Giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones
Posted by Raven on February 21st, 2008 / ADJUST TEXT SIZE 
Much has been written about Canada’s health care system- how it’s illegal to seek services outside of the system. We’ve heard stories of people coming to the US for care and paying for it with their own money; being on a waiting list isn’t an option for some of those people.
Across the pond in Britain, those who chose this path are finding that they are being denied ALL services when they make this choice.
Although the government is reluctant to discuss the issue, hopscotching back and forth between private and public care has long been standard here for those who can afford it. But a few recent cases have exposed fundamental contradictions between policy and practice in the system, and tested its founding philosophy to its very limits.
One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.
By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.
“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.
Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
Mrs. Hirst and others like her???? You mean- the poor peasants people????
Gimme a break.
Let’s be clear about this. An everyday average British citizen has cancer. They’re getting treatment for it- and this treatment doesn’t include the most modern and up to date therapies and drugs. The peasants are on long waiting lists for chemotherapy, radiation, surgeries…at great cost- their lives are at stake. When the peasants manage to raise the money needed for these treatments, from doctors within the country, one would think it shouldn’t be illegal.
The Queen and Princes and Baronesses and famed old rock stars are shamefully wealthy and do not participate in the NHS. They have the resources and cash for buy better health care. What good is a national health care system that allows THIS? In Britain we see richer patients DO have an advantage over the poorer folk. Their NHS is a classy entity: Only the lower classes can participate; the upper echelons can buy their own care from anyone they wish, from within country or out.
Why can’t the peons supplement their care? It’s not coming out of the pockets of anyone else. What good is a national system that can barely manage to keep it’s subjects up to date with immunizations and annual physicals? When a person has a deadly disease, they expect the best care available; in Britain this means substandard care. The peasants are starting to see this.
Uneffingbelievable.
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:18 am
Great. You know what Churchill said ’bout socialism… its the “equal sharing of miseries”.
I sure hope the Republicans in Congress can find their balls/ovaries and block any legislation or funding for this “universal healthcare”.
Unfortunately, the common man in the U.S. doesn’t see this. They’re looking for the “free lunch”.
Those looking for change in Barack Obama just might get change.. just not the kind they thought they’d get…