If UHC is so great, why would Britain deny women breast cancer treatment drugs due to cost?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/144331.php There.... since you people don't know what you are talking about and can't use google.
Politics - 20 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Source please!!! Fine, I read your source. Congratulations, you found proof of a theme that is similar in both Universal Health Care and Privatized Health Care. That theme is trying to save money. For private, it means increasing profits. For UHC, it means being able to do more with tax payers money. But that's not all, because your source article indicates that the UHC has a mechanism in place where their decisions can be appealed. Can you appeal a treatment choice with your HMO? I didn't think so. Of course, a wealthy person in either system could choose to pay for this treatment out of pocket, so once again, your article proves absolutely nothing other than that you are stretching.
2 :
First no link or proof Secondly what does UK has to do with US ?
3 :
Same reason that America would in time because there is no way that the costs of UHC are sustainable. Think 1st...try actually thinking. It IS happening, and people are pulling their own teeth because they cannot get into a dentist. Their system is collapsing. The Patriot...the death rate is lower because it is reported differently. The US includes deaths from all causes in their statistics and Europe does not...only treatable illnesses. Sorry, but nice try. BTW, Americans do not want UHC by a fairly wide and growing margin. Sageands...you could not be more wrong. The right ACTUALLY READ the bill and backed away completely with good cause. You might try reading it. That is why the percentage of those opposed to UHC is widening. When the bill was first presented, the House probably had enough votes and the Senate was close. Today, it WOULD NOT PASS the House or the Senate...because more in Congress are actually reading it. Rabid liberals who support UHC are even refusing to read the bill...AND THEY ARE VOTING FOR IT!!!!
4 :
Because it's not great at all.
5 :
The UK would not. Nice proof from a phony conservative as usual.
6 :
I think there was a case about this in 2001, the charity claimed it was because of 'unacceptable delays in the new system for rationing drugs within the National Health Service'. It was a Charity who claimed this. Britain is not a barbaric country. Thanks for the link. "Lapatinib received EMEA approval* in June 2008 and since then it has been granted funding in 16 European countries to date including Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Ireland." It's quite simple really, British healthcare doesn't quite cut it like other countries in Europe. If I had a serious illness, I definitely wouldn't want to be treated here anyway. But that isn't to say the whole of Europe has that system.
7 :
there are some situations where universal health care is not better... particularly in England, which has one of the worst systems... cancer care is one... congrats... what if you're sick with one of the other million diseases? well, you could have a problem...
8 :
Denying Colmes is a crime against nature. Colmes bless.
9 :
http://www.nhs.uk/livewell/breastcancer/Pages/Breastcancerhome.aspx .... you're a liar, and there's my source... ...where's yours ? Go about half way through that video, and the doctor will explain your treatment options under NHS. It includes cancer drugs with chemotherapy. ........................................................................................................ This is your source ???... ONE DOCTOR ? - http://www.medilexicon.org/ourteam.php Your "source" is an advertisement for a drug !...cleverly disguised as a "news" article. From your article... GlaxoSmithKline - one of the world's leading research-based pharmaceutical and healthcare companies - is committed to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer. For further information please visit http://www.gsk.com Tyverb® is a registered trademark of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies. Herceptin® and Xeloda® are registered trademarks of F. Hoffmann-La Roche.
10 :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-59036/Older-women-denied-breast-cancer-treatment.html You made up the cost thing. They refuse to operate because they're perceived to be too 'frail.' Another example of an ill-informed person spouting off lies, because he's too ignorant and lazy to learn the truth... or worse, because he doesn't mind lying for political posture.
11 :
UHC sucks
12 :
This is why - and the source for those asking for one.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html and too bad about those young girls who got cervical cancer because they were turned down for smears which were reserved for those 25 and over.
13 :
I listened to a man from England who vacations in the US. He was a socialist 20 years ago when England was starting socialized medicine. He soon found that there were not nearly enough MRI machines and other equipment to service the population. The government could not and cannot afford to pay the costs of all the sufferers in their country so they are choosy about whom they treat. Why do you think so many foreigners come to the US for treatment? They are not turned away!
14 :
Because the treatment is not cost effective. If the US system is so great, why does it have so many dead kids compared to other nations? I am amazed that so many Americans are not aware about Obama’s healthcare plans. http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/world/us_democrats_reveal_health_care_plan During the election, he campaigned for these changes http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/table/2008/oct/01/uselections.healthcare stating that he felt it was unfair to have a system where insurance companies try to escape paying claims. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1cxyjHsK0M In addition, insurance company executives have admitted this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/us-healthcare-obama-barack-change They admit that they drive up costs, buy politicians and refuse to pay for valid claims. Remember, he was elected to bring in these changes, elected by the American people who want healthcare reform. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erspfMkqLN4 And he discussed his plans in debates with McCain, and he still won the election. First of all, too many people do not know that Obama wants to make insurance more available to all. His system is similar to that which works in Holland and Switzerland. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2008/May/Universal-Mandatory-Health-Insurance-in-The-Netherlands--A-Model-for-the-United-States.aspx It works there and private healthcare companies provide most the insurance to the people there. FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet. FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage. That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, the Netherlands, Cuba, Switzerland, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage. And no western European nation with universal healthcare has moved away from it.
15 :
If the UHC plan is not so great why do you have to 1. Lie about it by comparing it to completely different sorts of programs Nobody is advocating a nationalized health industry as exists in the UK http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/05/tom-coburn/obama-health-plan-does-not-include-government-run-/ 2. Lie about those different programs. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-breast-female/Pages/Treatment.aspx The right were invited to be a part of the debate on what to do about our failing health system. Instead they chose to stick thier heads in the sand, claim nothing was wrong and spread visious lies about global best practices. That the debate has now gone in a direction not of their liking leaves the right with nobody to blame but themselves.
16 :
Think 1st needs to extracate his head from his excratory cavity and smell the coffee! Sorry I gave you that image. Anyway, it isn't. Some people think the government will solve all their problems. What fools these mortals be!
17 :
The NHS is not a good thing. I lived there in the '60s and I don't think I ever saw a doctor, Gran sat in a waiting room for a very long time more then once. Heart problems and nothing but nitro pills, don't bather us attitude, for God's sake your 73 years old! The rich people in England have a separate system that works quite well. My uncle got a hip in 3 weeks ( in private hospital) after the NHS said maybe 3 years. These are things that happen in a socialist system. It is not like waiting at the DMV or the post office - people are in pain and delays costs lives. MRIs and CAT scans are up to 3 months in que. That cancer can grow to inoperative size in that time! Plus the Obama plan does not address the FRAUD in medicare right now! Fix that, take two congressional junkets and call me in Sept.
18 :
you believe american insurance companies WILL pay for it, thats funny. last i heard, they deny more people, for lesser reasons. if they dont just cancel your coverage for daring to get sick and cost them money, and its all nice and legal, thanks to laws bought and paid for by pharma.
19 :
By implementing UHC or a public option in the United States, the health care system would not necessarily resemble the same thing as in Britain. We already have a large private health-care apparatus here in the United States, which coincidentally is largely producing the same limitations that you describe as occurring in Britain: people being denied needed care because of high costs, because of pre-existing conditions, or because they are uninsured. What a public option in the U.S. would do is reduce health care costs by introducing more competition into the system and also by increasing the quality of care by providing more funding and resources for the health care system. More funding for health care would not only help society become healthier by making sure everyone is covered for all their medical needs, but it would force the existing private health-care providers to compete with the public option and provide a higher standard of care. Suppose the worst case scenario that you are describing from the UK occurred here, and the public option here couldn't pay for necessary medications. People would still have a private option to pay for their drugs. And that is what we have now without the public option. However, most likely the public option would overall help people to obtain necessary medications and care, which is the reason for implementing it. There is even a push in the current legislation being drafted that private insurance companies not be allowed to discriminate against people or withhold care based on pre-existing conditions. The philosophy behind implementing UHC and a public option in the United States is that by having more competition among insurers and health care providers, they will be challenged to provide higher quality care at a lower cost. Also, more people will be covered under UHC.
20 :
They didn't. Please read the article. it is a drug with specific uses and the people it is used on needs approval. No where did they say they would not treat cancer. We have many drugs in this country in trials and are no clinically usable by anyone else. This has nothing to do with the issue of costs.
Read more discussions :