Tens of thousands of British people are leaving the country to get medical treatment. Just hold on, folks. That's the way it will be here when Hillary and the Democrats finally get their national health care plan in place.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58379
THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Long waiting lists, substandard treatment, increasing threat from hospital superbugs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 28, 2007
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Filmmaker Michael Moore praises the UK's National Health Service as a model for the U.S. in his latest film, "Sicko," but record numbers of British citizens have apparently not seen the movie and are going abroad and paying out of their own pockets to obtain better health care.
More than 70,000 Britons will have treatment abroad this year, the London Sunday Telegraph reported, a number that is forecast to rise to 200,000 by 2010.
In the first survey of its kind in the UK, Britons said long waits for treatment by the NHS and fears of the growing hospital-infection crisis were the primary reasons they chose to seek medical care elsewhere.
India is the most popular destination for surgery, followed by Hungary, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, Poland and Spain. According to the survey conducted by Treatment Abroad, "health tourists" from the UK travel to 48 countries.
The NHS is coming under increased criticism for its failure to provide health care. Cases of the superbug Clostridium difficile have increased 500 percent in the last 10 years and are expected to climb above the 55,000 cases reported in 2006.
Long waiting periods for surgery have imposed a de facto rationing system on medical treatment. Last month, a British man was told he did not qualify for a simple surgery because he was a smoker.
Costs for the NHS have risen due to increased bureaucracy that prevents nurses from seeing patients and increased compensation to general practitioners that have seen their earnings rise over 50 percent in the last three years.
Health tourists are courted on the Internet by foreign doctors and hospitals that offer consultations online or with agents in the UK. Cost of a heart-bypass operation in India, including the flight and hotel, are less than half what the same would cost at a private British hospital. The shortage of dentists in Britain is being met by dentists in Hungary.
"The confidence that the public has in NHS hospitals has been shattered by the growth of hospital infections and this government's failure to make a real commitment to tackling it," said Katherine Murphy, of the Patients' Association. "People are simply frightened of going to NHS hospitals, so I am not surprised the numbers going abroad are increasing so rapidly. My fear is that most people can't afford to have private treatment – whether in this country or abroad."
In the survey, almost all of those who obtained treatment abroad said they would do it again.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
I won't let Daddy die: Girl of six raises £4,000 for life-saving drugs the NHS won't provide!
By LUCY LAING
Last updated at 01:08am on 27th October 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490001&in_page_id=1770
Faced with the prospect of losing her father to cancer, Chantelle Hill reacted a little differently to the average six-year-old.
Instead of letting the grown-ups deal with it, she decided to save him herself.
Now, she has raised more than £4,000 to buy the life-saving drugs David Hill needs after he was told they were not available to him on the Health Service.
The little girl made posters bearing the words, "Please help me to save my daddy" and plastered them all over her home town of Darlington.
Her mother Tina, 48, said: "We are so proud of Chantelle. She worships her dad and can't bear the thought of losing him.
"She has put dozens of posters up in Darlington in the streets asking people for help.
"But it shouldn't have come to this – life-saving drugs like these should be available on the NHS."
The drug Mr Hill needs is called Tarceva. It is available for free in Scotland but not in England, as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence found it was not "an effective use of NHS resources".
The £4,000 Chantelle has raised will pay for only two months of treatment, but she is determined to keep going and raise more, Mrs Hill said.
Mr Hill, 45, a builder, was diagnosed with lung cancer in December
A few months later he had an operation at the James Cook Hospital in Middlesbrough to remove the tumour from his right lung.
The father of four then had 14 weeks of chemotherapy to kill off any remaining cancer cells.
Mrs Hill said: "Chantelle really kept him going – she's a real daddy's girl.
"He absolutely dotes on her and it gave him strength to fight through with her just being there.
"He would still help her with her homework and play board games with her during his treatment.
"When he finished his chemotherapy and doctors said the cancer had gone into remission, we really thought he had beaten it."
But in November 2006, the cancer returned as a secondary tumour in his other lung.
He had radiotherapy, but that failed and he had to have more chemotherapy in July this year.
Doctors then told the couple that Mr Hill wouldn't be able to cope with any more chemotherapy as he had lost three stone and his body was too weak. His only hope was Tarceva.
Although it is not a cure, Tarceva has been shown to extend the lives of patients with cancers such as Mr Hill's and to improve their quality of life.
It has been welcomed by cancer specialists around the world and is used extensively in Europe and the US.
Mrs Hill said: "The doctors said we would lose David if he had any more chemotherapy treatment, so we couldn't risk that.
"To be told there was a drug that could keep him alive, but it wasn't funded by the NHS was just devastating."
Having decided to launch her campaign, Chantelle put up dozens of posters across the town on lamp posts, in house windows and on street corners urging locals to help with fund-raising events.
Thanks to her efforts, Mr Hill began his treatment earlier this week.
He said: "Chantelle has done a wonderful job and we have had a great response and raised enough money so far for two months of treatment.
"But it shouldn't be down to a six-year-old girl to help me – it's terrible that she has had to resort to pleading for her dad's life.
"What is going to happen when those two months are over if we haven't managed to raise more money?"
Charity bosses have criticised the Government for not making life-extending drugs available to all.
Just 30 miles up the road from the Hills, the South Tyneside Primary Care Trust has agreed to pay for Tarceva for one patient, Jimmy Jenkyns.
Mr Jenkyns's health had improved markedly after he paid for the drug himself.
Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation said: "The Government must address unequal access to care for people with respiratory conditions across the UK."
Last updated at 01:08am on 27th October 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490001&in_page_id=1770
Faced with the prospect of losing her father to cancer, Chantelle Hill reacted a little differently to the average six-year-old.
Instead of letting the grown-ups deal with it, she decided to save him herself.
Now, she has raised more than £4,000 to buy the life-saving drugs David Hill needs after he was told they were not available to him on the Health Service.
The little girl made posters bearing the words, "Please help me to save my daddy" and plastered them all over her home town of Darlington.
Her mother Tina, 48, said: "We are so proud of Chantelle. She worships her dad and can't bear the thought of losing him.
"She has put dozens of posters up in Darlington in the streets asking people for help.
"But it shouldn't have come to this – life-saving drugs like these should be available on the NHS."
The drug Mr Hill needs is called Tarceva. It is available for free in Scotland but not in England, as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence found it was not "an effective use of NHS resources".
The £4,000 Chantelle has raised will pay for only two months of treatment, but she is determined to keep going and raise more, Mrs Hill said.
Mr Hill, 45, a builder, was diagnosed with lung cancer in December
A few months later he had an operation at the James Cook Hospital in Middlesbrough to remove the tumour from his right lung.
The father of four then had 14 weeks of chemotherapy to kill off any remaining cancer cells.
Mrs Hill said: "Chantelle really kept him going – she's a real daddy's girl.
"He absolutely dotes on her and it gave him strength to fight through with her just being there.
"He would still help her with her homework and play board games with her during his treatment.
"When he finished his chemotherapy and doctors said the cancer had gone into remission, we really thought he had beaten it."
But in November 2006, the cancer returned as a secondary tumour in his other lung.
He had radiotherapy, but that failed and he had to have more chemotherapy in July this year.
Doctors then told the couple that Mr Hill wouldn't be able to cope with any more chemotherapy as he had lost three stone and his body was too weak. His only hope was Tarceva.
Although it is not a cure, Tarceva has been shown to extend the lives of patients with cancers such as Mr Hill's and to improve their quality of life.
It has been welcomed by cancer specialists around the world and is used extensively in Europe and the US.
Mrs Hill said: "The doctors said we would lose David if he had any more chemotherapy treatment, so we couldn't risk that.
"To be told there was a drug that could keep him alive, but it wasn't funded by the NHS was just devastating."
Having decided to launch her campaign, Chantelle put up dozens of posters across the town on lamp posts, in house windows and on street corners urging locals to help with fund-raising events.
Thanks to her efforts, Mr Hill began his treatment earlier this week.
He said: "Chantelle has done a wonderful job and we have had a great response and raised enough money so far for two months of treatment.
"But it shouldn't be down to a six-year-old girl to help me – it's terrible that she has had to resort to pleading for her dad's life.
"What is going to happen when those two months are over if we haven't managed to raise more money?"
Charity bosses have criticised the Government for not making life-extending drugs available to all.
Just 30 miles up the road from the Hills, the South Tyneside Primary Care Trust has agreed to pay for Tarceva for one patient, Jimmy Jenkyns.
Mr Jenkyns's health had improved markedly after he paid for the drug himself.
Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation said: "The Government must address unequal access to care for people with respiratory conditions across the UK."
Friday, October 26, 2007
NHS repairs 'backlog' hits £4bn
Britain's National Health Service has been boasting that they have a budget "surplus." But a new report shows that they have a "surplus" because they have $8 billion worth of key maintenance repairs that have been left undone. That figure would be more than eight times more than their heralded "surplus."
Now Department of Health is saying, "Oh no ... that's not true ... because 'repairs' come under a different budget." Oh yeah ... that works. The arrogance and incompetence of government rears its ugly head. If this is true, that means that there is one budget that counts, and another one for those silly repairs.
The Health Secretary says, "Public health budgets, education and training budgets and now the basic maintenance and upkeep of our hospitals have been laundered to produce this surplus." According to the Health Minister, maintenance that affects patient care is "always prioritized" but now responsibility to repair hospitals suddenly lies in the hands of the local NHS. He says "low priority" maintenance work doesn't get done because it would be "irresponsible to disrupt patient services."
Why should you give a flying you-know-what? This is your future in America. This is your health care future. Watch the red tape unwinding. Count the excuses. How many people have taken responsibility for letting British hospitals suffer from basic repairs? I'll tell you how many: none. Because that it government. And that is the future of this country. You don't want to be responsible for your own health care. You want the government to do it. So get ready for delays, long lines, shoddy facilities ... the works. Just visit your local Social Security office. Look at those people sitting around while workers file their nails. Coming soon to a doctor's office near you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7060379.stm
NHS trusts have a £4bn backlog of key maintenance repairs which range from fixing heating to meeting fire safety rules, government figures suggest.
The figure is eight times this year's much-heralded NHS surplus, which was achieved by making a variety of cuts.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said they showed the surplus was a "sham".
But the Department of Health said repairs come under a different budget, and have no bearing on the surplus.
"Backlog" repairs are those needed to bring NHS property in line with various standards.
They include repairing roofs and fixing drainage, but do not cover painting wards or replacing furniture.
It is large city hospital trusts which have the greatest backlog, according to Hospital Doctor, which first reported the details.
Priority treatment
"The truth is that the NHS surplus, which the government enjoys boasting about, is a sham," said Mr Lansley.
"Public health budgets, education and training budgets and now the basic maintenance and upkeep of our hospitals have been laundered to produce this surplus."
Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said urgent maintenance work that will affect patient care "is always prioritised", but he added that making this decision was up to the local NHS trust concerned.
There were occasions when "low priority" maintenance work was backlogged "to prevent disruption to patient services".
"It would be irresponsible to disrupt patient services to resolve them."
The Department of Health said that a leaking roof in an unused building would, for instance, be a lower priority that one starting to show damp in an occupied building.
Now Department of Health is saying, "Oh no ... that's not true ... because 'repairs' come under a different budget." Oh yeah ... that works. The arrogance and incompetence of government rears its ugly head. If this is true, that means that there is one budget that counts, and another one for those silly repairs.
The Health Secretary says, "Public health budgets, education and training budgets and now the basic maintenance and upkeep of our hospitals have been laundered to produce this surplus." According to the Health Minister, maintenance that affects patient care is "always prioritized" but now responsibility to repair hospitals suddenly lies in the hands of the local NHS. He says "low priority" maintenance work doesn't get done because it would be "irresponsible to disrupt patient services."
Why should you give a flying you-know-what? This is your future in America. This is your health care future. Watch the red tape unwinding. Count the excuses. How many people have taken responsibility for letting British hospitals suffer from basic repairs? I'll tell you how many: none. Because that it government. And that is the future of this country. You don't want to be responsible for your own health care. You want the government to do it. So get ready for delays, long lines, shoddy facilities ... the works. Just visit your local Social Security office. Look at those people sitting around while workers file their nails. Coming soon to a doctor's office near you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7060379.stm
NHS trusts have a £4bn backlog of key maintenance repairs which range from fixing heating to meeting fire safety rules, government figures suggest.
The figure is eight times this year's much-heralded NHS surplus, which was achieved by making a variety of cuts.
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said they showed the surplus was a "sham".
But the Department of Health said repairs come under a different budget, and have no bearing on the surplus.
"Backlog" repairs are those needed to bring NHS property in line with various standards.
They include repairing roofs and fixing drainage, but do not cover painting wards or replacing furniture.
It is large city hospital trusts which have the greatest backlog, according to Hospital Doctor, which first reported the details.
Priority treatment
"The truth is that the NHS surplus, which the government enjoys boasting about, is a sham," said Mr Lansley.
"Public health budgets, education and training budgets and now the basic maintenance and upkeep of our hospitals have been laundered to produce this surplus."
Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said urgent maintenance work that will affect patient care "is always prioritised", but he added that making this decision was up to the local NHS trust concerned.
There were occasions when "low priority" maintenance work was backlogged "to prevent disruption to patient services".
"It would be irresponsible to disrupt patient services to resolve them."
The Department of Health said that a leaking roof in an unused building would, for instance, be a lower priority that one starting to show damp in an occupied building.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
STATE-RUN CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE
The Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, is threatening to sue the federal government. Spitzer's hair is on fire over new regulations on children's health insurance.
In our move toward socialized medicine, coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program increases to parents who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level – that's $80,000.
But new regulations say that states would have to cover 95 percent of poverty-level children before it can expand access to middle-income children. It also requires that children have no health insurance for a year before they can be covered by the state. Spitzer says that these regulations conflict with existing laws.
Eliot Spitzer says, "There is a moral imperative that we cover our children with health care."
What Spitzer really meant to say is that there is a socialist imperative that we move immediately to bring about national health care. The government simply must have this power over the citizens.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2720069120070828?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:48pm EDT
By Rachel Breitman
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Monday threatened to sue the federal government on charges that new regulations on children's health insurance violate an existing program that covers children from lower-income families.
At issue is New York's plan to expand coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to children whose parents earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, from 250 percent currently.
But under new federal regulations that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published on August 17, states would have to cover 95 percent of poverty-level families before expanding access to middle-income children.
The rules also require children to have no health coverage for a year before they can join the state plans.
"There is a moral imperative that we cover our children with health care," Spitzer, a Democrat, told reporters.
Congress renewed the Children's Health Insurance Program in early August, adding $50 billion, partly funded with a 45-cent-per-pack cigarette tax hike.
Spitzer said the federal government's new regulations conflict with the existing law.
Spitzer noted the current federal children's health insurance plan lapses on September 30, and said he might wait until then to consider a lawsuit.
New York plans to expand coverage to an additional 70,000 children, from 340,000 currently eligible. The change in income levels would mean that a family with income of up to $69,000 would be eligible for coverage, from $43,000.
New York is one of 18 states expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.
President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the federal plan, calling it a move toward nationalized health care.
While New York already has enrolled 88 percent of children from poor families, several governors call the 95 percent threshold required to expand coverage to the middle-class unrealistic. Health policy experts say many families are unaware that they qualify for benefits.
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland on Friday called on U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to drop the new rules and instead "work with the states to develop guidance that will promote the best interests of uninsured children."
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch concurred Monday in a letter to Bush.
"These new rules put the health of children at risk, at a time when we should be doing more to provide access to quality health care," Lynch wrote.
In our move toward socialized medicine, coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program increases to parents who earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level – that's $80,000.
But new regulations say that states would have to cover 95 percent of poverty-level children before it can expand access to middle-income children. It also requires that children have no health insurance for a year before they can be covered by the state. Spitzer says that these regulations conflict with existing laws.
Eliot Spitzer says, "There is a moral imperative that we cover our children with health care."
What Spitzer really meant to say is that there is a socialist imperative that we move immediately to bring about national health care. The government simply must have this power over the citizens.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2720069120070828?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:48pm EDT
By Rachel Breitman
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on Monday threatened to sue the federal government on charges that new regulations on children's health insurance violate an existing program that covers children from lower-income families.
At issue is New York's plan to expand coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to children whose parents earn up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, from 250 percent currently.
But under new federal regulations that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published on August 17, states would have to cover 95 percent of poverty-level families before expanding access to middle-income children.
The rules also require children to have no health coverage for a year before they can join the state plans.
"There is a moral imperative that we cover our children with health care," Spitzer, a Democrat, told reporters.
Congress renewed the Children's Health Insurance Program in early August, adding $50 billion, partly funded with a 45-cent-per-pack cigarette tax hike.
Spitzer said the federal government's new regulations conflict with the existing law.
Spitzer noted the current federal children's health insurance plan lapses on September 30, and said he might wait until then to consider a lawsuit.
New York plans to expand coverage to an additional 70,000 children, from 340,000 currently eligible. The change in income levels would mean that a family with income of up to $69,000 would be eligible for coverage, from $43,000.
New York is one of 18 states expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program.
President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the federal plan, calling it a move toward nationalized health care.
While New York already has enrolled 88 percent of children from poor families, several governors call the 95 percent threshold required to expand coverage to the middle-class unrealistic. Health policy experts say many families are unaware that they qualify for benefits.
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland on Friday called on U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to drop the new rules and instead "work with the states to develop guidance that will promote the best interests of uninsured children."
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch concurred Monday in a letter to Bush.
"These new rules put the health of children at risk, at a time when we should be doing more to provide access to quality health care," Lynch wrote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
