|
Re: cost effective
Surely there must be a breach of contract there? They are giving previate medical insurance such that if you require medical assistance you are treated at their expense. Unless there is some small print excluding cancer etc then I doubt their stance would hold up in a court of law.
As for the original post, it is disgraceful that someone should be refused treatment. We are in a state where the individual is becoming a worthless commodity for the goverment to play with. What also bothers me is the amount of money that Camelot have in their coffers for 'good causes'. It shouldn't be required to use this money but if they can't distribute it more efficiently then perhaps it should be put into more healthcare particularly for stuff like cancer where we now have a good chance of treatment, to extend teh life expectancy or to help ease the suffering of those terminal cases.
|