uk nhs death panel bans nexavar....
abelard
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6605631/NHS-says-its-too-expensive-to-keep-you-alive.html
"Nice has made another of its fateful (or "fatal") decisions: the
drug, Nexavor, which significantly prolongs the life of liver cancer
patients, and is widely available in other countries, is not be used
by the NHS because it is too expensive. So all those who might have
benefited from it have effectively been told that, on accounting
principles, they are not worth keeping alive. Nice is functioning as
what the US opponents of Obama's healthcare reforms call " a death
panel". And because its edicts apply to the NHS as a whole, there is
no possibility of appealing to a different Hospital Trust or a
different GP in the hope of getting a different decision. That is the
reality of a government monopoly system. "
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'abelard' wrote thus:
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6605631/NHS-says-its-too-expensive-to-keep-you-alive.html
>>"Nice has made another of its fateful (or "fatal") decisions: the
>>drug, Nexavor, which significantly prolongs the life of liver cancer
>>patients, and is widely available in other countries, is not be used
>>by the NHS because it is too expensive. So all those who might have
>>benefited from it have effectively been told that, on accounting
>>principles, they are not worth keeping alive. Nice is functioning as
>>what the US opponents of Obama's healthcare reforms call " a death
>>panel". And because its edicts apply to the NHS as a whole, there is
>>no possibility of appealing to a different Hospital Trust or a
>>different GP in the hope of getting a different decision. That is the
>>reality of a government monopoly system. "
>
>I wonder if the future of govt NHS spending cutbacks may mean
>disposing of people who are "too expensive" to keep alive or are
>suffering from incurable disabilities? a la Germany 1930s!
i never trust socialists...they have a very long history
of playing (and more) with notions of killing off 'useless
eaters'
William Black
> 'abelard' wrote thus:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6605631/NHS-says-its-too-expensive-to-keep-you-alive.html
>> "Nice has made another of its fateful (or "fatal") decisions: the
>> drug, Nexavor, which significantly prolongs the life of liver cancer
>> patients, and is widely available in other countries, is not be used
>> by the NHS because it is too expensive. So all those who might have
>> benefited from it have effectively been told that, on accounting
>> principles, they are not worth keeping alive. Nice is functioning as
>> what the US opponents of Obama's healthcare reforms call " a death
>> panel". And because its edicts apply to the NHS as a whole, there is
>> no possibility of appealing to a different Hospital Trust or a
>> different GP in the hope of getting a different decision. That is the
>> reality of a government monopoly system. "
>
> disposing of people who are "too expensive" to keep alive or are
> suffering from incurable disabilities? a la Germany 1930s!
>
You mean because they're denying �6,000 worth of drugs that will keep
someone alive for 3 months?
Why's the stuff worth �3,000 a month anyway?
That's about �100 a tablet...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
William Black
> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>> Why's the stuff worth �3,000 a month anyway?
>>
>> That's about �100 a tablet...
>
> Did you need a calc to do that sum Willie? ;-)
>
Another one who's in the pay of the big drug companies.
William Black
> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>
>> aracari wrote:
>>> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>
>>>> someone alive for 3 months?
>
>>> It is well known that Nice are essentially a 'death panel' and
>>> disposing of other undesirables is a natural progression to that.
>
>
>>>> Why's the stuff worth �3,000 a month anyway?
>>>>
>>>> That's about �100 a tablet...
>>> Did you need a calc to do that sum Willie? ;-)
>>>
>> Another one who's in the pay of the big drug companies.
>
>
It's actually more than a little sinister.
The story as reported on the TV didn't even mention Bayer, or why the
stuff costs what it does.
Nobody questioned the drug company about the cost.
Just nasty questions about why the NHS is not prolonging the life of
someone who'll die in three months, for the price of saving half a
dozen babies...
The whole thing smells of a dodgy PR firm employed by Bayer to embarrass
the NHS to part with a shed load of cash.
abelard
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>aracari wrote:
>> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>>
>>> aracari wrote:
>>>> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>>
>>>>> You mean because they're denying �6,000 worth of drugs that will keep
>>>>> someone alive for 3 months?
>>
>>>> I was extrapolating the policies of Nice and the New Lab govt.
>>>> It is well known that Nice are essentially a 'death panel' and
>>>> disposing of other undesirables is a natural progression to that.
>>
>>
>>>>> Why's the stuff worth �3,000 a month anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's about �100 a tablet...
>>>> Did you need a calc to do that sum Willie? ;-)
>>>>
>>> Another one who's in the pay of the big drug companies.
>>
>> lol.
>>
>
>It's actually more than a little sinister.
>
>The story as reported on the TV didn't even mention Bayer, or why the
>stuff costs what it does.
>
>Nobody questioned the drug company about the cost.
there are several drugs with that sort of price tag
>Just nasty questions about why the NHS is not prolonging the life of
>someone who'll die in three months, for the price of saving half a
>dozen babies...
>
>The whole thing smells of a dodgy PR firm employed by Bayer to embarrass
>the NHS to part with a shed load of cash.
free at the point of use
William Black
> free at the point of use
>
No.
You can't even get your sneers right you ghastly little swine.
'Free at the point of need'
'need' being defined by the doctors.
Your rejoicing at the discomfort of people dying really does illustrate
your mindset.
Do you honestly think the doctors at NICE wish those dying of cancer to
die more quickly?
abelard
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> free at the point of use
>No.
>
>You can't even get your sneers right you ghastly little swine.
ah, another socialist coming apart at the seems
attempts to distract by injecting emotionalism
>'Free at the point of need'
>
>'need' being defined by the doctors.
no, 'need' defined by those 'nice' labour death panels
>Your rejoicing at the discomfort of people dying really does illustrate
>your mindset.
my concern is with socialist 'new' labour liars
>Do you honestly think the doctors at NICE wish those dying of cancer to
>die more quickly?
you'd better ask them
or even ask the dying patients whether they 'need' the drugs
abelard
<spamtrap@v�ilable.here.com> wrote:
>'William Black' wrote thus:
>
>>aracari wrote:
>>> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>> aracari wrote:
>>>>> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>>>
>>>>>> You mean because they're denying �6,000 worth of drugs that will keep
>>>>>> someone alive for 3 months?
>>>
>>>>> I was extrapolating the policies of Nice and the New Lab govt.
>>>>> It is well known that Nice are essentially a 'death panel' and
>>>>> disposing of other undesirables is a natural progression to that.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Why's the stuff worth �3,000 a month anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's about �100 a tablet...
>>>>> Did you need a calc to do that sum Willie? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Another one who's in the pay of the big drug companies.
>>>
>>> lol.
>>>
>>
>>It's actually more than a little sinister.
>>
>>The story as reported on the TV didn't even mention Bayer, or why the
>>stuff costs what it does.
>>
>>Nobody questioned the drug company about the cost.
>
>That would be pointless as it would require detailed analysis of
>how drug companies calculate product price. People don't have
>the attention span for that.
>
>In my old corp, pricing was highly confidential and included
>currency exchange calculations/taxation and a wide set of factors
>called 'apportionments'. In big corps, it's a complex process.
fyi
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/bayers-better-nexavar-offer-not-nice-enough/2009-11-19
>>Just nasty questions about why the NHS is not prolonging the life of
>>someone who'll die in three months, for the price of saving half a
>>dozen babies...
>>
>>The whole thing smells of a dodgy PR firm employed by Bayer to embarrass
>>the NHS to part with a shed load of cash.
--
William Black
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:50:34 +0000, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> abelard wrote:
>>> free at the point of use
>
>> No.
>>
>> You can't even get your sneers right you ghastly little swine.
>
> ah, another socialist coming apart at the seems
> attempts to distract by injecting emotionalism
>
>> 'Free at the point of need'
>>
>> 'need' being defined by the doctors.
>
> no, 'need' defined by those 'nice' labour death panels
As far as I'm aware there is no political input into the NICE system.
I assume you know different.
And, of course, you're going to tell us all about it.
>> Your rejoicing at the discomfort of people dying really does illustrate
>> your mindset.
>
> my concern is with socialist 'new' labour liars
Again, as far as I'm aware there is no political input into the NICE
scheme.
Again I assume you know different and will tell us all about it.
>> Do you honestly think the doctors at NICE wish those dying of cancer to
>> die more quickly?
>
> you'd better ask them
Your contempt for the professional ethics of doctors is noted.
Now, address the issue, do you think (for a very small value of
'think') that the doctors at NICE want these people to die more quickly?
> or even ask the dying patients whether they 'need' the drugs
Of course they need them, they just can't afford to buy them.
abelard
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>abelard wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:50:34 +0000, William Black
>> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> abelard wrote:
>>>> free at the point of use
>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> You can't even get your sneers right you ghastly little swine.
>>
>> ah, another socialist coming apart at the seems
>> attempts to distract by injecting emotionalism
>>
>>> 'Free at the point of need'
>>>
>>> 'need' being defined by the doctors.
>>
>> no, 'need' defined by those 'nice' labour death panels
>
>As far as I'm aware there is no political input into the NICE system.
>
>I assume you know different.
>
>And, of course, you're going to tell us all about it.
of course not of course not...
the state of military equipment is the fault of the mod...
the collapse of the uk economy is america's fault...
brown the clown is 'brilliant'....
the nhs is a government monopoly for which working citizens
are charged through the nose...
'nothing to do with me gov' should be 'new' labour's election slogan
>>> Your rejoicing at the discomfort of people dying really does illustrate
>>> your mindset.
>>
>> my concern is with socialist 'new' labour liars
>
>Again, as far as I'm aware there is no political input into the NICE
>scheme.
>
>Again I assume you know different and will tell us all about it.
you get amusing when you're in a hole and digging like crazy
>>> Do you honestly think the doctors at NICE wish those dying of cancer to
>>> die more quickly?
>>
>> you'd better ask them
>
>Your contempt for the professional ethics of doctors is noted.
yeah, shipman was a saint and all medics work for free...
except when working for big pharma of course
>Now, address the issue, do you think (for a very small value of
>'think') that the doctors at NICE want these people to die more quickly?
ask 'new' labour...they're running the mess
>> or even ask the dying patients whether they 'need' the drugs
>
>Of course they need them, they just can't afford to buy them.
free at the point of need was the promise....
just another lie
William Black
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:18:06 +0000, William Black
>> As far as I'm aware there is no political input into the NICE system.
>>
>> I assume you know different.
>>
>> And, of course, you're going to tell us all about it.
>
> of course not of course not...
So it was just another lie then.
>> Again, as far as I'm aware there is no political input into the NICE
>> scheme.
>>
>> Again I assume you know different and will tell us all about it.
>
> you get amusing when you're in a hole and digging like crazy
Still a 'no'...
>
>>>> Do you honestly think the doctors at NICE wish those dying of cancer to
>>>> die more quickly?
>>> you'd better ask them
>> Your contempt for the professional ethics of doctors is noted.
>
> yeah, shipman was a saint and all medics work for free...
> except when working for big pharma of course
Right, so you think they're all psychopathic murderers.
That's the end of that one then.
James Hammerton
> abelard wrote:
>> free at the point of use
>>
>
> No.
>
> You can't even get your sneers right you ghastly little swine.
>
> 'Free at the point of need'
In my experience, "free at the point of delivery" is the phrase normally
used, e.g. here:
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcosts/Pages/Abouthealthcosts.aspx
James
--
James Hammerton,
http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/
abelard
<jah.u...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>William Black wrote:
>> abelard wrote:
>>> free at the point of use
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You can't even get your sneers right you ghastly little swine.
>>
>> 'Free at the point of need'
>
>In my experience, "free at the point of delivery" is the phrase normally
>used, e.g. here:
>
>http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcosts/Pages/Abouthealthcosts.aspx
picky bastard :-)
regards
James Hammerton
> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>
>
> NICE has duties and responsibilities given to it by government.
>
Doesn't the government appoint the people who oversee/run NICE?