policies, but she had BALLS.
When she took over from Labour inflation was running at 25% and unions were demanding increases in wages of up to 35% without being willing to change restrictive working practices.
SOMEBODY had to drag the country back into the 20th century.
At that time I had just left the Civil Service (where I was also local union rep) and gone into commission-only self-employment.
So I can see both sides of the argument.
The problem was, the country didn't need arguments, it needed to wake up and realise that the rest of the world were leaving us behind.
Of course questions need to be asked about how the UK government spends limited resources, and I don’t intend to be drawn into political discussions which I’m unqualified to debate. Some members might wish to understand the health aspects of this thread.
• The linked article has pointed out what is already well known - there are discrepancies in quality of care that patients across the UK receive, stemming simply from where they live. Such discrepancies are far more marked elsewhere, such as the Philippines. They list among the reasons for this lack of funding for some NHS Trusts, lack of qualified medical staff or even certain drugs not made available in certain areas.
• In the UK, NICE recommends the drugs that are cost effective for the NHS through evidence-based appraisals. About half of PCTs may have separate lists of drugs that they will not/ cannot fund for use in primary or secondary care ( blacklisting), some of which are recommended by NICE, and not just for cancer treatment. The NHS has to make probably impossible savings just to break even. The money and expertise already lost from unnecessary restructuring ( Health and Social Care Act ) will take years to recover. GPs in Clinical Commissioning Groups – replacing Primary Care Trusts ( PCTs ) and Strategic Health Authorities – are now waking up to the challenges they have to master - on a shoestring.
• In Oct 2010, the English Government introduced ring-fenced funding for cancer drugs not funded by the NHS. These funds—worth an additional GBP£650 million during 3•5 years—were developed as “a means of improving patient access to cancer drugs”, and as the start of “plans to address the disparity in patients' access to cancer drugs in England compared to other countries”.
• The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure. We don’t even fare well in the UK compared to similar countries in terms of survival of common cancers.
• Over the past decade, cancers of the blood and immune system such as leukaemias and lymphomas have been diagnosed with increasing frequency in patients older than 65 years. Lymphomas are solid tumours of the immune system. Hodgkin's lymphoma accounts for about 10% of all lymphomas, and the remaining 90% are referred to as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Non-Hodgkin lymphomas have a wide range of features at presentation, which can make diagnosis difficult. Lymphomas are not rare, but they’re not among the common cancers either.
• The management of these diseases is difficult in older patients, such as the 68 year old in the linked article. Life expectancy is variable anyway, and the benefit-to-risk ratio for cancer treatments depends on general health. Few data are available in old or frail patients – decisions are usually based on data obtained in younger patients. Patients might, therefore, be overtreated or undertreated. The drug this patient claims will help her is not named, but quoted as costing GBP£250,000. She says “ I know I may be one of many people in this situation and I don’t think that’s right “. Perhaps so, but difficult decisions have to be made when the cost of cancer treatment is spiralling out of control.
• Prevention in the first place needs more attention. Nearly half of cancers diagnosed in the UK are caused by avoidable lifestyle choices – smoking, drinking excess alcohol, eating too much of the wrong diet, and inactivity. The number of cancer patients and the cost of treating each one is increasing. I don’t judge lifestyle choices, but we should each consider how we may improve our health and reduce our chances of needing ever more expensive and increasingly unaffordable treatments – regardless of whether the equivalent of a tenth of the total NHS bill goes on foreign aid.
Great info there Alan, is there no demographic data that shows where the care is going so for example I believe the europeans who come here should have to contribute to their care.
They dont have parents who paid their way as we do for example, when I was 18 I got a job and have been a good tax payer all my life. My point is if I need assistance I have paid for a fair share as anyone else who pays into the tax system.
The huge migration from Europe must be a hge burden on our resources surely?
The other problem is as you say costs of drugs vs life span of patient, I am seeing my parents denied access to a lot of drugs that would mke their life better because they are too costly. My parents are old and the balance has to be made, but against the foreign aid bill all this is just dusting on a cake surely.
I dunno its just a terrible situation - peope living longer fewer people paying into the system, the NHS has to move forward but I dont think its going to be fixed for a long time because someone is going to have to be very unpopular and make biting decisions.
I am ranting - time for bed. I am pleased that my Wife has been able to take advantage of the NHS, but as I hardly use it her natal care is at least covered by my contributions (or thats how I see it).
insurance for your health, we pay insurance for everything else, you watch in a few years thats what will be happening here,the NHS will be there for anyone from europe but nobody borne here can use it unless they pay,
Join the club Tone I would say everyone on here as paid into the system. But if you had my job it would open your eyes to see how many people abuse the nhs.
Another well put together post Alan
But still for me these issues cause a side effect in me called 'ranting'.
Perhaps because the 'lottery code' effect has impacted me and my immediate family.
Despite the fact that an "equivalent of a tenth of the total NHS bill goes on foreign aid" it's for me a normal reaction to raise that as an issue when drugs and treatments are being withheld from my family.
Of course public funding is limited and needs to be targeted, but why regional/post code variations. Why not equal treatments and drug availability nationally. If there are staffing/facility/bedspace issues why not improve sharing.
It's not good to be ranting so early in the morning. Better end my turn now.
were just 4th rate citizens in our own country as everyone who come here are put first housing/benifits/rights we dont stand a chance if were were in there countrys we would be told to get lost so why cant we do the same
And then she sold off all our assets to make ammends.I didn't agree with all of Thatcher's policies, but she had BALLS.
When she took over from Labour inflation was running at 25% and unions were demanding increases in wages of up to 35% without being willing to change restrictive working practices.
SOMEBODY had to drag the country back into the 20th century.
At that time I had just left the Civil Service (where I was also local union rep) and gone into commission-only self-employment.
So I can see both sides of the argument.
The problem was, the country didn't need arguments, it needed to wake up and realise that the rest of the world were leaving us behind.
Nobody condones the “ lottery code effect “ or the stress it causes individuals, whether those reported as requiring drugs costing GBP250,000, forum members and / or their families.
• Cancer – the topic of this thread ( or is it politics ? ) consumes at least 4% of healthcare budgets in developed countries – the UK total budget being around 10% of the GDP.
There are at least 200 different types of cancers making one cure for them all unlikely – indeed the number of anti-cancer drugs has trebled since the 1970’s to around 100. A few are “ wonder drugs “ capable of curing certain cancer types. Most are extremely expensive, with limited benefit. Obviously an individual and their family will want that benefit, at any cost. But someone has to pay – whether through taxation and/or insurance. Should cancer treatment be twice the current proportion of the healthcare budget ? Should the budget be 11%, or what ? Should there be the same standards of treatment wherever a patient lives ? Ideally, of course, yes.
• It’s completely unfair that standards of healthcare in the Philippines range from as good as our best to far inferior. They should spend much more than the current estimate of less than 1% of their GDP – but there are many reasons why they don’t, or can’t.
• The UK postcode lottery doesn’t just apply to cancer. In my region, there’s an outcry about removal of children’s heart surgery from Leeds. There will be fewer centres, but properly staffed, and doing enough operations to train future surgeons, with proof they’re getting better results ( fewer deaths ) than at present. Another example – all mums-to-be want safe delivery, if not at home, then in their local hospital. If they live close to a small hospital, their postcode means they have to travel. That’s 20 miles from Whitby to Scarborough for safe hospital delivery.
• Prevention is better than cure, especially if the chances of cure will for the foreseeable future depend on where – in the world - you live. Lifestyle choices and health screening improve chances in what will always be a lottery – the interplay of genes and the environment. The 68 years old patient suffering from lymphoma is indeed unfortunate as the chances are that her cancer is nothing to do with her lifestyle.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
