Every one denies payment for some forms of cancer treatment in certain situations.
They have to, their budget is not unlimited. And its not just cancer, or just deadly diseases, its all sorts of normal treatment or scanning as well. OK sometimes they won't outright deny treatment, they will just put you on a waiting list so long that you might die first, or use some other method, but no country does or can give you unlimited levels of treatment.
You want some examples?
Message 24084080
Message 23874663
Message 23859654
Message 23790415
Message 23739469
"Just Saying No
Every existing or prospective health care system rations care in some way. The Canadians and Europeans make people wait. Everyone has access to basic care, with two important caveats. First, the sickest get priority. You'll get your hip replacement or heart surgery, but you'll have to queue up for it. And when sicker people come along, they get to jump the queue.
And second, the government has wide discretion to deny or limit certain kinds of care not deemed cost-effective. Britain's National Health Service will deny payment for treatments that are known to be effective if the incremental benefits (measured in "quality adjusted life years") do not justify the costs."
finance.yahoo.com
"Much like the American hospitals Moore excoriates, Hammersmith Hospital, the Evening Standard reported, faced pressure from administrators to limit the number of patients treated in order to cut spending. In a country where the government promises to winnow down queues to 18 weeks, this isn't an anomalous problem. A recent BBC documentary accused the NHS of using dangerously high doses of radiation on patients "to save time and money."
reason.com
Universal Neglect
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: The officials who run Great Britain's National Health Service apparently don't believe patients need the benefits of medical innovations. Advanced medicine costs too much, so they can just go without.
Medical treatment will always be rationed. Care may be abundant in many parts of the world, but it's not unlimited. The question, then, is who does the rationing? The patient? Or the government?
For years we've warned readers that the universal health care model those on the left have been trying to force on the country will establish a system in which the state takes over medical treatment and makes decisions for the sick.
The ugly reality of this is evident in Britain, where the NHS is denying cardiac patients access to a vital device.
"The Health Service's rationing watchdog says drug-coated stents used to treat around 30,000 patients a year are not cost-effective and should no longer be provided," Britain's Daily Mail reported last week.
Surgeons say that holding back drug-coated stents will actually increase NHS' costs because many patients who don't get the stents will eventually need expensive heart bypass surgery. No matter. The bureaucracy has spoken, and decisions have been made in the ivory towers that affect others.
Briton Edward Crane didn't need a stent earlier this year, but he did need hip surgery. So what does the NHS do? It cancels four scheduled consultations with Crane. Fed up, the 75-year-old retiree, who had paid into the NHS for decades, spent his life's savings to have a hip replacement performed by a private practice.
Many Britons swear by their system, but they are not the ones who have been denied care, put on long waiting lists or rudely neglected, as Crane was, because bureaucrats are doling out the care.
No comment on universal care would be complete without mentioning Canada, home of the Great White Waiting List. For an industrialized nation, Canada's shortage of modern medical equipment is alarming. Among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, the Fraser Institute notes in a recent study, Canada ranks No. 13 out of 24 in access to MRIs, No. 18 in CT scans and No. 7 out of 17 in access to mammograms.
Clearly, Britain and Canada are not the ideal places to get sick.
ibdeditorials.com
Message 24084046
---
And in addition to rationed care, denied coverages, or waiting list you also have other serious issues.
For example
Update on the Health Care Trojan Horse
On several occasions, I have warned that government funded health care is becoming a Trojan horse for increasing government micro-management of your life. The logic is that by paying for your health care, the government can argue it has a financial interest in your not eating fatty foods, not smoking, wearing a bike helmet, exercising, etc, decisions that would otherwise only affect the individual themself.*
For those who often accuse me of exaggerated paranoia when it comes to government intervention, check out this from the UK:
People who are grossly overweight, who smoke heavily or drink excessively could be denied surgery or drugs following a decision by a Government agency yesterday. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) which advises on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments for the NHS, said that in some cases the "self-inflicted" nature of an illness should be taken into account.
Sorry, but I told you so. What's next? Is an unwanted pregnancy "self-inflicted"? How about an STD from unprotected sex? The rulers of this process in England might argue that "Oh, we would never include those things" but technocrats in the US have seen parallel things happen as they have lost political control of their similar institutions in the US.
It gets me to wondering whether the Solomon Amendment may be the new template for government control of individual lives. In both Universities and state governments, the Feds use the threat of withdrawal of federal funds to coerce actions (think 55 mile speed limit, title IX, military recruiting on campus) that the Constitution nominally does not see to give them authority over. Now, there is the distinct possibility that federal funds to individuals (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment) could be used to increase federal authority and coercive micro-management at the individual level...
coyoteblog.com
...Until we find ourselves in a Strossian post-scarcity world, someone is going to have to make this cost-quality tradeoff for our health care. Even if it is never discussed, this is the most important design factor in any health care system. There are only three choices:
* Individuals make these choices for themselves, paying for their health care and making their own decisions about whether certain procedures are "worth it". - OR -
* Insurance companies make these choices for us. (I am not sure this is even a choice any more, as government micro-management seems to be pushing this de facto into the next choice). - OR -
* The government makes these choices for everyone
So, folks that are pushing for government-funded universal health care are in fact saying "I want the government to take over decision-making for my body." Yuk! Where are the feminists when we need them?
Beyond just ceding to the government decisions such as whether its really worth it for dad to get his new hip joint, there is another chilling factor, which I have written about a number of times. Government health care will act as a Trojan Horse for nanny fascism. Because, you see, if the government is paying to fix your body, then you can't be trusted to do whatever you want with your body. By paying for your health care, the government has acquired an ownership interest in your body. You want that Wendy's cheeseburger? Sorry, but the government can't allow that if it is paying for your health care. Likewise, it is not going to allow your kid to play dodge ball at all or to play soccer without a helmet -- can't afford to fix all those broken bones. And no swing sets or monkey bars either!
Already, when its only affects us as individuals, the government is poking its nose into micro-managing our lives. Just think what will happen when the government has a financial incentive, in the form of health care costs, to do so! Eek! In fact, it is already happening:
People who are grossly overweight, who smoke heavily or drink excessively could be denied surgery or drugs following a decision by a Government agency yesterday. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) which advises on the clinical and cost effectiveness of treatments for the NHS, said that in some cases the "self-inflicted" nature of an illness should be taken into account.
Or here in the US:
New York City is at the forefront of this new public health movement. In January, city health officials began requiring that medical testing labs report the results of blood sugar tests for all the city's diabetics directly to the health department. This is first time that any government has begun tracking people who have a chronic disease. The New York City Department of Health will analyze the data to identify those patients who are not adequately controlling their diabetes. They will then receive letters or phone calls urging them to be more vigilant about their medications, have more frequent checkups, or change their diet....
So what could be wrong with merely monitoring and reminding people to take better care of themselves? New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Friedan has made it clear that it won't necessarily end there. If nagging is not sufficient to reduce the health consequences of the disease, other steps will be taken. Friedan argues that "modifications of the physical environment to promote physical activity, or of the food environment to address obesity, are essential for chronic disease prevention and control." Friedan envisions regulations for chronic disease control including "local requirements on food pricing, advertising, content, and labeling; regulations to facilitate physical activity, including point-of-service reminders at elevators and safe, accessible stairwells; tobacco and alcohol taxation and advertising and sales restrictions; and regulations to ensure a minimal level of clinical preventive services."
Read that last paragraph. That's just the starting point for where the government will go when it starts paying for all our health care....
coyoteblog.com |
