so where does it say she can't pay for them?

It doesn't actually say that she can't pay for her drugs, but if she does she will also have to pay for the rest of her care as well. Of course, by the end of the article the chair-warmers have changed their minds and given her the fancy meds for free.

HAPPY ENDING!!

Ok: 'Britan's NHS has told a woman that they will not pay for Avistan, and if she buys it herself, they will no longer pay for her cancer treatments at all'.

Britain offers woman free care. If she wants more care, they tell her that she has to pay for all of her care.

won't let her pay for them either

hmmmmmm...

Nocal, she was already selling her house to buy the drugs. Telling her that she has to pay for the whole bill is like telling her that she has to die.

If my private insurance didn't want to pay for the prescription, I wouldn't get cut off for paying it on my own. That's the point. Universal healthcare is supposed to replace insurance, but in this case, it certainly doesn't work the same way.

Why should the state decide if you live or die?

The curious thing about the article is that is doesn't tell us what the doctor prescribed, just that this woman wanted Atavan. There has been this curious shift in public opinion that paints the medical profession as a bunch of goobering, malpracticing retards. There may have been excellent reasons why she was not prescribed this medicine, and before you libertarians get all angried up, realize that the medical profession abides by the Hippocratic oath:

(I know there are modern versions, but in the classical Greek)
I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.

It also might help your argument to understand how 'universal' healthcare works, not all countries have the same system.

Or just continue to read from the Libertarian playbook.

Nocal, she was already selling her house to buy the drugs. Telling her that she has to pay for the whole bill is like telling her that she has to die.

oh so they said have free healthcare that we give you, or pay for what you want. aren't you mr. bootstraps? she can't afford better care, and it isn't a right, so she shouldn't have it. or are you changing your mind somehow?

You are quite the sophist, nocal.

She can afford healthcare, she has insurance (which, in this case is the government). She should have it, but her insurance is pulling her coverage because she wants to pay for the part they deny her.

If she did not have insurance, it would be different... The point here is that government-run healthcare can pull some really sketchy maneuvers. Private insurance in the US would never pull that maneuver. Especially not on the grounds that NHS used to justify it.

You are quite the sophist, nocal.
Britain's NHS has told a woman that they won't pay for the drugs her oncologist recommended, and won't let her pay for them either.

if i'm a sophist, then what does that make you?

Private insurance in the US would never pull that maneuver. Especially not on the grounds that NHS used to justify it.

i just voted on a news story about a woman who was just awarded $9 million after her insurance canceled her coverage when she developed breast cancer. and if you have ever had someone you know get sick, you'd know that sometimes insurance only approves generic medications.

quite honestly, you swarmed the inferior link, and i don't know why.

One of Mrs. Hirst’s troubles came, it seems, because the Avastin she proposed to pay for would have had to be administered at the same time as the drug Taxol, which she was receiving free on the health service. Because of that, she could not schedule separate appointments.

'i just voted on a news story about a woman who was just awarded $9 million after her insurance canceled her coverage when she developed breast cancer. and if you have ever had someone you know get sick, you'd know that sometimes insurance only approves generic medications.'

It's a lot easier to sue a private company than the government.

The issue I take with this is not that she was denied the medication by NHS. It is that they took the extra step of threatening to cut off the treatment they were otherwise willing to pay for if she bought the medication anyway. What is the purpose of that?

Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.

Oh my bad, this is about class-warfare. Nevermind. Obviously this was warranted then.

This woman could have taken private health insurance - but she didn't. If she had (and her private HI plus her National Insurance Contributions which also pays for social security as well as health care would cost less than typical american HI payments) then the Private Health insurance would maybe have picked it up.

or maybe not. This is an experimental drug of dubious efficacy (hence the NHS refusal to use it early in treatment because it does not work) so a private insurer might have refused anyway. From what I hear American insurance is a hit or miss thing.

Mr Rearden you are starting to look like an HMO troll.

but...but...she would have to pay for her healthcare!

why, in a true FREE MARKET SYSTEM,

id50: if you've been told all your life that the NHS was going to take care of you... or at least that they'd provide a certain minimum service, why would you take out Private health insurance?

Nocal, if there were no NHS, if she had privatem, capitalist insurance, she would not have been denied treatment because some other poorer patient might not be able to scrape up the money. Ironically, this woman isn't all that rich, she was selling her home and possessions to pay for the meds.