England: smokers and the obese to be barred from receiving routine surgery

[musterion]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/

The decision, described by the Royal College of Surgeons as the “most severe the modern NHS has ever seen”, led to warnings that other trusts will soon be forced to follow suit and rationing will become the norm if the current funding crisis continues.

Chris Hopson, the head of NHS Providers, which represents acute care, ambulance and community services, said: “I think we are going to see more and more decisions like this.

“It’s the only way providers are going to be able to balance their books, and in a way you have to applaud their honesty. You can see why they’re doing this – the service is bursting at the seams.”

Cost/benefit ratios applied to humans already tax-raped to pay for the care they're going to be denied.

Single payer = single decider.

 

[Tambora]

Squirrely, isn't it.
We will FORCE you to pay for it for others, but you don't get nuttin.

 

[musterion]

And they say death panels are unthinkable but it's baked into the cake.

 

[glassjester]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/




Cost/benefit ratios applied to humans already tax-raped to pay for the care they're going to be denied.

Single payer = single decider.

Is that fat-shaming?

 

[musterion]

Is that fat-shaming?

I don't think so; I didn't see where they said "Lose weight or you don't get your hip replaced." They decided to cut two statistical bad risk groups and that's that.

Smokers, statistically, won't live long enough to pay as much in taxes as non-smokers.

The obese, same.

Charlie Gard, same.

Eventually, old people. Mentally retarded. And the list will grow of groups who the gov't decides statistically consume more than they produce.

Watch the scene where Sol Roth "goes home" from Soylent Green. It's coming.

 

[glassjester]

I don't think so; I didn't see where they said "Lose weight or you don't get your hip replaced." They decided to cut two statistical bad risk groups and that's that.

Yeah, I think it said in the article they could get whatever surgery they were waiting for if they lose 10% of their body weight.

Smokers, statistically, won't live long enough to pay as much in taxes as non-smokers.

The obese, same.

Charlie Gard, same.

Eventually, old people. Mentally retarded. And the list will grow of groups who the gov't decides statistically consume more than they produce.

I think you're right.

Watch the scene where Sol Roth "goes home" from Soylent Green. It's coming.

Yes, I am often reminded of that specific scene when reading the news. I think you're right again.

 

[musterion]

Yeah, I think it said in the article they could get whatever surgery they were waiting for if they lose 10% of their body weight.

Thanks, I missed that. The statistical cost/benefit thinking is still driving it, though.


My favorite color is orange, I guess.

 

[glassjester]

Thanks, I missed that. The statistical cost/benefit thinking is still driving it, though.

Yes, certainly.

Maybe the system will collapse before they can initiate a "final solution" scenario.

 

[musterion]

Or they institute some form of final solution to forestall the collapse.

 

[glassjester]

Or they institute some form of final solution to forestall the collapse.

:think:

The plausibility of that is scary.

 

[kiwimacahau]

This is what happens to publicly funded health after 40 years of neoliberal economics. Time to change the paradigm.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[musterion]

Change it to what?

 

[Jonahdog]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/




Cost/benefit ratios applied to humans already tax-raped to pay for the care they're going to be denied.

Single payer = single decider.

ah, and the for-profit US health insurance carries never use cost/benefit ratios in their decision making? So it is ok for your profit making insurance company to decide?
Just checking/

 

[musterion]

ah, and the for-profit US health insurance carries never use cost/benefit ratios in their decision making? So it is ok for your profit making insurance company to decide?
Just checking/

Huh?

 

[Jonahdog]

ah, and the for-profit US health insurance carriers never use cost/benefit ratios in their decision making? So it is ok for your profit making insurance company to decide?
Just checking/

 

[kmoney]

ah, and the for-profit US health insurance carries never use cost/benefit ratios in their decision making? So it is ok for your profit making insurance company to decide?
Just checking/

:up:

 

[rexlunae]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...mokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/




Cost/benefit ratios applied to humans already tax-raped to pay for the care they're going to be denied.

Single payer = single decider.

Is it morally superior to deny a person care based upon whether their credit card gets declined versus denying a person care based upon their health and the likelihood of the intervention helping them long-term.

 

[musterion]

Is it morally superior to deny a person care based upon whether their credit card gets declined versus denying a person care based upon their health and the likelihood of the intervention helping them long-term.

It has been federal law for a long time that no emergency room can deny service because someone who shows up can't pay. It's plainly stated on a big poster somewhere in every ER.

 

[rexlunae]

It has been federal law for a long time that no emergency room can deny service because someone who shows up can't pay. It's plainly stated on a big poster somewhere in every ER.

All that that means is that someone showing up at an emergency room must be stabilized. It provides no guarantee that they will receive even necessary treatment beyond that. You come in with treatable cancer, and no imminent threat to your life, and you can and will be discharged after an evaluation. Some hospitals may choose not to do that, but there is no legal protection against it.

https://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm

 

[musterion]

All that that means is that someone showing up at an emergency room must be stabilized. It provides no guarantee that they will receive even necessary treatment beyond that. You come in with treatable cancer, and no imminent threat to your life, and you can and will be discharged after an evaluation. Some hospitals may choose not to do that, but there is no legal protection against it.

https://law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_malpractice/hospital-patients.htm

Well it's not a problem now, is it.