cost effective
 

i just seen the news highlights and am disgusted to hear a woman is been refused treatment for her breast cancer because treating her isnt cost effective

so how does the NHS account for the millions spent treating illigal imigrants especialy as it is more than likely this woman has actualy paid national insurance and taxes where as they havnt :mad:

Re: cost effective
 

Since when have the NHS bothered about costs? This women has been given a sentance of slow ligering pain then death yet some jobsworth willwaste more on meetings managers and statistics. They are a bunch of ................ well no need to even hint at the wording. :mad:

Re: cost effective
 

when the NHS is in such a state that it is scentencing our own countries people to a slow death isnt it about time we refused to treat non nationals

i know it sounds bad but make sure we can look after our own before we look after others

when i say our own i mean anyone born in this country or had paid national insurance contributions for at least 5 years

Re: cost effective
 

This is a modern tragedy. This is the Britain of today and it’s not a nice place to live if you’re seriously ill with a treatable disease like Breast Cancer. God forbid what will happen if it ever comes to light that recent immigrants to the country might have received treatment of Herceptin. I am not saying this has happened, yet. It an expensive treatment at around £30,000. But what a piddling to pay for a life that is so important to the families of these people when you compare the cost of benefit fraud and wasted funding on failed community projects, or funding to promote free for all treatments for idiots who get ratted at the weekend and abuse the system. This is a sick country.

Re: cost effective
 

If the NHS is reaching a stage were it is penny pinching then I am glad I have private medical insurance. I have paid my NI and taxes for nearly 20 years and could end up treated the same as this women then I am with you on this.

Re: cost effective
 

Re: cost effective
 

It seems immoral that we have the knowledge to treat people, but then it comes down to a lottery as to where you live, if you will get treatment or not.

Re: cost effective
 

seems the class system will never escape us :(

Re: cost effective
 

this won't cheer you up then spug! a guy i used to know paid for BUPA for years, was unforunate to contract cancer and guess what? BUPA didn't want his money any more.:mad:

Re: cost effective
 

It's not down to class, it really is down to your postcode.

Re: cost effective
 

Cheers cashy just what I neededto cheer me up.:(

Re: cost effective
 

Re: cost effective
 

All the government statistics show that people who live in more affluent areas of the country are more likely to receive treatment. PCT's in Devon and Cornwall are already paying for Herceptin, whereas PCT's in the North West aren't. I was under the impression that Herceptin is still in the trial stages and more effective for people with late breast cancer rather than early stages. Having said that, if a woman has breast cancer and thinks that she's going to die, a drug still being in the trial stages will not put her off wanting it. It should be available to all PCT's next year.

Cashman is right about private health insurance. You can pay into BUPA for years, but as soon as you come down with something chronic that's expensive to treat ie, cancer, HIV.... They don't want you anymore and will not treat you. Makes you think that there is no point joining doesn't it.

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.

Re: cost effective
 

I had a relative who had insurance which would pay him when off work or in hospital. The amount paid out was in ratio to the premiums paid in. He developed an illness which made it likely that he would need time off work for hospital treatment. On the advice of the insurance company he increased his premiums so that he would receive a larger payment from them if and when the need arose.

When he did come to spend time in hospital and tried to claim on the insurance he was told it was invalid because he already had the condition before he increased his premiums. Not only did they not pay him the increased amount. They didn't pay him anything! :mad: