USA Politics ![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#3 |
|
This debate between US and UK residents and systems is one that will never be sorted. We are talking about two totally different mindsets and cultures. Those is the UK (and Ireland) cannot understand how any country could not have health care for the poor. It makes no sense at all. Those in the US cannot imagine that any country would have a free health care system and accept it readily.
After nearly 20 years living in another system I know that this kind of cross-cultural debate is like men trying to understand women and vice-versa ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
I hope it isn't true.
However, Protests at Birmingham hospital as cystic fibrosis sufferer is denied life-saving drug http://www.birminghammail.net/lifest...ibrosis-274099 'It's the only chance of her having a life': Fury of dying cystic fibrosis sufferer's family after she is denied wonder drug by NHS bosses http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...HS-chiefs.html |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
I think we all need to hold on and read the article and, for starters, note that this dealing with a case in th United Kingdom and not the United States.
Then lets not make the fallacious step of thinking this is happening in the US, nor that it will. Time and time again in this forum the claim of "death panels" in the ACA has been refuted. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
We already have death panels. One example is transplant committees. Another example is the FDA pulling medicines off the market to "protect us" despite their usefulness. Another example is the DEA and other agencies on the medical marijuana issue. Not to mention insurance companies deciding what medicines they will agree to provide for you. These are in place now, prior to obamacare taking full effect. If you think that is not going to get worse under fully implementation I have a bride for sale.
So, you'll have a large task ahead of you if you intend to prove death panels are not an issue. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
OK, some context. Firstly, there is nothing to stop the young woman concerned directly approaching the pharmaceutical company privately ie: outwith the NHS and taking them up on their free trial. The NHS of course will then not be obliged to continue to treat her with that drug once the free offer runs out. The pharmaceutical company however seems to be playing a rather cynical game of 'sprat to catch a mackerel'; rather like the narcotics dealer on the street, they are in effect saying "you can have the first dose or three for free, but then it's gonna cost you". Then there is the point of taxpayers' money being involved whenever the NHS comes into play: NHS managers, particularly in this age of austerity and budget cuts, just like medical insurance companies on your side of the Pond, constantly have to ask themselves "can we really justify to our paymasters spending £182000pa per patient on a drug like this" when it's taxpayers' money being spent.
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|