Before the mid-term elections last November, Michael Moore went against the conventional wisdom that there would be a Red Wave and said that democrats would do very well and he was proven right. He produced a daily series of what he called ‘Truth Tsunamis’ and this was one of them.
Capitalist just kicks ass!!
When I read the title (more like misread), I thought of bank bankruptcies which seems to be either some kind of incompetence or criminal delinquency. Either way, it sheds a poor light on the system.
Coming back to the theme, I don’t believe it about Britain and nor about other EU countries nor Switzerland because although, for example, Britain has the NHS, there are several things it does not cover.. Expensive drugs, for example, and these have to be paid for, perhaps in private clinics. Cancer drugs and drugs for things like severe dementia are the most obvious examples, but there is an example much nearer to home. And that is drugs to treat Covid-19. There are several drugs used to treat Covid and not all are available on the NHS or on welfare systems. For example, doctors here often give Azitromicina which costs about €6,32 and Deltacortene at €5,87, but there is also an antiviral called Paxlovid, but if you want to buy it, it costs €1,980. How many normal people could afford that for the whole family? And probably not more than once. This probably would not bankrupt you, but I think it makes the point.
I cut off the last sente4nce of my post.
So although some people might go bankrupt and have to sell their homes to pay for such cures, as they have gone private, they may not show up in official statistics.
And how many Americans got financial assistance from the government for treatment of covid? I know there was money for funeral expenses, but wasn’t there additional assistance for medical care?
Rupert @ 2
Which cancer drugs and which drugs for severe Alzheimers are you thinking of? I wasn’t aware there were any effective drugs for Alzheimers.
It was merely to make a point and there are some drugs far more expensive than the ones I mentioned. However. I believe that CNN spoke of a new Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm which costs $56,000 per person, per year.Not chicken feed by any account. However, I am not a doctor so I can’t comment on how effective it is.
The various European countries have quite different systems for medical insurance- even if the government carries the cost, you have to jump through quite different hoops to get access from one country to another.
I forgot the details but I think the French system was rather anachronistic.
Further to 2 & 3: yes, the UK has the NHS, and people don’t (generally) go bankrupt paying for drugs to keep them alive… but the NHS is not a bottomless pit, and depending on where you live they might not pay for your treatment. You won’t go bankrupt -- you’ll die.
The most famous example of this is Tony Wilson, founder of Factory Records and discoverer of Joy Division/New Order and the Happy Mondays, arguably the architect of “Madchester” and owner of what was for a while regarded as the best nightclub in the world, the Hacienda. From his Wikipedia entry:
In The Netherlands it’s impossible for individuals to go bankrupt, only for companies. So the comparison is false indeed. There are people who have huge debts (compared to their income) and sometimes it’s because of huge medical bills. This especially happens when someone has a rare disease that requires expensive medicines and/or other treatments. I couldn’t find numbers though; my guess is that they are relatively very low (ie much lower than 30 000). Government provides debt counselling. It’s far from perfectly organized but it does help.
We Europeans never cease to be amazed when reading about the USA health care system. I’d even prefer the Surinamese one.
sonofrojblake, if “Manchester Primary Care NHS Trust refused to fund the £3,500 per month cost of providing the drug, while patients being treated alongside him at the Christie Hospital and living just a few miles away in Cheshire did receive funding for the medication.” (your emphasis), then at least some of the time the NHS does fund it. Notably, that cited story is dated 11 July 2007 and his date of death was 10 August 2007. I think the implication is pretty clear.
@John Morales, 10:
Another content-free contribution demonstrating that you do this just to make a noise.
Yes. Well spotted. If only, in my original post, I’d said…
So it’s not “some of the time”, as you put it, it’s “some of the country”… which was what I said. The phrase used in the UK is “postcode lottery”, where winners get to live longer.
You perhaps missed the point that yes, some people in some places do get the life-saving expensive treatment, and others… don’t. The ones who don’t generally don’t go bankrupt, they just (like Wilson) die.
sonofrojblake:
You quoted (in bold) “patients being treated alongside him at the Christie Hospital and living just a few miles away in Cheshire did receive funding”.
He died a month later, so not particularly life-saving, was it?
He didn’t die because he didn’t get the treatment, did he?
Unclear at this point whether you’re being deliberately obtuse, or whether you really are as benightedly thick as you appear.
Yes. If you live in some of the country (Cheshire), you get the treatment. If you live in another bit of the country (Manchester, where Wilson lived), you don’t.
Perhaps you don’t understand the idea that what treatment you get is decided by where you LIVE, not where you’re getting TREATED. Admittedly, it’s probably my fault as I’ve only explained it twice.
By “it”, are you referring to the cancer treatment the NHS didn’t provide?
I’m not a doctor, and I haven’t seen his death certificate. I’m going to stick my neck out and guess that you are not a doctor and haven’t seen his death certificate. Discussing the reason for his death on that date would therefore be in poor taste, although that’s not likely to stop you. Neither is your complete ignorance of the facts, clearly. Whether his death on that date was due to the lack of that particular treatment is entirely fucking irrelevant to the point. As I suspect you’re perfectly aware, but you just can’t stop yourself making that low buzzing noise. And like a fool, I’ve just provoked you into definitely writing another content-free, point-missing, ignorant response to this.
But that was your expressly intended point: “but the NHS is not a bottomless pit, and depending on where you live they might not pay for your treatment. You won’t go bankrupt — you’ll die.
The most famous example of this is Tony Wilson”.
He did not, in fact, die because the NHS did not pay for his treatment.
So he can’t possibly be an example of someone who perished for that reason.
Hard to say what’s more foolish of you; to provoke me (as if) or to miss what I write.
—
BTW, if it’s just a matter of moving a few miles away to get thousands of pounds in medicinal benefits, I think many people would do that.
sonof states the NHS doesn’t necessarily pay for treatment, depending on where the patient resides; John’s quibble is essentially ‘yeah but sometimes they do.’ A quibble remarkable for how pointless it is -- “at least some of the time the NHS does fund [treatment]” is already implicit in the observation that sometimes it isn’t.
And then the quibble switched from that to whether or not this treatment should really be considered life-saving. Never mind that “yes, some people in some places do get the life-saving expensive treatment” is speaking generally rather than specifically about Wilson and his Sutent, what I really appreciate here is the seamlessness with which the new gripe is taken up. Chef’s kiss to you, John. ABC -- Always Be Complainin’.
“to provoke me (as if)”
And yet… you replied. As you will to me, too. (The only way to disprove this is to not reply… but I know it will nag at you.)
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/572455
Holms @15: I see John’s MO as performance art, with a very loose definition of ‘art’.
Rob, thing is, not only is Tony Wilson not the most famous example, he’s not even an example. Now, whether pointing out that some claim is false and misleading is merely performance art is indeed a matter of opinion, and of course you’re entitled to your perception.
(I mean, sure, it’s an art; but it’s not just an art)
“He did not, in fact, die because the NHS did not pay for his treatment.”
You not only do not know this -- you CANNOT know this. Unless… You’re not the doctor who treated him, are you?
“if it’s just a matter of moving a few miles away to get thousands of pounds in medicinal benefits, I think many people would do that.”
Yeah, I’m dealing with stage four cancer, i know what will help… Spending six to twelve months and ten to twenty grand doing something famously incredibly stressful. You really are a genius, aren’t you?
sonofrojblake:
I merely followed your citation; the piece from Wednesday, 11 July 2007 went thus:
“”I’ve never paid for private healthcare because I’m a socialist. Now I find you can get tummy tucks and cosmetic surgery on the NHS but not the drugs I need to stay alive. It is a scandal.”
Nathan McGough, former manager of the Happy Mondays who has known Wilson for 30 years, teamed up with Elliot Rashman, the Mondays’ present manager, to set up a fund after they heard of his plight.
There is now enough money in the pot to pay for five months of treatment.”
There was enough to pay for five months, but he died within the month of that piece being published. By your own citation. Clearly, had the NHS funded the medication, he would still have died within the month.
(BTW, that was the implication you missed; whether the actual basis for the withholding of public money for his treatment was based on his residential location or on medical grounds is something I actually do not know)
You are easily impressed; when it’s life or death on the line, people often do go to the bother. I mean, I would — if the choice were between the stress of moving or the actual dying.