NHS Worcestershire ruled that Judith Roe, 74, did not qualify for NHS funding because her condition was a “social” rather than “health” problem, even though she was so ill she could not make a cup of tea and regularly left the stove on. She was forced to sell her £200,000 home to pay her £600-a-week nursing home fees, which would have been funded if she had been categorised correctly. Mrs Roe’s family appealed to the Health Service Ombudsman, which ruled that Mrs Roe’s assessment had been incorrect and her treatment should have been funded by the NHS…
Mrs Roe, a retired church warden and school teacher, was diagnosed in 2002 with severe Alzheimer’s and Parkinsons. Under English law, elderly people must pay for their own residential care unless their needs are deemed health-related. She was assessed but her needs were regarded to be social rather than health, meaning she did not qualify for funding. [read more]
6 Comments so far
Leave a comment
[...] See the rest here: Obamacare Preview: Family told by NHS: Alzheimer's is not a … [...]
Pingback by Obamacare Preview: Family told by NHS: Alzheimer's is not a … | Alzheimers and what you can do to prevent alzheimer August 22, 2009 @ 10:09 amYou might want to read the bill. Here’s a link:
Comment by Ed Darrell August 22, 2009 @ 5:38 pmhttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/death-panel-as-fiction/
Ed,
The bill’s intent is to push us to single payer healthcare (single payer is entirely unconstitutional by the way), but the above example is what the inevitable result of single payer is…rationing. It is done (and increasingly so) everywhere single payer exists.
I would also mention, that everything that Democrats have been doing to push America toward their goal of single payer (an impossible goal unless we amend the constitution) is EXACTLY what is responsible for making health care in America so expensive!
You might try reading history.
Comment by American Elephant August 22, 2009 @ 6:36 pmEach of the mentions noted in that post expands care to everyone. Not rationing. No limitation to anyone.
Disagree? Hey, there’s a link to the bill, find the section and quote it to us.
But please, enough of the pure fiction about what’s in the bill. There is no rationing provision, especially no rationing of consultations to be sure that patient wishes are adhered to in end-of-life situations. Read the bill, you’ll see.
Comment by Ed Darrell August 22, 2009 @ 8:30 pmAre you being deliberately dense? Of course the bill does not say “we are going to ration.” Government-run medical care always rations. Governments cannot insure everybody, give everybody all good things and not ration.
We cannot afford ObamaCare. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated it at over $1 trillion in the first decade and another trillion in the second. Private economic analysts double that. History suggests that the estimates are far under actual costs. And this is true in every country.
Once you open the door to the government, they will tinker constantly, as all European countries do, trying to make things work. There are inevitable results. Fewer of our best and brightest go into medicine. Hospitals cut corners. Fewer of our best go into nursing. There is way less innovation, both in pharmaceuticals and in equipment. The profit motive is what creates innovation, and competition is what keeps prices down.
Liberals reject this fact, and in rejecting it do not understand why costs spiral out-of-control and innovation slows to a crawl.
We have example after example of Liberals saying that their aim is single-payer government- controlled health care. We have dozens and dozens of examples of such programs — they all are struggling with costs, all are rationing in one way or another. Those who can afford it come to the United States for care when they are seriously ill.
Your continuous demand that we show you where in the bill it says this or that is terminally naive. It ignores economics and history, both the history of all other countries, but the history of our own Congress.
Comment by The Elephant's Child August 23, 2009 @ 2:06 pm