Forum menu
No not in wales as far as i know. Its a charity i think. No it definately is a charity. Dunno about the rest of the country mind you.
Let's simplify it to trail centre riders need to be insured 😀
non essential cesarean sections.
Define "non essential". At least 50% of the kids my wife "teaches" are due to problems during birth. That kind of care costs serious money, is it more or less than the cost of generalised c-sections?
* "teaches" - most of them are seriously disabled, and there's a limit to what they're capable of learning.
Compared with most countries we have a pretty good mechanism for looking at cost effectiveness.
My PCT has a 20 page list of things that it will not fund. Lots of drugs do not make it to the NHS because the cost-effectiveness evidence is so poor. NICE etc etc
IVF is actually pretty cheap these days - and most of the people who can pay, do so.
Not doing Heart Transplants would render us a third world country. Virtually all other treatments for heart failure and cardiomyopathies prolong survival, but do not improve quality of life.
Gasttic bypass surgery is cost effective, gastric banding perhaps less so.
One trouble is that some really very useless things (PSA tests in men with no symptoms, Osteoporosis "screening" in people with no risk factors or fragility fractures) etc have big lobby groups behind them with celeb and Daily Mail and daytime TV endorsements... 👿
I heard on the radio the other day that all women will now have the option to have a cesarean, whether they need it or not.
That shouldn't be allowed.
[b]flow[/b] - whilst I have some sympathy with your view... I think I'd ask the opinion of a bunch of people who were likely to be able to have a caesarian, rather than you and I... 😉
flow - along with proper counselling on the risks of caesarian the hope is to actually reduce the numbers by providing proper information and stopping it being an adversarial situation.
Wonder what it would do to the NHS budget if we abolished patents on drugs?
That shouldn't be allowed.
[img] 
?w=435&h=244[/img]
A friend had her breast cancer treated with herceptin. She's still alive 5 years on. Difficult to know what the outcome would have been without it of course, but her it's all good.
[i]all women will now have the option to have a cesarean[/i]
Um, I would hope that this is the case, just like everyone with appendicitis has the option of an appendectomy/appendicetomy (I'm never quite sure which of these terms is correct).
I think the point should be that only the people who medically require a caesarean section should get one; it shouldn't be an 'option' in the sense that you get to choose.
Anyone got the rates of C-Sections in the UK compared to other countries handy?
Not doing Heart Transplants would render us a third world country
Why? Its a huge amount of money tried up in heart transplants to benefit a few people only. IMO your attitude is more about prestige than health
IVF - thousands of pounds a cycle - its a significant sum across the country for something that has no benefit to health.
NIce is OK on the whole but does fold under pressure. To be abolished by teh condems tho IIRC
another one - drugs for dementia such as aricept ( well its now of patent so should be cheaper) but thes have huge costs for small benefits
all women will now have the option to have a cesareanUm, I would hope that this is the case, just like everyone with appendicitis has the option of an appendectomy/appendicetomy (I'm never quite sure which of these terms is correct).
I think the point should be that only the people who medically require a caesarean section should get one; it shouldn't be an 'option' in the sense that you get to choose.
So that would be why I wrote
then 🙄all women will now have the option to have a cesarean, [b]whether they need it or not[/b].
mrblobby - MemberWonder what it would do to the NHS budget if we abolished patents on drugs?
Thats a tricky one because then there is no incentive to produce new drugs.
However generic substitution would be a cost saver. at the moment if a gp prescribes "panadol" the chemist has to supply panadol even tho its far more expensive than the generic equivalent - this only applies for out of patent meds.
Its already done in hspital but I don't think it is in General Practice
Dog owners that get bitten.
IVF for drug addicts.
Wrist surgery for pron-addicts.
Dental work on people who never smile.
Anyone with a live rodent up their farter should be refused surgery.
Removing foreign objects from orifices where foreign objects should not be with a special dispensation for children under 10
EDIT Oh beaten to it
Patents last 20 years. 15 of those minimum are from discovery, thorough to clinical trials 1, 2, 3 and 4. The remaining 5 are where the pharma company has to recoup it's R&D investment and make a profit hopefully. They are not charities, you know.
If you abolish patents on drugs I think you'd find that no pharma company would bother to bring any drug product or substance to market or investigate and develop new ones.
I'd then probably lose my job and therefore home so I'd have no option other than hunting you down and killing you, or working in the public sector and lazing around all day counting my gold-plated pension...
edit: No issues from with use of generics, though. You'd have to be a **** to spend £3plus on Nurofen when you can get Tesco Value ibuprofen for 20p or something.
Ok, didn't see that bit, apologies fella.
...as for it 'not being allowed'...dunno.
There is a suggestion that one reason for the rise in rates of C-sections is that babies are getting bigger but ladies pelvises haven't caught up yet. This would seem to imply that God likes big buns, and he can not lie....
Who has a child under ten in an orifice it shouldn't be?
😀
We see the new medicine problem with antibiotics; what is the point in spending lots of money on developing a new antibiotic when it may only be used for 2 weeks by each patient, then end up having bacteria become resistant to it and become useless in a couple of years?
The cash is in drugs that people take every day for the next 20-30-40 years...
I personally think the welsh should pay for prescriptions, and there should be a charge for lifestyle treatments i.e. gastric bands should not be covered.
all treatment to people who do not reproduce should be stopped.
for not contributing to the worlds gene pool.
and cos they aint normal either.......... 😀
[i]Removing foreign objects from orifices where foreign objects should not be[/i]
Oh the (professional rather than recreational) stories I could tell....
[i]all treatment to people who do not reproduce should be stopped.
for not contributing to the worlds gene pool.
and cos they aint normal either.......... [/i]
If your address is:
Ton,
Under a bridge,
Near the field with the Billy goats in,
Green Grass Farm.
..I think you should have to pay a tax too.... 😉
what about treatment to those contributing to the gene puddle? Cousin-cousin marriage, sink estate mouth breathers etc...
Come on crikey. I could listen to "objects we've removed from people" stories all night. Since my brother in law left the NHS, I've been missing the tales. Dish us up a few.
Interestingly, although there probably are a few over paid managers, firing them all would be a drop in the ocean compared to the nhs drug budget (which,I believe, is the biggest spend). So all staff could stay,a long as we rationalise the prescription of certain drugs...
DrP
Well, remember the advert 'Acting on Impulse' for those perfume sprays in a handy size? Yup. About half full when we gave it back to him.
crikey, troll tax could raise a rake of moola, just from stw alone............ 😆
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo to troll tax.
...and the poor unfortunate who was vacuuming in the nude, in the garage, and fell backwards onto the tow-bar cap?
Shiny thing make it all better, maybe.
[i]Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo to troll tax.[/i]
Hmmm, I detect a certain amount of self interest.. 😀
Removing foreign objects from orifices where foreign objects should not beOh the (professional rather than recreational) stories I could tell....
*Spits out German sausage*
bloke on that new doctors thing had a bog brush stuck up his ring.............how did that happen?
I have a whole family of trolls. They are my friends. I don't see why they should be taxed
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3176/2920571243_84d6e4fa1b_b.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/2920571243/ ]Trolls[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr
Tons hair [i]has[/i] grown..
pink?
every time you go the the GP you get a check up and if you're healthy you get a full allowance, then if you're say; a bit overweight or you've been drinking too much, the the allowance is cut slightly, so if you get ill and need hospital treatment, the bit that's 'free at the point of use' is reduced slightly, so at the end of any treatment, there's a bill.
incentivices people to keep themselves healthy, overwise it'll have an impact on their wallets/purses.
Sara (mrs emsz)
Speaking of Trolls:
Treatment of head-injuries on non-helmet wearers... 😉
Anyone injured at work.
This would be paid for by the employer's liability insurance.
Incentivise companies to reduce any risk of injury to their staff.
wonder how many treatments axing these 'workers' would pay for...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Pilgrim
Treatment of head-injuries on non-helmet wearers...
Sure, but only if you apply it to car occupants as well. Fair's fair.
and pedestrians