It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death Panels Come To The UK

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


What are you talking about? The call to reduce the number of cancer drug prescriptions comes from doctors writing in the Lancet not government.




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed

Originally posted by EvanB
It seems that if you have worked hard all your life and paid into the system, if you get cancer or other terminal illness then you are no longer worthy so a death panel will decide that you are not worthy, cost too much, so will ensure your speedy dispatch off this mortal coil.

On the other side, if you are a waste of space druggy or alcoholic you will recieve any treatment you need, even though you probably have not paid a penny into the system and will probably go back to being a waste of space after treatment.

Either way, treatment and the prolonging of life should not be denied anyone. This is a very slippery slope indeed all for the sake of knobhead Camerons cuts.

For the sake of money a much loved family member cant have that few extra days or weeks with their family. They are surplus to requirements... The ultimate end result of empathy free Darwinism.. What next? Taking your family member to the doctors to get put down?

Thats where we are heading.
Source



Ahh so you are an idiot that doesn't understand common sense and how things work?

Ahh I see.

P.S. Death Panels were never in the US and it was a farce that 98% of humans figured out. Sorry you are in the 2%.


You are obviously an idiot who cannot read


Where did I say that this was in the US? It is the UK aka United Kingdom moron.

As for common sense.. My family are not dogs or cats to be put down when they get sick and taking away their right to a few extra weeks because of money is obscene..

Healthcare is a fundemental human right here in the UK no if's or buts.. We all pay through the nose for it in our taxes and if they want to make cuts and save money then they should stop fricken wasting it on wars, international aid to countries with space and nuclear programs and the stupid EU



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by EvanB
 





What next? Taking your family member to the doctors to get put down?


I can see it getting much worse than that. Soon we should be hearing of people burying loved ones in the backyard like the family pet. Do you believe there is some kind of cap on inhumanitarianism when it comes
to governments ? The governments are all presided over by an evil dehumanizer and I know how strange that sounds.

But they don't say truth is stranger than fiction just because it's a catchy thing to say.

SnF
edit on 27-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


You are correct my friend, this is a very slippery slope all the way to hell



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
"I can see it getting much worse than that. Soon we should be hearing of people burying loved ones in the backyard like the family pet." Actually i would quite like to be buried i my back garden next to my pets. Sounds about right.
edit on 27-9-2011 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2011 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Evan, you’re yet to answer the fundamental problem; that of limited resources.

All of these drugs and other treatments cost resources in time and energy, the time and energy put into developing these drugs is time and energy that is not put into something else. That is all represented in the form of prices.

If you want the NHS to provide these drugs to extend people’s lives for what may only be months, given that the NHS has a limited budget, whose treatment do you reduce in order to afford to do that?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
listened to this today on radio parlim....I mean five live...still not sure how that combo switch happened. (the station is merged now? its an AM station)

all I could think was "moneys still more important than people, when will they learn"


ed: on another note, I can't help but think this can occur...

"hi, im an mp" "here you go, would you like the better model?"
edit on 27/9/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by popsmayhem
 




If you purchase insurance though you will be fine.


And what of those who can't afford to purchase medical insurance?


You get a bill in the mail...

If it stacks up to high you can always declare bankruptcy.

Unless you are decleared legally disabled then you will be able to get a disability check
and medicare.

If you go to the hospital with *the flu* or an ear infection you will have to pay.

edit on 27-9-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Why not just tax the peeps that bank accounts balance resemble phone numbers. Then maybe wee could pay for everyone?
edit on 27-9-2011 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by popsmayhem
 



Yes we do, we get a bill in the mail though for it if you do not have insurance..


My question was “Are you suggesting that everyone in the US gets whatever treatment they desire regardless of cost?”

Your answer suggests that no not everyone gets whatever treatment they desire regardless of cost. What they get is what they can afford or what their insurance company will cover not whatever they desire.

I’m not making any judgement as to which is better I’m just pointing out that both systems ration treatment so that in the end some treatments are denied.



You get whatever care you need regardless... If I get cancer I will be able to get disability and with disability comes a thing called medicare which is your insurance to pay for it.

If I have a appendix that needs to remove and I go to the hospital THEY HAVE to give you service, but you will get a bill in the mail if the hospitals donation funds are empty and can not get it helped payed for.

So yes regardless of what money you have you get care in the USA.
We don't need a national healthcare.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


How about a renegotiation with drug companies for a start? Requesition of equiptment too. There are lots off savings to be made there alone.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
one suggestion on aformentioned radio broadcast was payment by results, as far as big pharma is concerned.

my suggestion is stop patenting...altogether, and learn to work open source when it comes to science, but fat chance that will happen before the economy dies entirely. *waits.*



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Hi all.

On Radio 4 NOW, (UK radio 20.23 27/09) there is a programme about NHS purchasing, and it is shocking just how inept it is, especially when UK is compared to Scotland.

Take a listen, "File on 4" and you will see just how much money could be saved, probably enough to buy all the medicines needed, rather be rationed.

For example, Knee joints that vary from £1400 to £2000 depending on who is buying, and that is for the same knee joint!

Maybe the situation might be improved over the next few (2,3,4 or never) years.

Enjoy and be amazed.


edit on 27-9-2011 by dowot because: Added at 21.40. Now available on the BBC listen again service, radio4 schedule page.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Did you read my post earlier where I pointed out the existing Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme? The NHS already does take a hard line on the cost of drugs, arguably to the long term detriment of patients.

And what do you mean by “requisition of equipment”? Do you mean nationalising pharmaceutical companies? If so you won’t eliminate costs, the capital still has to be paid for, scientists have to be paid, engineers have to be paid etc.

You then also have to find a way of replacing the investment that currently comes from private investors, you’re unlikely to get more from charity since if they could give more they probably would. You could raise taxes but as I mentioned earlier private investment in pharmaceutical R&D was $39bn in the US alone, that’s a lot to raise in taxes if UK investment in anywhere near that figure.

And none of that makes a bit of difference to drugs purchased from foreign companies.

Non-profit enterprises also tend to be less efficient as incentives are different and price does not guide investment. For example there is little reason for a middle manager to improve efficiency when there is a guaranteed income from taxes; just look at procurement in defence for ample evidence of that.

But none of this address that basic problem of how to ration limited resources. Even if you could take all profits out of the equation you still have to decide whether you researchers work on cancer drugs or Alzheimers drugs or any number of alternatives.

Whatever system you use you will still end up denying some people treatment that could drastically improve, prolong or save their lives.

reply to post by whatsinaname
 



one suggestion on aformentioned radio broadcast was payment by results, as far as big pharma is concerned.


That’s the system that will be coming in from 2014.


my suggestion is stop patenting...altogether


But by doing that you lose a huge source of investment into the sector. Like it or not most investment comes from a desire to generate a return and not from charitable contributions; if we remove the patent system then there is no incentive for outside investors to put resources into high cost, high risk developments when they won’t benefit from the full return. It is far easier to let someone else take the risk and then share in the product. It’s essentially a tragedy of the commons problem.

No doubt you will get cheaper treatments in the short run but in the long term you will see less investment and a slower pace of improvement in drugs.

edit on 27-9-2011 by Mike_A because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
you didn't read what I wrote after that. -after- the economy dies.

money is debt, we don't need it.

ed: to be clear, how many conspiracys have said that the military is 50 years ahead of the public when it comes to science, at least? you don't need money you need food water shealter and resource, aswell as trust and freedom, so that people don't go out of their mind daily and cause such a state of affairs that they feel the need to murder someone or themselves.

tip of the iceburg of course, I could go on for a while but I wont.
edit on 27/9/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)


ed: I know there are those that would use that example to their own advantage, but they already are so...
edit on 27/9/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by Freeborn
And what of those who can't afford to purchase medical insurance?


You get a bill in the mail...

If it stacks up to high you can always declare bankruptcy.


Oh, right. That's ok then. If I get cancer and can't pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed to stay alive, I can declare bankruptcy and lose my house, car and effectively ruin my life even more!

Fantastic.

Get rid of the NHS now, the problem has been solved.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


You appear to be stuck in the same old groove....investments, capital returns, etc. etc. In case you hadn't noticed the globe is in financial meltdown because the system you advocate has failed....and has done so absolutely. It was all those economic whiz kids who caused it. We need new ideas - not more of the same.

And as for requisition of assets etc....of course medical research would cost less and be more efficient in the public sector.....you won't have all those billions to fork out in dividends for a start. We may even see some out of the box thinking if the researchers don't need a marketable product at the end of their research.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by randyvs
 


What are you talking about? The call to reduce the number of cancer drug prescriptions comes from doctors writing in the Lancet not government.


Well I'm glad somebody has all the facts.

The proposition has government written all over it. If you can't surmise that ? You've been living in a protective bubble and fed peaches and cream all you're life. I didn't realise I would get ahead of anyone.

Degenerative and Orwellian.
edit on 27-9-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Too bad us dumb Americans pay for treatment



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PapaEmeritus
Too bad us dumb Americans pay for treatment


We pay too, but rather than getting a bill through the post we pay directly through our wages in a national insurance tax whether we get ill at all in our lives or not.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


No mate...you're wrong.

There is a very underestimated notion of a little something called CHOICE being overlooked here, for the sake of a manufactured and frankly worthless human invention called currency.

Human life is about choice..or it used to be, and it should be.

If someone is suffering, in my view they have the choice to use whatever they wish to alleviate that suffering, including the ultimate CHOICE of ending their own lives, with requested assistance if required and specifically (and properly recorded) requested.

By withholding essential, life saving or in certain cases, life extending treatments or drugs, we are or specifically 'they' are removing this free choice.

I'd go out fighting, and hang on until my last gasp...no government panel should have the right or indeed the authority to dictate to me or anyone else, based on paltry and fake economics that i do not have that right to fight for every second of life remaining to me or anyone else in a similar situation!

The same as they do not have the right or authority to penalise me or anyone else if i or they were called on by a loved one, who had had enough to ease their suffering and help end their lives, if that was their sincere and express wish.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join