At least, not for the likes of you
According to a report in the Independent (thanks to James Morton for the headsup), new drugs will only be made available on the NHS in England, if they help people deemed to be a benefit to society under proposals that prompted fears elderly people could be denied treatment.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice: the English organisation charged with deciding which drugs are affordable) is due to change how it decides which drugs can be provided by the health service.
The proposals would mean Nice would have to consider “wider societal benefits” of the treatments as well as the cost and benefits to patients.
Dr Paul Catchpole, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, told The Daily Telegraph: “It is concerning because, under the new appraisal system, cancer medicine might do less well because older people aren't as beneficial to society.
"You might have a cancer treatment for a severe disease but because the majority of the cancer patients are elderly they aren't generating wider societal benefits, they are more likely to be generating costs.
“But if you have got a medicine that gets someone back to work then you could argue, under this system, that that's better for society.”
David Taylor, professor of pharmaceutical and public health policy at University College London, said the plan was “a real threat to the public well-being and a real threat to the well-being of older people”.
“To me the whole methodology seems deeply suspect,” he said.
Sources close to English Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, told The Telegraph that plan was at an early stage and would not result in discrimination against elderly people (so you can guarantee that it will).
The draft policy is due to be put out for public consultation in the next few weeks.
First they denigrate the sick and the unemployed with the eager help of their friends at the Daily Mail, Express, Star and Sun, then they start killing them off by denying them benefits. Now it’s the turn of the old. If you aren’t of benefit to Cameron’s society, you should die and not cost anything to decent hardworking families up and down the country.
Who’s next on their hit list?
People who don't vote Tory?
I warn you. If we vote NO there's no way Scotland will avoid this. So vote no, and commit suicide at 45, because getting old is not going to be fun.
BTW, I seem to remember that Johann Lamont made a big fuss about how you could get one cancer drug in England that was unavailable in Scotland. (She failed to mention that there were examples of the exact opposite).
I wonder how she feels about this. After all, she's not getting any younger.
I too was disgusted to see this on a Facebook page. From what I can see the DWP has decided that this guy's girlfriend contributed to her own cancer, and is therefore not entitled to any enhanced payment.
So, does this mean that anyone who has smoked, or drunk, or eaten more than they have exercised, and whose medical condition could at least in part, be blamed upon these activities... is no longer entitled to enhanced payments.
Will this include people who have been injured whilst driving (after all they could have taken the bus); have had sports injuries (they could have stayed on the settee); war injuries (they weren't called up to the forces, they chose to join)?
This is our so-called united kingdom.
But you shouldn't be surprised; remember a few weeks ago osborne told you all quite clearly that we could no longer afford a welfare state. You seriously cannot say that you were not warned.
When you read about this type of thing it makes you wonder why anyone could consider voting No and therefore stay in country run by such vile people. And I'd better stockpile the paracetemol because I'm over 45 and not of any use to society (by the ConDemLabs criteria).ReplyDelete
Please Scotland vote yes and tell these sociopaths to GTF.
They really are digging themselves a grave...Delete
Seriously, drugs only for the socially useful (Cameron's Big Society...join up or if you get sick we'll not give you drugs).
The irony is that if you are in pain with no hope of getting better, they won't let you commit suicide! You have to be rich enough and well enough to get yourself to Switzerland!
Man we really should all be sending great big "Thank You" cards to David Cameron and his cohorts in the Blue, Yellow Tory and Red Tory party.ReplyDelete
Whilst it goes without saying that we all fear fore the future health of the elderly in England at the same time this is yet another open goal for the YES camp. How on earth can anyone in the NO camp or Don't Know camp continue to ponder the possibility of voting NO in September?
Vote NO in September and this WILL be appearing in a doctor's surgery near you soon. Make NO mistake about it, a NO vote in September WILL open the door for the next Labour led government to enforce this draconian measure into Scotland.
If it's done in England and we remain subject to a block grant returned from out tax contributions then even an SNP government would have to cut services.Delete
I suspect that free education and bus passes and prescriptions might have to go first, but in the end if Cameron is determined to get rid of the poor one way or another, he certainly won't tolerate poor in Scotland being kept alive.
Niko must be so proud.ReplyDelete
How can anyone who is as devout a follower of the Blue, Yellow and Red Tory party party NOT be so proud of what they are doing to the poor, infirm and elderly of what is laughing called this great? country.Delete
The similarity to Germany in the 1930's is more apparent on a daily basis.ReplyDelete
Yep... You have to admit it... and didn't we all say this some time ago.Delete
First it was the unemployed, even ones paid off by Cameron's cuts and the failure of governments to keep the economy under control. Then it was the sick with Atos murdering people every week, and pushing others to suicide or lives of unbounded misery.
Then it was people who, through no fault of their own are stuck in bigger houses that they need, for the want of other houses of an appropriate size to move them into.
Then it's people who don't contribute to the life of the country. Don;t contribute to Big Society, bugger off and die.
Then it's Bulgarians and Romanians and other EU citizens, despite government figures showing that the make a net contribution to the country's finances and both the major parties in Scotland have agreed that we need to encourage them to live here...
The they won't give you sickness benefit if they can show in any way that you have contributed to your illness...and who hasn't?
Yes. The similarity to the Nazi regime is startling.
When are they going to start on the Jews and the Gays?
Cynical is correct, we are now living in Nazi Germany. These stories have got to get the f'ing no voters to sit up and take notice
Agreed Bruce. Not really possible to argue that the consequences are the same.Delete
Just as well Cameron isn't planning a celebration of the beginning of the 39-45 war. That would be an irony.
tris or is it JeremiahReplyDelete
Under these laws I and all my family would of been
exterminated alongside the Jewish people.
And you wonder why i could never support a
Nationalist political party.
Serious genetic disease, particularly mental illnesses, make their victims incapable of living a normal life. They rob their victims of their reasoning powers and sense of responsibility, reducing their value to the people’s community. The unfit proliferate wildly and spread their genetic diseases. This is clear from the average number of children per family in the German Reich:
Healthy families have 2.2 children
Families with inherited mental deficiencies have 3.5 children
Families with criminal tendencies have 4.9 children.
Thus the number of unfit inhabitants rose from 10 per 1,000 in 1880 to 40 in 1930. The population as a whole rose by about 50%, but the number of the unfit rose by about 300%, six times greater than the average. It is no wonder that in Germany today we have:
250,000 cases of genetic mental deficiency
40,000 inherited cases of physical handicaps
Most of those with genetic diseases and deficiencies are entirely unable to survive on their own. They cannot care for themselves, but have to be cared for in institutions. This costs the state huge sums each year. The costs of caring for a genetically ill person are eight times as high as those for a normal person. A child who is an idiot costs as much as four or five healthy children. The cost of eight years of normal schooling is about 1000 marks. The schooling for a deaf child costs about 20,000 marks. In all, the German Reich spends around 1.2 billion marks each year for the care and treatment of citizens with genetic diseases.
We ll I don;t wonder why you couldn't support a right wing nationalist party like the BNP or Ukip or some of the French, Dutch or nut case haters... but a party that is open and welcoming to all, which has among its team, people of Italian and French and Pakistani origin, and several openly gay ministers, I'm at a loss to understand how they fit that bill mate.Delete
But I see you agree with all the other people who have commented. Britain is beginning to resemble pre war Germany.
The same techniques are being used by the government and Miliband is jumping on the bandwagon... tough on immigrants, tougher than the Tories on benefits... and they are being aided and abetted by the vile right wing press who lie through their teeth every day about people claiming millions in benefits, immigrants costing the state more billions and committing every crime in the book ...
Tell me that ordinary people aren't over a period affected by all this race and poverty hatred.
Scots too. I've heard my uneducated neighbours trotting out the day's headline in the Sun (even when the second line of the story contradicts it.
At at the back of it all, these right wing nut jobs that want Britain for the British... God help them if they ever get it. They'll sink without a bloody trace and end up applying to Mogadishu for aid.
These enormous sums cannot be used to benefit the healthy part of our people. How many sport fields, swimming pools, housing developments and kindergartens could be built with this money, had the danger to our people by the unfit been recognized in past decades. He who has visited an institution for the genetically ill cannot but feel a sense of guilt for these unhappy creatures, who despite the principles of genuine humanity, were brought to life. From a genuine sense of humanity toward the sick and from a strong sense of responsibility to the people, the National Socialist government has therefore passed laws that will hinder the further spread of serious genetic diseasesReplyDelete
The most important laws to protect our genetic inheritance are:
The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Ill Offspring of 14 July 1933
The Law against Dangerous Habitual Criminals of 24 November 1933
The Law to Protect the Genetic Health of the German People (Healthy Marriage Law) of 26 October 1935.
The “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Ill Offspring” encourages the voluntary or compulsory sterilization of those persons who, as the result of serious genetic illness, “are likely according to medical science to have children who will suffer severe physical and mental genetic illnesses.” The strong sense of responsibility of the lawgivers is shown by the limitation of this law to the worst genetic illnesses and by the establishment of security measures to prevent misuse of the law.
The “Law against Dangerous Criminals” provides for the castration of serious moral criminals. It is to be seen as a way of saving the criminal by freeing him of his sick drives. It will also surely prevent serious crimes in the future.
The “Healthy Marriage Law” outlaws marriage in cases where one of the partners has a dangerous infectious disease (venereal diseases, tuberculosis, etc.), or suffers from mental illness, or carries a genetic disease, which may also call for sterilization.
The genetic health laws of the Third Reich have been vigorously attacked from various sides. Some wanted to deny the state the right to interfere in people’s personal freedoms. The answer is that the laws apply only to the very worst cases, and furthermore, the medical treatment is safe and causes no harm to those affected. More than that, a deep humanity underlies these efforts to relieve suffering and further damage. It is better and more humane to prevent great misery than to pity the unfortunates later and burden the people’s community with their care. It is also the natural right of a community to protect itself against threats from individuals. Everywhere in nature, safety measures are aimed at the good of the whole. The existence of the individual plays no role whatever. Have people been given reason and understanding only to ignore such natural laws? Is it not in fact the task of the human spirit to recognize these natural laws and bring them to expression in humane ways? That is what we believe
I am my family are Jewish. We can tell the difference between the Scottish National Party and Nationalist Parties like the Tories and your own Labour party
Which party has been saying that family being foreigners is an evil thing?
That would be your Labour Party.
Why do the Labour Party see foreigners as evil
We have already established that you Niko disagree with the founders of the Welfare State, that you view the likes of Aneurin Bevan as evil.
And you support a party that views being foreign as a sin
Is there anything of principle left in you?
The SNP is the party of the Scottish Nation. It's not a nationalist party in the way that the National Socialists were.
Jack McConnel and Alex Salmond both went out in teh past trying to get intelligent, educated people to come and settle in Scotland.
Stuart Campbell did an article on it the other day saying how much we needed people to come here to pay taxes to support our old.
It's Theresa May at the Go Home office who has ruined the Labour/SNP schemes.
Of course England possibly has far too many immigrants. So they say anyway. But as usual we get the laws that suit England and don't suit us.
I've always thought it was hilarious that Labour lectures us about working class solidarity with the English, but considers being a foreigner to be so disgusting that they wouldn't want one in their family.
Even Tony Benn said that...he who married an American.
The Nazis were not really nationalists, any more than they were socialists. They were racists; it was ethnicity that mattered to them, not nationality. German citizens, who could trace their German ancestry back several generations, were murdered because they were Jewish. Danes or Norwegians with no connection to Germany who volunteered for the Waffen SS were welcomed with open arms. The Reich was even willing to assimilate Poles who looked sufficiently Aryan.Delete
The other way in which Scottish nationalism is at the opposite end of a spectrum from Hitler's National Socialism is the question of aggression; I do not think Alex Salmond has ever talked about restoring Berwick-upon-Tweed to Scottish rule, let alone about lebensraum.
And they saw Britons as their natural allies.
Indeed I'm not sure that had Churchill not been such a master of spin, that there wouldn't have been far more than the Mosely crew (and of course the Duke of Windsor and his crew), who would have supported Hitler.
After all if you look at the attitudes of middle Britain in the 1930s, they weren't over keen on jews or homosexuals, although the probably had a more tolerant attitude to people with disabilities.
I doubt the overwhelming attitude to foreigners in Britain has ever been any more than lukewarm, and in some cases it has been downright hostile.
Interesting that after the war against this kind of thing, that because of the shortage of labour for factories and trains and what have you, there was a need to import people from the West Indies, who were ghettoized, because white native people refused to live near to them (fearing for the value of their homes).
I'm sure Hitler would have welcomed, indeed probably did welcome, Brits to his idea of Germany.
I can't see anything further from that kind of policy in the SNP, although clearly people like Smart see Scotland as a hotbed of racism, only held back by the moderating hand of England...
Yeah i wouldn't vote for the snp even if
my life depended on it .
thats a good principle
Well I suppose it saves the UK government putting you down if you get sick.Delete
Aha yet another esteemed follower of the Bain Principle!Delete
I'm sorry, can never fail to giggle a little when I see 'Bain' and 'principle' in the same sentence.Delete
Nikmo's unwarranted cheap shot, knowing that it has no substance whatsoever has got me angryReplyDelete
Who's party allowed rendition flights so that brown people could be tortured and held in custody without trial for decades.
Niko's Party, Labour
Which Party kept Dungavel open, in case those foreign children threatened us?
Niko's Party, Labour
Who's Party engaged in an unwarranted war, against the rules of international Law, leading to the death of thousands of icky brown people
Niko's Party, Labour
The SNP have a multi-ethnic, multi faith membership. How dare Niko try such a smear with blood in his own party's hands
Fair comment, Anon.Delete
Having just come from the previous thread, where Niko quotes the Waffen SS motto in connection with his loyalty to Lord Blob of Port Ellen, I have given his posts above some attention.ReplyDelete
In comparison with the measures covered in the article that the UK Government is proposing, he displays a deep knowledge of the similar despicable measures imposed or considered by the Nazis in the thirties and lists them. He vaguely implies that they are bad, but at no point categorically condemns them.
Instead, he reaffirms his loyalty to the system which is introducing the measures and his hatred for the SNP, a party committed to the defence of the weakest in the community.
Yep, I find that worrying too.Delete