"England lets people die because the cancer drugs are too expensive"

[proud2BlibKansan]

Is this true? Some wingnut just posted this as his reason for opposing universal health care.

[backscatter712]

1. And insurance companies don't?

You might want to bring up the case of Nataline Sarkisyan to that wingnut...

[izquierdista]

2. Life expectancy?

I believe that the UK has **The Best Health Care System in the World™** beat on that score.

[ret5hd]

3. Well, it oughta be pretty damn easy for said wingnut to back up his claims, right?

[FormerDittoHead]

19. ...something he heard on the radio... I'M SURE. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Consider the source.

I doubt the truth of this, I really do.

Wingnuts will say anything to make us turn against universal health care...

[rucky]

5. I got a hellova link to debunk that one...

http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/cancerwaits/2008/q3/part6.html

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. thank you. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Thanks muchly

I posted that. But the print is really too small for a tiny brained wingnut to read. LOL

[abumbyanyothername]

6. Some people are going to die in any system

Some people are going to get less than ideal care in any system.

The question is how we choose those people, how many people will be in those populations, and how we respond to those people.

[DrDan]

7. of course they do - they don't value life

Reb Broun from Ga told us so

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x335334

[BlooInBloo]

9. "Some wingnut just posted this" - 'nuff said.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. They are losing this debate and they know it.

It's been beautiful to watch them drop, one by one. :)

[BlooInBloo]

13. And it helps THEM! (Gah - it's so maddening sometimes.)

[Kutjara]

12. Thatcher-era policies did enormous damage...

...to the British National Health Service. It was forced to reorganize around "business best practices," which only served to add layers of administration and management while cutting patient care to the bone. Year after year, budgets were cut, hospitals were "consolidated," local services were withdrawn and new drugs were regularly refused approval by the equivalent of the FDA (ostensibly on "safety" grounds, but usually because the NHS couldn't afford to pay the grossly inflated prices Big Pharma were demanding).

New Labour under Phony Tony and, latterly, Gordon Brown, has happily continued Thatcher's conservative policies, encouraging the growth of private health insurance by making the public option less and less attractive.

So yes, the UK NHS has its problems. But the reason why is firmly rooted in conservative, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps," profit-driven thinking, not in the unworkability of the system itself. After all, the NHS was one of the best healthcare systems in the world from 1950 to 1980, before Thatcher got her hands on it and decided to loot it to fund her little wars and attacks on trade unions.

[TheBigotBasher]

Even the point with Thatcher is pretty much b/s

No politician can remain in power in the UK (or even obtain it) without protecting the NHS. Health expenditure under Thatcher rose from £8 billion to over £40 billion and Labour increased that to over £100 billion. Until 2 years ago, as the Liberal Democrats pointed out, the rate of growth in NHS expenditure was less under Labour than under the Tories.

There are arguments over how the NHS better spends the money it has. There always will be, although the Doctors lobby is pretty much able to wrong foot Governments (much of the increase in NHS budget in recent years has gone to their pay and they now work less). The other scheme where much of that money has been wasted was the "private finance initiative", which robbed the taxpayer to keep public works programmes of the books. As a result the UK does not know how much debt it really does have.

With regard to cancer drugs and others. These are assessed according to medical need and budget. A £30k medicine may treat hundreds od patients or just one. Even in insurance based industries this will be the case. It is the sad reality of health economics, although a missed opportunity of introducing N.I.C.E, the quango that negotiates which drugs the NHS can use, was that the Governemnt di dnot give them the right to negotiate drugs prices.

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. "No politician can remain in power in the UK (or even obtain it) without protecting the NHS.

That is why the Tories will never get in again. Thatcher started the rot, and NuLab have been whittling away at it ever since. But the people will never forget Thatcher's "initiative", particularly now that this economic holocaust is looming.

Just to make sure, however, I believe dopey Tory MP, Liam Fox, has declared that he is in favour of abolition of the NHS.

How about this quip of a moron on the Audit Commission (they never change): "Don't believe the shroud-wavers who tell you grannies will die and children starve if spending is cut. They won't.

Twenty years ago, some parents were living on baked beans, so their children could eat half-properly.

[TheBigotBasher]

30. He promised to abolish NHS Targets

which have actually made patient care worse, as the NHS delivers to the targets and not the needs of patients. (waiting lists to get on waiting lists).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3037998.stm

The Welsh assembly have already done this.

Alistair Darling has pretty much accepted what the Audit Commission are saying and so it is very likely a pay freeze will be imposed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8135020.stm

With regard to abolishing the NHS, no political party could do so, although Blair privatised far more of it than a Conservative Government ever could.

As for the beans, Brown introduced a tax credit system that benefited the wealthier families, while subjecting he poorest to a system full of overpayments and debt and up to 90% tapers. Child poverty in particular has got worse under Labour.

[Joe Chi Minh]

43. Even the concept of "child poverty" is a weasely "con", imo. It's a Mom and apple-pie ploy.

You can't take children out of poverty without giving their parents jobs with a living wage. As I said above, for a long time now, we've had parents living on baked beans, in order to mitigate the effects of their penury on their children.

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. Yes. One of the many cuts the Regent was responsible for has led to an

overstretched ambulance service. What group of working people hasn't been overstretched, thanks to the media-driven cult of the She Goddess, right down to her latest acolytes, Blair and Brown?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Drugs are evaluated for effectiveness, with cost taken into account

and sometime, especially if they're experimental (eg they're known to be effective in some conditions, but someone wants to try them in other circumstances to see if they'll work) the body that evaluates them will say they're not on the list of drugs. If that happens, an individual area of hospital (I'm not sure which) could still decide to pay for the drugs, but they are allowed to say 'no, it's too expensive, and can't be justified'.

For instance:

A kidney cancer drug rejected for NHS use will today be approved by the government's advisory body, after a furore that led to a change in the rules - but three others are still banned on the grounds that they do too little and cost too much.

While campaigners have hailed the decision by Nice, the National Institute for Healthcare and Clinical Excellence, as a U-turn, it is only a qualified victory.

The decision will dismay those who thought more generous arrangements announced last year by Nice and the Department of Health meant that drugs for treating rare and terminal cancers would now sail through the approval process.
...
Nice has shifted its position only on sutinib (brand name Sutent), which it previously agreed was effective but too expensive. The cost has since come down following an offer by the manufacturer of a price-cutting deal for the NHS. The other three drugs, bevacizumab (Avastin), sorafenib (Nexavar) and temsirolimus (Torisel) are still not recommended.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/04/kidney-cancer-drug-nhs

Here's the home page of the government organisation that reviews drugs and other treatment: http://www.nice.org.uk/

[Odin2005]

15. I'd rather ration based on waiting lists than ration based on abillity to pay.

All economics boil down to rationing scarce goods and services in some form, currency and reasonably REGULATED markets is merely the best way to ration in most circumstances, but healthcare isn't one of those circumstances.

I get a lot of disability-based and low-income based federal, state, and local government assistance so I'm used to waiting lists, it's much fairer then being shit out of luck because I can't afford it.

[eShirl]

16. NO, that's the United States. n/t

[LostInAnomie]

17. I doubt it.

I wonder how many people insurance companies have let die because of a pre-existing condition.

[anigbrowl]

18. Why don't you ask him for a citation? It's his claim, his job to provide evidence

and your job to evaluate the quality of that evidence. If you're unable to do so, you shouldn't be having the argument.

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. His link:

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/July-August-08/British-Cancer-Patients-Denied-Costly-Drugs.html

[anigbrowl]

38. (bangs head on desk) why did 't you put this in OP?

Good grief. Well, it's true (it happens I looked into this extensively last year). No system is perfect, but on the other hand NHS outcomes in general are good and very few people go bankrupt due to medical bills in the UK. The brutal facts here are that this drug can extend terminally ill patients' lives by about 6 months to a year, but they're going to die anyway. If money is limited, then it's better to spend it on therapies that save rather than extend lives.

so yes, some people are suffering because of this, which sucks. I think it's a bit of a mistake that people can't get supplementary health insurance in the UK. They do this in Ireland and it works OK - but it's not perfect there either. It will never be perfect anywhere because you can't cure everyone of everything, so some people are always going to suffer and others are going to complain about it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. Because he hadn't posted it yet

[SOS]

20. England has an (expensive) cure for cancer?

Wish they'd share it with us!

[OHdem10]

21. Tell this joker, America is letting people die daily . No Health

Insurance. Persons do not even know they have cancer.

Medicare and Medicaid do not cover all treatments.

Think of all the cases we have seen on TV. Young girl
in California dying because the Insurance Company would
not cover her. The Media embarassed them enough that
at the last minute, I believe the Company relented.
Think of all the cases the Media does not cover.

[spotbird]

22. The United States lets people die because the cancer drugs are too expensive

All day every day. How is the current system superior in any way to the claim about England.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. It seems there are no depths their lobbysists won't stoop too, but we know their

nature: without shame or the least spark of humanity.

Of course, there are imperfections (I believe it is just one particular drug), but health-insurance is also available for those who want to buy it. Prescriptions for drugs for cancers, generally, as well as long-term illnesses, have however been made free of charge. And of course, in any case, such imperfections would ensue precisely from the Government's underfunding of the NHS - to pander to the wealthier tax-payers. Creeping privatisation, notably, here, of the cleaning services, has also led to poor hygiene and the spread of superbugs.

When you get a proper free health-service, make sure that, for instance it covers dental care, eye care and prescriptions - and not cosmetic and services not directly related to physical sickness, such as in vitro fertilisation. Do the job properly.

[obliviously]

24. Do you have a link! N/T

[magellan]

26. It's not their health care system doing this, it's the watchdog group NICE

From their website: "The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health."

NICE functions like the FDA, but with the additional power to refuse to make a drug available to certain patients on the NHS if the cost-returns ratio is low, i.e. a terminal patient will likely not receive an expensive drug for treatment. This is relatively new callous behavior by NICE and there's a lot of public clamor over it. NICE is being sued for their decisions in some cases.

[TheBigotBasher]

29. Whatever the budget

cold clinical decisions have to be met. NICE takes medical need in to account. Is £30,000 better spent giving one person 6 months of pained extra life or 30 people years of pain free life through hip replacements? Insurance companies take the same decision based on profit. I know which decision making process I would prefer.

[magellan]

31. No argument from me

Insurance companies absolutely make similar decisions based on profit. I'm simply clarifying that treatment screening DOES happen in the UK as suggested in the OP. No health system is perfect. I've experienced both the US and UK systems and would take the NHS any day of the week over what we've got here.

[hunter]

27. Anybody who uses "England" like this is a twit.

It would be fun to tell them they were going to England, get them good and drunk, and drop them off at a Scottish Rugby match wearing an English jersey.

[ContinentalOp]

36. The flipside of course being the people who talk about a "british accent" -nt-

[Tan Gent]

32. There's a drug that cures cancer?

Why the hell don't we have some?

[Cleita]

34. Crap. It's all crap. The opponents to government paid health care keep coming

up with the same crap all the time and they've been doing it since FDRs New Deal. It's still the same old lies repackaged, but nothing new here, and it's all been debunked. I guess they won't ever give up trying though. However, I guess dying with no care or drugs at all is preferable.

[mwooldri]

35. Sadly there *is* truth to this statement.

It is simply this: the National Health Service does not cover certain cancer drugs, because they have determined it is too expensive. Add to this the issue of co-pays: The English NHS is of the opinion that the NHS is "all or nothing" - if you want treatment with a certain drug that's not available on the NHS, then you got to go all private for all care surrounding that condition - from the doctor prescribing it, to any hospital expenses incurred in administering the drug. This has caused outrage, and some English NHS Trusts allow the patients to buy the drug, and have the rest of the costs covered by the NHS - though the Health Secretary is against the practice, in the view it would create a two-tier NHS... in other words you cannot top up your NHS coverage with private assistance. The Scottish NHS has allowed the patients to buy the non-covered drugs, and covers more of them.

If this wingnut chooses this as the reason for opposing universal healthcare it is awful shallow though. You can have American insurance companies over here in this present system deny coverage for the drugs the NHS deny coverage for. There are plenty of cases where the American insurance companies deny treatment for more routine things. The cancer drug situation hits the headlines in the UK because it is uncommon for treatment to be denied, whereas sadly every day insurance companies in America are denying treatment. If the newspapers were full of those stories over here, we'd be running out of trees and newsprint quite rapidly as we gather a collection of telephone directories being printed daily.

My sources about the UK situation? People who work in the NHS, plus reliable media (BBC, Guardian, Independent).

[The River]

37. Why Is This Excellent Information

still in <0 numbers?
The link to waiting times in England
is worth at least 10 recs.

[alfredo]

39. There's more lies than truth. That's how the Repubs win many fights.

We are so busy debunking their lies we don't have time to make our case. Lies are sexier than the truth. They're the shiny objects that distract people.

We have to shout it from the rooftops to be heard.

[Cleita]

42. Yes, and DU is full of them these days. n/t

[alfredo]

44. This is a messy place. I don't mind that very much. I ignore the trolls

for the most part.

[taught_me_patience]

41. Fuck our own insurance companies

comb through records to "disqualify" people AFTER they get cancer so that they don't have to pay. These fuckers who run these companies should be thrown in jail for murder.