Brit doctors: don't treat people who make bad choices or get old
 

This'll muss up yer hair.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../27/nhs127.xml

Some of our fellow Brit dwellars fit into these categories. My friends, I would do anything to get you care if you are denied it. Even if it is a financial burden, I will send you the money for a plane ticket so you can fly to Philadelphia; I will pick you up at the airport; and I will take you to the nearest hospital.

Do you know what the financial condition of your hospital is? It serves you well to find out.

I'd chip in, too.

To be fair, they can get treatment, they just have to pay for it themselves.

It would be closer to go to Sweden...
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

We touched on this sort of issue a few months back, in a thread about an overpopulated island. Finite resources, demand exceeding supply, hard decisions.

It isn't a case of doctors saying, we've got plenty of resources but you aren't worthy. Rather, doctors (and medical administrators really) are saying, our limited resources would be better used on this person with a better likelihood of a long and productive life afterwards, than on this other person who has a much less chance of that.

It's a very hard decision, but it is one we have to face, unless we want to greatly increase spending on health. Taxes, anyone?

There is also the option of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. More money does not by definition mean better.

What's the problem?

I don't believe -for example- alcoholics who refuse to give up drinking should be given a liver transplant at all if there are others in more need of the liver, even if they pay for the treatment themselves.

But they're not being refused treatment altogether -just treatment on the NHS. How would you feel about your taxes being increased so every alky in the gutter can receive a liver transplant on medicare?

The elderly are more tricky, but there are many procedures which can result in more pain and suffering that would be caused by not having them. If people refuse to take the advice of their doctor about when to stop treatment, they should do it on their own dollar.

It's no different from your insurance company dictating which procedures it will pay for, which doctors you can see.....

Where does that system go when it gets to the point of saying " You don't contribute enough to society, so no treatment for you."?

Soylent Green.

No different? Can we make that a bumper sticker?

Universal health care: no different from current insurance coverage

Actually I believe that only occasionally are there cases where people are flatly denied coverage by their insurer, and when they do, it's big news. Somebody died of it recently.

But, didn't they pay for it once already with their taxes?

Well sure, that's what they were told. But still, it's probably cheaper for UT to just send them the money to get treated in Britain rather than flying them here first.

Sure you can. It's not what i said, but if it makes you feel good, go right ahead.


Oh please. Are you trying to tell me that everyone with health insurance can get the latest most expensive fertility treatment from the provider of their choice? Even 80yo great-grannies?

You've just reminded me why I've never bothered to join in these "discussions". The American health insurance blinkers and obsession with the evil socialism rife in Europe make it pointless and impossible. You'd be bereft without Nationalised Healthcare to fear and mock. Natiionalised healthcare will never work here because no-one will ever give it a chance. So let's just forget it and carry on.

Remember how Briana was getting chemo, and needing anti-nausea medication? Insurer got all stingy and would only pay for one (IIRC) dose when she needed more.

Ok, not "flatly denied" but I imagine this situation is similar to what happens in Britain; a 92-year-old with emphysema is given medication to manage it, rather than a lung transplant, but they are not "flatly denied" treatment.

Um, no, but thanks for playing.

NHS care is supposed to cover standard basic medical care. Procedures which are unnecessary or against medical advice do not fall within this remit. If an alky needs a liver transplant, they must stop drinking. Not just because they are undeserving and should not get a chance to trash a new one, but how in the hell does the transplant stand a chance of working of the poor organ is not only assailed by the recipients antibodies but also a slew of toxins.....

Ah fuck it. I'm done. Y'all have the healthcare you deserve. It sucks, in my opinion, but then most of you haven't experienced anything else so you don't know what your missing, and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford reasonable insurance. Sucks to be poor here, though, I would imagine. Ignorance truly is bliss sometimes.