NHS not funding HIV preventing drug (now ordered to fund drug by court decision)

[Felon]

It's still a truckload of money to spend to protect people from themselves and their own bad judgement.

I love how people keep saying this as though it's a point worth making, go down to A&E on a Friday night, and see how much money is being spent on general "bad judgement" - no doubt you'd recommend to have it all closed down, because it's stupid to spend money to protect people from themselves.

Perhaps if HAART is so expensive, and we can't afford it, then they'll have to make a tough decision about treating HIV infected people too.

Can't magic up money for the NHS, when it's needed for things that aren't self-inflicted.

Great idea - whenever anybody gets hurt, or becomes ill due to a mistake they made, or something silly they did - make sure you refuse treatment and throw them in the dustbin - can't afford to be wasting money on these people.

Just let them all get AIDS - 22k people needlessly dying of pneumonia would be a really great thing, what a great example we'd be setting for the rest of the world

 

[Xordium]

The most interesting thing about this fiasco is that the stupid Tories removed the onus of responsibility for prevention from the NHS and gave it to local councils. The NHS then said well we can't give this then can we and now the court has said they can.

When you get to the bottom of all health issues you find stupid Tory policy.

 

[Janesy B]

The ratio of straight men to gay men is what, 1:10, last time I checked?

How did you check?

 

[edscdk]

The ratio of straight men to gay men is what, 1:10, last time I checked?

That's £40 of your monthly taxes for this one drug.

Would you be prepared personally to hand over £40 every month for this?

don't forget prostitutes (as extra protection) and many straight people who will say they are gay so they can poke around a lot more

 

[FoxEye]

I love how people keep saying this as though it's a point worth making, go down to A&E on a Friday night, and see how much money is being spent on general "bad judgement" - no doubt you'd recommend to have it all closed down, because it's stupid to spend money to protect people from themselves.

Great idea - whenever anybody gets hurt, or becomes ill due to a mistake they made, or something silly they did - make sure you refuse treatment and throw them in the dustbin - can't afford to be wasting money on these people.

Just let them all get AIDS - 22k people dying of pneumonia would be a really great thing, what a great example we'd be setting for the rest of the world

Clearly we don't have the money to treat everybody for everything that's wrong with them.

That's why there are cases on the news on a regular basis where people just can't get the treatment they need for X or Y.

Since we don't have unlimited money, we have to cut something...

And personally I think people going to A&E having their stomachs pumped after a night out should be forced to pay for their treatment.

After all, you get fined for breaking the speed limit. So why not get fined for getting so rat-asses you needed A&E treatment?

Not everything *should* be free. The idea that the NHS represents free treatment for everyone for all their issues is bonkers. It can't.

That's why this thread exists, btw. There isn't an unlimited pot of money.

 

[PMKeates]

Perhaps if HAART is so expensive, and we can't afford it, then they'll have to make a tough decision about treating HIV infected people too.

Can't magic up money for the NHS, when it's needed for things that aren't self-inflicted.

e: I'm going to be really cold here. People often mention the "Darwin awards" for people who kill themselves doing risky things. So why should we have unlimited sympathy for gay (or straight) men who have unprotected sex with partners who might be HIV infected? Or any kind of sex with people they *know* have HIV? They might not be skydiving without a parachute, but the risks are still extreme. And the outcomes preventable.

I think you have a very binary view of something that isn't so simple. Every decision you make about what you eat, what you drink, what you do and how often you do it contributes to you overall well-being and health. The healthcare system takes the view that in principle people don't make perfect decisions and that it should provide medical assistance to people based on need. A view has now been taken that there is a section of society that are making choices with negative health consequences, where a medical intervention can prevent the spread of a deadly virus to unwitting victims.

 

[Amp34]

One person in 10 will not need £400 a month as one person in 10 will not need the drug. It's a small section of the gay population who would want or need HIV prevention drugs. To carry forward in thought the notion that all gay men need the drug demonstrates a very superficial understanding of the issues.

And to clarify another part of his post you didn't touch on.

The proportion of men that identify as gay in the uk is actually around 1 in 80ish, not 1 in ten. So to use his appalling maths that would be £4 for each taxpayer...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say

 

[FoxEye]

I think you have a very binary view of something that isn't so simple. Every decision you make about what you eat, what you drink, what you do and how often you do it contributes to you overall well-being and health. The healthcare system takes the view that in principle people don't make perfect decisions and that it should provide medical assistance to people based on need. A view has now been taken that there is a section of society that are making choices with negative health consequences, where a medical intervention can prevent the spread of a deadly virus to unwitting victims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11340860/25-cancer-drugs-to-be-denied-on-NHS.html

So on the one hand we're cutting funding for life extending cancer drugs, but you lot want free preventative treatment so gay men can have unprotected sex.

Nice.

 

[Felon]

Clearly we don't have the money to treat everybody for everything that's wrong with them.

That's why there are cases on the news on a regular basis where people just can't get the treatment they need for X or Y.

Since we don't have unlimited money, we have to cut something...

And personally I think people going to A&E having their stomachs pumped after a night out should be forced to pay for their treatment.

After all, you get fined for breaking the speed limit. So why not get fined for getting so rat-asses you needed A&E treatment?

Not everything *should* be free. The idea that the NHS represents free treatment for everyone for all their issues is bonkers. It can't.

That's why this thread exists, btw. There isn't an unlimited pot of money.

Your logic skills are weird.

Basically you're suggesting that where someone "harms themselves" be it via accident, being stupid or whatever - we now punish them by forcing them to pay for their treatment?

What if they can't pay - I assume we just have a situation like we do in poorer less developed countries, where people lay around on stretchers outside hospitals, bleeding to death because they can't afford to "pay their fine"?

 

[Amp34]

Clearly we don't have the money to treat everybody for everything that's wrong with them.

That's why there are cases on the news on a regular basis where people just can't get the treatment they need for X or Y.

Since we don't have unlimited money, we have to cut something...

And personally I think people going to A&E having their stomachs pumped after a night out should be forced to pay for their treatment.

After all, you get fined for breaking the speed limit. So why not get fined for getting so rat-asses you needed A&E treatment?

Not everything *should* be free. The idea that the NHS represents free treatment for everyone for all their issues is bonkers. It can't.

That's why this thread exists, btw. There isn't an unlimited pot of money.

Maybe we should just change A&E to "Emergancies"?

Everyone that has injured themselves through stupidity, from those playing sports to those that poke something in themselves gardening, or crash in their car should go elsewhere and pay for their illness/treatment, rather than their "stupidity" being subsidized by the NHS.

Would you differentiate between heart disease caused by diet before or after treatment? In prior would you insist payment up front if they had bad diets?

 

[FoxEye]

Your logic skills are weird.

Basically you're suggesting that where someone "harms themselves" be it via accident, being stupid or whatever - we now punish them by forcing them to pay for their treatment?

What if they can't pay - I assume we just have a situation like we do in poorer less developed countries, where people lay around on stretchers outside hospitals, bleeding to death because they can't afford to "pay their fine"?

Getting blind drunk and ending up in A&E is an "accident" now? That's what I was talking about.

Then you start talking about not treating road accident victims, as if it's remotely the same thing at all.

You get blind drunk, or take a crapload of ecstacy, and up in A&E - yes, you should be fined for that. You should pay for your treatment, caused by your own stupidity.

Or are you really saying someone else should pay for your bad judgement; someone else should pay for your lifestyle choice?

 

[Xordium]

So can I now be supported if I willfully leave employment?

Surely, if I make bad choices society should pay! I mean statistically speaking if you don't then people like me may then go and commit crime which will then cost society more!

 

[FoxEye]

Maybe we should just change A&E to "Emergancies"?

Everyone that has injured themselves through stupidity, from those playing sports to those that poke something in themselves gardening, or crash in their car should go elsewhere and pay for their illness/treatment, rather than their "stupidity" being subsidized by the NHS.

Would you differentiate between heart disease caused by diet before or after treatment? In prior would you insist payment up front if they had bad diets?

Well, given how badly the NHS needs funding, I'm sure we could all look at the sheer number of drunk/ high people in A&E, and view them as a good first step towards extra revenue.

As Screech (I think) said, you just need to look at the sheer number of those type of people in A&E... they account for a rather large number of people in A&E most evenings.

So if we're going to start somewhere, I can't think of a better place.

 

[Felon]

Or are you really saying someone else should pay for your bad judgement; someone else should pay for your lifestyle choice?

They do all the time, and have done for years.

Do you think we should make all smokers who get ill pay the £hundreds of thousands it costs for a protracted cancer treatment plan?

Should all obese people have to foot the bill?

Where do you draw the line - I assume only responsible well behaved people should ever get free treatment?

 

[Dis86]

And to clarify another part of his post you didn't touch on.

The proportion of men that identify as gay in the uk is actually around 1 in 80ish, not 1 in ten. So to use his appalling maths that would be £4 for each taxpayer...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/oct/03/gay-britain-what-do-statistics-say

Identifying and being are two very different things.

Do you honestly believe no premier league footballers are gay?

Also don't forget, as I pointed out very early on they have to give this to whoever asks for it otherwise it's sexual discrimination.

 

[PMKeates]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11340860/25-cancer-drugs-to-be-denied-on-NHS.html

So on the one hand we're cutting funding for life extending cancer drugs, but you lot want free preventative treatment so gay men can have unprotected sex.

Nice.

We can stop people who don't have HIV from getting HIV with the drugs. They cost money, yet will like be a net benefit in the long run due to the very high costs of on-going HIV treatment. One could argue that the use of this drug will help divert resources to cancer and other treatments in the long run.

 

[FoxEye]

So can I now be supported if I willfully leave employment?

Surely, if I make bad choices society should pay! I mean statistically speaking if you don't then people like me may then go and commit crime which will then cost society more!

You can't sign on for X months if you leave employment voluntarily.

So yes, it seems we do have a concept of self-inflicted problems not being "societies problems", but also a (small) amount of responsibility being on your head.

Amazing tho that is.

I am frankly horrified at the number of people who think society should provide a safety blanket for everybody no matter what, and that nobody should ever have to suffer as a consequence of their own actions.

We've obviously gone totally soft.

 

[Xordium]

So if we're going to start somewhere, I can't think of a better place.

Agreed, then the people needing these will never get in such a bad state to make these bad choices and need the pills and they can use condoms safely and we needn't have this thread. All sorted. No disagreement from me.

 

[PMKeates]

Identifying and being are two very different things.

Do you honestly believe no premier league footballers are gay?

Also don't forget, as I pointed out very early on they have to give this to whoever asks for it otherwise it's sexual discrimination.

Being gay doesn't mean you will want or need this drug.

 

[Dis86]

Being gay doesn't mean you will want or need this drug.

True. I never said it did though. I'm just providing a counter argument.