Paying for the cancer drug Herceptin means treatment for other cancer patients will have to be dropped to "balance the books", doctors warn.ANANOVA:
To balance the books, providing the expensive drug may mean having to cut other effective treatments.GUARDIAN:
Thousands of patients could be denied life-saving medicines if hospitals are to pay for the few to be given the breast cancer drug Herceptin, doctors warn today.
NO SPIN HERE, JUST FACTS: SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE EQUALS INFERIOR HEALTHCARE. EVERYWHERE IT'S BEEN TRIED. GOOGLE THE SURVIVAL RATES FOR CANCER PATIENTS HERE IN THE USA VERSUS THOSE IN THE UK AND FRANCE. THE RESULT WILL SHOCK YOU. More Americans live longer after diagnosis and treatment than in the UK or the EU. FACT:
Reliapundit: Might I add that any state which pays for older people's pensions/"social security" has an added incentive for NOT giving those older people expensive life-saving/lif-extending healthcare: they save the state from paying out those pensions as well as the cost of the healthcare. Everytime they let an older person go without care - and die - they have a double savings.
This is a very important reason everyone should want private pensions and private health insurance.
five year post-diagnostic cancer survival rates of England and Wales with the USA and eight European countries. The three lowest proportional GDP health expenditures over the period 1980-1990 were Denmark, England and Wales, and Spain. The USA had the highest proportional GDP expenditure, followed by France, Germany, and The Netherlands. Overall the USA had the best cancer survival rates in the 14 sites reviewed...And then there's this from CAFE HAYEK:
Russell Roberts
I was speaking to someone yesterday who had lived in England. She said that the nationalized health system there is great for children, but as you get older and older, the attitude is "you've had your turn" so you have access to fewer medical resources.
A pretty horrifying way to treat human beings.
She said that the wait for an MRI is 4-6 months and that there was virtually no preventive care. If that is correct, it would help explain these data [from W.H.O.]:
Reliapundit: Might I add that any state which pays for older people's pensions/"social security" has an added incentive for NOT giving those older people expensive life-saving/lif-extending healthcare: they save the state from paying out those pensions as well as the cost of the healthcare. Everytime they let an older person go without care - and die - they have a double savings.
This is a very important reason everyone should want private pensions and private health insurance.
No comments:
Post a Comment