My Dear Chien,
The NHS comes up regularly with pro-support for this and anti-support for that
kind of drug or treatment. It has an organisation called N.I.C.E composed of
expert lobbyists in the various industries associated with the NHS which
decides using many criteria in the algorithm of human life versus expenditure
of human resources, cost of drug, cost of doctor, cost of medicine and efficacy
of drug and side effects on patients. At the moment, it advocates zero
tolerance of alcohol. Everyone is following the advice...and always do.
If we could get the huge US and UK drugs companies to start investing in
designing proper drugs, instead of subsidising them in putting up new head
offices, and spending loadsamoney trying to stop others from producing drugs
that work, and expensively lobbying NHS executives with their new fangled
drugs wot don't work and to try and undermine and subvert organisations like
N.I.C.E. to pay more for their crap drugs and wacko medicines and snake oil,
then we would all be better off. Not that the likes of Trump would listen, too
much bothered with protecting his hotels and golf courses from another
And not that the Conservative Party or Theresa May would listen either, they
have too many other fish to fry. And as for the Labour Party...they are
listening...but what else they would do...is something else altogether...and
anyway, they aren't the government...they are just...in waiting.
The NHS also has a huge waiting list for midwives, and nurses and doctors, who
are retiring or moving over to part time work. The training establishments are
underfunded. Brexit with its uncertainty has added another dimension in terms
of bringing in more specialist foreign workers. There is a postcode lottery
for many services. It is also going bankrupt. It's pension fund has huge debts.
It has fallen behind many other parts of the world in terms of treatment for
cancer. The waiting lists for many operations and procedures have increased
considerably due to underfunding from the government, which with much disdain
could pour two trillion pounds into banks and other financial institutions,
under the slate of quantitative easing and is still doing so on the basis of
propping them up, and their shit bonds and crap credit swap facilities. Huge
pressures through wealthy lobbyists and corporate lobbyists put pressure on
governments through inducements and exposures and the Parliamentary
Representatives, by offering all sorts of after employment deals, or
threatening to expose government failings, to either privatise the services in
the NHS, many of which privatisations, have ended in disastrous failures and
many bankruptcies including whole areas of the ambulance services, regional
trust hospitals being left in utter chaos. The government then has to step in
and once again the taxpayer has to subsidise the big fat lazy capitalist, who
won't invest his money unless his investment is guaranteed by the tax man, and
who has already walked away with the money and put it into some tax haven or
other. The population is getting older and cost more to look after. So what
do you expect?
Perhaps if the governments in all countries stopped propping up and feeding
the weakest, parasitic, pathetic, greediest and most guzzliest, tax avoiding
elements of the banking and finance industry, and their associated
fraternities, and started pumping the capital into the economy of the small
businesses, into such areas as renewable energy instead of China, France and
various other international corporations and conglomerates, we would be able to
afford more to put into helping more people overcome their financial and health
problems, by providing more jobs and increasing the amount of money circulating
in the economy. This would allow us to improve the public health, education
and social service systems, and get them doing the job they are supposed to
do, instead of hamstringing them.
I think it was Keynes, who said that for every £1 one puts into the economy,
it generates an extra £3...but there again, it might have been Karl Marx or
Adam Smith...and who are they anyway. And perhaps if the USA was to buy back
all its junk bonds from the Chinese, write them off and invest new money
through quantitative easing into creating and developing, small US businesses,
developing ecologically sound and fit industries, the product of which aids and
abets the well being of the people in those areas where there is a lot of
unemployment, we might improve the situation for the many rather than the few.
But there again...pigs might fly...and why bother...who wants to solve such
problems when making money and getting ones 15 minute of fame on Facebook,
Twitter, or YouTube is a greater priority...:-)
The original idea of the NHS of course, was that it would be funded by the
workers, and run by the workers. The workers never got near it, apart from
working for it.
P.S. I was only saying...the NHS is not a Utopia.
P.P.S. What is socialized medicine? Is it something to do with privatising
On 30/07/2017 10:16, Chien Fume wrote:
Britain’s Socialized Healthcare Now Recommends Against Herbal Treatments
By The Daily Bell Staff - July 28, 2017
Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) is a shining example of everything
socialized medicine has to offer.
The NHS prevents parents from seeking experimental
for terminally ill children.
The government can deem patients close to death, and remove feeding tubes to
starve them to death. This was once called the Liverpool Care Pathway, which
has since been renamed, but not changed.
The NHS will even cut patients off from all government care if they catch them
paying for their own care elsewhere, or using natural healing methods.
Recently the NHS
obese patients and smokers are not eligible for hip and knee replacements.
And now, the NHS is recommending doctors no longer prescribe herbal and
homeopathic treatments to patients.
A report released last week by the
recommends what drugs and medicines doctors should no longer prescribe. Some
might see this and think the health service is finally getting rid of some
dangerous and expensive pharmaceuticals. But the exact opposite is the case.
Here are the guidelines for how the NHS chose what to trim:
* Items of low clinical effectiveness, where there is a lack of robust
clinical effectiveness or there are significant safety concerns;
* Items which are clinically effective but where more cost-effective
available, including products that have been subject to excessive price
* Items which are clinically effective but, due to the nature of the
deemed a low priority for NHS funding
That last bullet is especially telling. They basically keep it obscure enough
so that they can recommend not prescribing anything they want. But also they
admit right there that even if something works, but has a lower cost
alternative, that is a good way to save money. It is this one size fits all
approach which focuses more on the bottom line than on an individual patient.
Officially, these guidelines are meant to save limited resources for the NHS.
But they aren’t taking a chunk out of their £9 billion budget by deprescribing
dangerous and expensive pharmaceutical drugs.
Instead, they are nixing herbal treatments, on which the NHS currently spends
£100,009 per year. Most other suggestions in the report cut out treatments
which cost millions, or tens of millions of dollars. But these comparatively
cheap solutions somehow also made it to the chopping block.
* Advise CCGs that prescribers in primary care should not
initiate herbal items for any new patient
* Advise CCGs to support prescribers in deprescribing
herbal items in all patients and where appropriate, ensure
the availability of relevant services to facilitate this change.
Likewise, homeopathic cures cost the NHS £92,000 per year.
In 2010 a report by the House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee, found that the use of homeopathy was
not evidence based and any benefits to patients was down to
It seems hardly significant whether the cures were from placebo or not; were
the patients cured? Many findings suggest the same placebo effect takes place
from big brand drugs. Yet the drugs cause adverse side effects that limit the
body’s natural ability to heal. The homeopathic treatments support the immune
system, even if their main benefit is the mind over matter phenomenon.
But when you have single payer healthcare, these debates mean little. The
central authority will decide what patients get. If patients resist, they will
be cut off.
Who Made These Recommendations?
Who was it that decided to cut out natural healthy alternative medicines?
A committee of NHS officials. There is now a
which allows you to search for NHS doctors in Great Britain who have received
consulting payments from drug industries. The database only goes back to 2015
and does not cover other perks doctors receive from drug companies, like free
trips to conferences, or outings to sporting events.
The following NHS officials are all part of the 18 person Joint Clinical
Working Group which made the recommendations.
The Committee Chair Graham Jackson received over £6,000 in 2016 and 2015
consulting for pharmaceutical companies.
Manir Hussain received over £5,600 in 2015 and 2016 for consulting work.
Robbie Turner made £3,600 over two years, mostly from Pfizer.
Duncan Jenkins comes up in the system with payments over £1,500, and David Webb
got £800 in 2016.
Also involved in making the recommendations were several organizations, among
them the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.