Just last week, we learned that the MVNHS© had successfully killed off another beneficiary (citizen) via the clever method of denying that "free health care" that we've heard so much about. Never fear though, dear Brits:
"Baroness Ilora Finlay, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said Labour's policy of denying free care to patients who use their own money to buy the latest drugs went to the heart of the purpose of the health service."
She then asked:
"Can we justify spending billions of pounds on the relief of relatively minor conditions and deny patients with life-threatening disease the support of the NHS when they want to bridge the costs themselves?"
Of course they can, my dear! This is the gummint, after all, of compassion and "the people." And how better to demonstrate that than to teach wayward cancer patients that it's more important to play by the rules than to, you know, get better?
Don't believe me? Well, let's hear it straight from the horse's, er, mouth:
"The Government says allowing cancer suffers to pay for some drugs while receiving others free would create a two-tier health service, with patients on the same ward being given different drugs depending on their ability to pay."
And they don't already? The Baroness observes "private and state-funded care already run side-by-side in many parts of the health service."
And lest one think that this is purely a class-warfare issue, with well-to-do Britishers vying for "special treatment" above the means of the commoners:
"Victims of the co-payment trap include Richard Eckley (CORR), a 68-year-old farmer, whose decision to pay for the kidney cancer drug Sutent is costing him more than £4,000 a month."
That's a lot of courgettes.
"Baroness Ilora Finlay, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said Labour's policy of denying free care to patients who use their own money to buy the latest drugs went to the heart of the purpose of the health service."
She then asked:
"Can we justify spending billions of pounds on the relief of relatively minor conditions and deny patients with life-threatening disease the support of the NHS when they want to bridge the costs themselves?"
Of course they can, my dear! This is the gummint, after all, of compassion and "the people." And how better to demonstrate that than to teach wayward cancer patients that it's more important to play by the rules than to, you know, get better?
Don't believe me? Well, let's hear it straight from the horse's, er, mouth:
"The Government says allowing cancer suffers to pay for some drugs while receiving others free would create a two-tier health service, with patients on the same ward being given different drugs depending on their ability to pay."
And they don't already? The Baroness observes "private and state-funded care already run side-by-side in many parts of the health service."
And lest one think that this is purely a class-warfare issue, with well-to-do Britishers vying for "special treatment" above the means of the commoners:
"Victims of the co-payment trap include Richard Eckley (CORR), a 68-year-old farmer, whose decision to pay for the kidney cancer drug Sutent is costing him more than £4,000 a month."
That's a lot of courgettes.
Posts
