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

Screeeech said:
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?
Click to expand...

Those things may yet prove necessary, if the NHS isn't to cripple us all. Or end up privatised. Or totally dysfunctional.

Esp people who ignore their doctors advice; act against their own best interests; and have the financial means to pay for their own treatment (ie, aren't poor).

Those people have no moral right to go cap in hand to the NHS for free treatment.
 
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think we live in a country that has such a high standard of living and health care - that we can cover for people who make poor decisions, and we do the best we can to prevent suffering, as opposed to just leaving them to die, because it's the right thing to do in a civilised society - you support people, you don't just **** them off as scum, who've messed up and need to pay.
 
Screeeech said:
I'd like to think we live in a country that has such a high standard of living and health care - that we can cover for people who make poor decisions, and we do the best we can to prevent suffering, as opposed to just leaving them to die, because it's the right thing to do in a civilised society - you support people, you don't just **** them off as scum, who've messed up and need to pay.
Click to expand...

But the cost of protecting everyone from *all* their mistakes is unbearable.

Let's not forget the cost of the NHS is sky-rocketing.
 
FoxEye said:
But the cost of protecting everyone from *all* their mistakes is unbearable.

Let's not forget the cost of the NHS is sky-rocketing.
Click to expand...

Ok, so like I said 20 posts ago - withdraw treatment, and lets have people laid out on stretchers outside hospitals dying, because they can't pay - whilst reserving treatment for sensible people.

Lets see how well that goes.
 
Screeeech said:
I'd like to think we live in a country that has such a high standard of living and health care - that we can cover for people who make poor decisions, and we do the best we can to prevent suffering, as opposed to just leaving them to die, because it's the right thing to do in a civilised society - you support people, you don't just **** them off as scum, who've messed up and need to pay.
Click to expand...

Well whilst you live in that country the rest of us are living in this one.
We should not pay for treatment for stupid lifestyle choices whilst we cannot afford to pay for treatments to diseases that are not self inflicted.

Would you stand in front of a terminal cancer patient and tell them they can't spend another few weeks or months with their loved one because the treatment is classed as uneconomical. But that it's ok for Steve to bugger dave bareback?
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
Well whilst you live in that country the rest of us are living in this one..
Click to expand...

Been to many other parts of the world? you should take a trip to Russia one day.. that'll make you realise just how much of a utopia the UK is.

Dis86 said:
We should not pay for treatment for stupid lifestyle choices whilst we cannot afford to pay for treatments to diseases that are not self inflicted.
Click to expand...

So a massive chunk of people, (millions) who currently receive treatment for poor lifestyle choices, be it smoking, obesity, HIV, whatever should just have it all cut right now and be forced to pay? that's it - we walk away and save the cash.

rofl just rofl.. GD delivering tonight.
 
Screeeech said:
Ok, so like I said 20 posts ago - withdraw treatment, and lets have people laid out on stretchers outside hospitals dying, because they can't pay - whilst reserving treatment for sensible people.

Lets see how well that goes.
Click to expand...

People are going to die. You can't finance everything that would save or extend lives.

Again, if there was money for everything we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And besides, as I said I'm in favour of making people pay at least a contribution to their treatment in certain circumstances. I specifically singled out drunks in A&E, since they are such a massive problem and take up so much resource.

You opposed this. You seem to be arguing that: the NHS should fund everything; it should be 100% funded by our taxes; nobody should have to make contributions no matter how recklessly they treat their own bodies.

It sounds like a recipe to bankrupt us, tbh.
 
Dis86 said:
Well whilst you live in that country the rest of us are living in this one.
We should not pay for treatment for stupid lifestyle choices whilst we cannot afford to pay for treatments to diseases that are not self inflicted.
Click to expand...

So you are proposing

  • Sop treating heart diesease because people ate burgers or smoked
  • Stop treating broken limbs because of sports injuries
  • Stop treating straight people with STDs because they also chose not to wear condoms or had many partners

Can you see where this is going?

When you start to stigmatise and push things underground it makes the problem worse.
 
Janesy B said:
So you are proposing

  • Sop treating heart diesease because people ate burgers or smoked
  • Stop treating broken limbs because of sports injuries
  • Stop treating straight people with STDs because they also chose not to wear condoms or had many partners

Can you see where this is going?

When you start to stigmatise and push things underground it makes the problem worse.
Click to expand...

** Play nice, please **

Read the posts in the thread. Your borderline retarded points have already been discussed and debunked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FoxEye said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your argument against funding the drug in the OP appears to be that gay men bring it upon themselves, the same with drunk people. Where do you draw the line however. That's what I'm asking.
 
Screeeech said:
Been to many other parts of the world? you should take a trip to Russia one day.. that'll make you realise just how much of a utopia the UK is.



So a massive chunk of people, (millions) who currently receive treatment for poor lifestyle choices, be it smoking, obesity, HIV, whatever should just have it all cut right now and be forced to pay? that's it - we walk away and save the cash.

rofl just rofl.. GD delivering tonight.
Click to expand...

I've been to many parts of the world. Some much better than this country. Many of those countries have no state healthcare. Oh and higher life expectancies and standards of development than us...
So yeah, we walk away. People are grown ups. Time to live like it and stop complaining about the nanny state whilst suckling at its teet.
 
Amp34 said:
Your argument against funding the drug in the OP appears to be that gay men bring it upon themselves, the same with drunk people. Where do you draw the line however. That's what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

They make the choice to engage in unprotected sex. They do bring it on themselves :confused:
Or sorry...are you and I responsible for that?
 
Amp34 said:
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?
Click to expand...

They're already re-branding A&E departments as ED (emergency department): Removing accident from the name.
 
Dis86 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe this was covered earlier in the thread but where did Foxeye get the 10% figure from in the first place? Other than a contentious book written in the 40s a quick search didn't bring anything else up.

You'd assume people identifying as being Bi/Gay are likely to be the bulk of the people having anal sex with another man no? Or are there lots of footballers that wouldn't identify as gay but are quite happy to have sex with other men?

What's the issue with giving it to anyone that asks for it (and has a legitimate reason)?
 
Amp34 said:
Maybe this was covered earlier in the thread but where did Foxeye get the 10% figure from in the first place? Other than a contentious study done in the 40s a quick search didn't bring anything else up.

You'd assume people identifying as being Bi/Gay are likely to be the bulk of the people having anal sex with another man no? Or are there lots of footballers that wouldn't identify as gay but are quite happy to have sex with other men?

What's the issue with giving it to anyone that asks for it (and has a legitimate reason)?
Click to expand...

You're making the same point I am? That if it's given out then surely anyone who asks for it should get it.
Which is completely and utterly economically unsustainable.
 
Dis86 said:
There you go, as you've done throughout the thread when you have no sensible counter argument you throw your toys out of the pram.
Click to expand...

Well, there's nothing I can say - if your opinion is that we should just withdraw treatment for anybody who's come to any harm, due to their own fault - whether though mistakes or stupidity, then there's nothing left for me to say - it's far simpler to just walk away and and disagree, we're never going to agree - and I don't want to spend all night on GD going around in circles of pointless stupidity, I have other stuff to do :)
 
Amp34 said:
Your argument against funding the drug in the OP appears to be that gay men bring it upon themselves, the same with drunk people. Where do you draw the line however. That's what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

For one I don't want to single out gay men. In any community where the risk of HIV infection is high (or unknown), men and women need to exercise good judgement. You tell me.... what kind of lifestyle do you have to adopt to put yourself at "high risk of contracting HIV"... surely you're doing something very wrong?

I absolutely agree with your assessment of my position regarding drunks in A&E tho. They are a significant drain on resources, and their condition is 100% self inflicted.

Not that I would withdraw treatment as Screech suggested - but I absolutely would require such people to make contributions to their treatment. Or if they couldn't pay, sanctions on their Jobseekers Allowance, Universal Credit, etc. Since they're just wasting it on booze we don't need to give them so much, eh?
 
Dis86 said:
You're making the same point I am? That if it's given out then surely anyone who asks for it should get it.
Which is completely and utterly economically unsustainable.
Click to expand...

That's clearly not true though. Health insurers in America generally cover the cost of PrEP for high risk individuals - a commercial decision because it's cheaper to prevent HIV infection with PrEP than to treat it if somebody gets infected.

And Truvada costs more here - about $1300 a month apparently.

Surely preventing people from getting infected in the first place is the best idea?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom