Jump to content

The new blood thinning tablets


Recommended Posts

So there is a two tear health service in this country then those who can pay and those who can not.

No justification whatsoever in my opinion of course.

 

What do you propose? Not allowing rich people to buy medicine privately?

 

How are you going to stop them from flying to the USA and buying it there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose what i am saying is that we live in an unfair World.

 

We do, and the world will always be unfair to someone. What IS unfair is that many people spend their lives paying (on average) several hundred thousand pounds into the system, taking nothing out but subsidising others, then need care or medication that they are refused on cost basis despite having paid in several times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What IS unfair is that many people spend their lives paying (on average) several hundred thousand pounds into the system, taking nothing out but subsidising others, then need care or medication that they are refused on cost basis despite having paid in several times over.

 

I don't think you'll find much support, on this forum, for claiming that having a National Health Service is unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't claim that having a National Health Service is unfair at all ;)

 

If you analyse your post, you'll find that you did.

 

The entire basis of the National Health Service is that what people put in bears no relation to what they get out; healthcare is provided for the needy, not for the ones who have paid enough to earn it. That's exactly the position you describe as unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you analyse your post, you'll find that you did.

 

The entire basis of the National Health Service is that what people put in bears no relation to what they get out; healthcare is provided for the needy, not for the ones who have paid enough to earn it. That's exactly the position you describe as unfair.

 

 

The NHS was set up to provide health care for the needy in the days when people could not afford to visit a doctor or pay for the very cost effective drugs to cure simple but rampant diseases. In that respect the NHS was very successful.

 

Since then the NHS has expanded exponentially to meet the "need" to cure stupidity. The effects of sex, violence, obesity, drunkenness and drug addiction cost the tax payers billions every year. These are self inflicted conditons, not life threatening illnesses. If the NHS spent less trying to treat stupidity there would be more money for drugs like the OP needs.

 

I used to have to take Warfarin and it is very intrusive on your life. I believe the point of the new generation of drugs is to reduce that impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you analyse your post, you'll find that you did.

 

The entire basis of the National Health Service is that what people put in bears no relation to what they get out; healthcare is provided for the needy, not for the ones who have paid enough to earn it. That's exactly the position you describe as unfair.

 

No. I think much of the way the NHS operates is unfair, but not the premise of the NHS itself. Part of the problem is that it is fundamentally biased against those who have paid in the most - age is one of the major factors used in the decision whether to give certain treatments. Then there are the postcode lotteries, the differences in what is funded in England/Scotland/Wales, and the decisions about what treatments/surgery are/are not funded by the NHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.