The Underworld Of Lightly (& Logically) Moderated Discussion & Debate


    Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Share
    avatar
    ChelseaT
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ChelseaT on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:10 pm

    Guess this deserves a new thread.

    I agree with Lynz, I don't think IVF should be funded.
    The breast cancer drug needs more funding.
    Does a patient who has mental health problems relating to their appearance get tax payer funded cosmetic surgery?
    Does a patient who suffers with back problems get a tax payer funded breast reduction surgery? (Not rhetorical, I don't know where to look)

    Just creating a thread for discussion.

    Go!
    avatar
    Psalter
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Psalter on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:19 pm

    izzi wrote:
    Psalter wrote:I don't know that it really does... sure, emotional health and security... but mental health?

    I 100% agree with him that IVF should not be taxpayer funded.



    I would say emotional health and mental health are closely related.
    We live in a society where, for the most part, people expect to form a relationship and reproduce. Failure to have children can be a huge issue for some people.

    Government policy is definitely weighted towards population increase at the moment. That is a major driver of what is funded and what is not. It's not like you can just rock up and get IVF, the process is quite long.

    Oh, I know it is quite a process, and perhaps you are right about the population growth issue. However, I don't see why people that are upset about not being able to have a kid should have this remedied as a right. Like Chelsea said, if someone has depression and a root cause is something like ugliness (or infertility), why should the good-looking breeders pay for them?

    I think you might be able to get breast reduction surgery if it impacts your spinal health. I don't know for certain though.
    avatar
    izzi
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  izzi on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:20 pm

    Doesn't everything need more funding?

    I'm fine with IVF, it's not like it's people to lazy to fuck having a whim to produce a child.

    Appearance related plastic surgery? I'm sure some is funded ( probably not your botox though Chelsea)

    Breast reduction, not sure but it should be.
    avatar
    izzi
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  izzi on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:26 pm

    Psalter wrote:
    izzi wrote:
    Psalter wrote:I don't know that it really does... sure, emotional health and security... but mental health?

    I 100% agree with him that IVF should not be taxpayer funded.



    I would say emotional health and mental health are closely related.
    We live in a society where, for the most part, people expect to form a relationship and reproduce. Failure to have children can be a huge issue for some people.

    Government policy is definitely weighted towards population increase at the moment. That is a major driver of what is funded and what is not. It's not like you can just rock up and get IVF, the process is quite long.

    Oh, I know it is quite a process, and perhaps you are right about the population growth issue. However, I don't see why people that are upset about not being able to have a kid should have this remedied as a right. Like Chelsea said, if someone has depression and a root cause is something like ugliness (or infertility), why should the good-looking breeders pay for them?

    I think you might be able to get breast reduction surgery if it impacts your spinal health. I don't know for certain though.


    It's not exactly a right, you have to have tried for quite a while. Having more than three of four miscarriages bumps you up the list. It's a long hard road and I'd say having kids is very important to those who go that far. The demand for fertility treatments will probably continue to rise.
    avatar
    Psalter
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Psalter on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:29 pm

    Sure, if there was a huge need for a population increase, and we had the revenue... but we don't.
    avatar
    izzi
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  izzi on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:33 pm

    Psalter wrote:Sure, if there was a huge need for a population increase, and we had the revenue... but we don't.

    I would imagine that the future tax revenue potential of a IVF child would far outweigh the cost of the treatment. Think of it as an investment.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:35 pm

    ChelseaT wrote:Guess this deserves a new thread.

    I agree with Lynz, I don't think IVF should be funded.
    The breast cancer drug needs more funding.
    Does a patient who has mental health problems relating to their appearance get tax payer funded cosmetic surgery?
    Does a patient who suffers with back problems get a tax payer funded breast reduction surgery? (Not rhetorical, I don't know where to look)

    Just creating a thread for discussion.

    Go!

    Herceptin was a funny one though... hugely emotive subject and there are a shitload of studies out there saying it only effective on very select forms of breast cancer and if isnt effective after 3 months (hence pharmac funding for only 3 and the masses bitching about it). So should we give it to every woman with breast cancer just in case it works? I don't know. I guess you want to try anything if it's you with cancer.

    And yes I believe you can get a breast reduction in the public health system for back/shoulder/neck problems.
    avatar
    the distant one
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  the distant one on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:40 pm

    herceptin is a very very expensive drug, and not exactly the most effective form of treatment, I remeber speaking to a cancer specialist who didnt agree with the full funding of herceptin. It is only effective in very small cases.

    Funded IVF doesnt get my approval I know that adopting is a long hard provess but unfortunatly if nature (hehehe I was gona say god) didnt want you to have children then its just not meant to be. Its harsh but jsut how I feel

    breast reductions?? not having titties myself I dont no the amount of pain some chicks go through by having to large breasts and I dont know the costs involved so couldnt really comment.

    mental health problems from appearance? never actaully heard of that before and would think that it was a more deeper problem then just the way they look
    avatar
    ChelseaT
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ChelseaT on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:42 pm

    ydekm wrote:Herceptin was a funny one though... hugely emotive subject and there are a shitload of studies out there saying it only effective on very select forms of breast cancer and if isnt effective after 3 months (hence pharmac funding for only 3 and the masses bitching about it). So should we give it to every woman with breast cancer just in case it works? I don't know. I guess you want to try anything if it's you with cancer.

    And yes I believe you can get a breast reduction in the public health system for back/shoulder/neck problems.

    I clearly didn't read up on my Herceptin information before I posted this thread. Embarassed

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:46 pm

    ChelseaT wrote:
    ydekm wrote:Herceptin was a funny one though... hugely emotive subject and there are a shitload of studies out there saying it only effective on very select forms of breast cancer and if isnt effective after 3 months (hence pharmac funding for only 3 and the masses bitching about it). So should we give it to every woman with breast cancer just in case it works? I don't know. I guess you want to try anything if it's you with cancer.

    And yes I believe you can get a breast reduction in the public health system for back/shoulder/neck problems.

    I clearly didn't read up on my Herceptin information before I posted this thread. Embarassed

    But it raises another question, for me anyway, that just because someone doesnt tick all the boxes in terms of tried and tested Herceptin research, and there was truly nothing else out there for me but chemo... should I get the opportunity to take a drug that MAY help? I dunno. Ick, horrible to think about really.

    But if it's going to be black and white, then a lot less women should be getting it based on studies on it's effectiveness and Pharmac shouldn't be funding it longer than 3 months or for some women at all.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Waireka on Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:50 pm

    ydekm wrote:And yes I believe you can get a breast reduction in the public health system for back/shoulder/neck problems.

    According to a friend of my mother, the government only funds a certain amount of reductions every year, nowhere near the amount who desperately need them. Not certain of how true that is and if it is still like this.
    avatar
    Sassydot
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Sassydot on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:09 am

    They should make adoption more accessible, rather than concentrating so much on IVF, IMO.

    I know of a couple who have had 2 lots of IVF that I know of, one was funded the other(s) would not have been. They also did foster care. Because of the fostercare they weren't seen as eligible to be adoptive parents. But because actually GETTING an adopted child seemed so unlikely anyway, they didn't want to stop fostering, either.

    I think the demand on IVF and such, would be considerably less, if infertile couples who want children were more realistically able to adopt.

    That said, I understand why they do fund IVF.
    The baby boomers are all approaching retirement now, and it's going to put a HUGE strain on the country's finances, unless we have a nice influx of taxpayers. I mean, $10K to fund a round of IVF is just around 1 year's income tax.
    Then after that lot, we'll be approaching retirement of people who are in their 40s ish now, who have never and will never own their own home. Paying rent is all well and good while they're working, but I hate to think what sort of state all these people are going to be in, and what the govt. is going to have to do to assist them, once they have to pay rent and live off superannuation

    Also, at least (usually) the couple who get IVF REALLY REALLY want that child. How much does it cost the country for medical treatment and to foster out an abused or neglected naturally conceived child?


    Last edited by Sassydot on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:14 am; edited 1 time in total

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:13 am

    Obese women tell of surgery letdown

    Two morbidly obese women risk losing limbs, going blind or even dying without gastric bypasses, but their district health boards will not pay for the life-changing surgery.

    Lynda Sim, of Wellington, and Whanganui woman Jasmin Sciascia – along with surgeons in both centres – are calling for a national service to increase access to bariatric surgery, which is available in only a few regions.

    The pair say they were given false hope by their DHBs, with hospital specialists telling them they were ideal candidates for the surgery and referring them to bariatric surgeons, before deciding their operations would not go ahead.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:19 am

    Sassydot wrote:They should make adoption more accessible, rather than concentrating so much on IVF, IMO.

    I know of a couple who have had 2 lots of IVF that I know of, one was funded the other(s) would not have been. They also did foster care. Because of the fostercare they weren't seen as eligible to be adoptive parents. But because actually GETTING an adopted child seemed so unlikely anyway, they didn't want to stop fostering, either.

    I think the demand on IVF and such, would be considerably less, if infertile couples who want children were more realistically able to adopt.

    That said, I understand why they do fund IVF.
    The baby boomers are all approaching retirement now, and it's going to put a HUGE strain on the country's finances, unless we have a nice influx of taxpayers. I mean, $10K to fund a round of IVF is just around 1 year's income tax.

    Also, at least (usually) the couple who get IVF REALLY REALLY want that child. How much does it cost the country for medical treatment and to foster out an abused or neglected naturally conceived child?

    The issue with adoption is that New Zealand law is focussed on never completely removing the rights of a parent and the cases of true "orphans" are rare.

    So you end up with fostering on a permanent basis, rather than adopting a child (or the adoption path through fostering is a long and hard one). So I guess it's how you look at the meaning of adoption. If you want a child to "own" (for lack of a better word) you will rarely find it in New Zealand. If you want to give a child a home and love and can cope with the fact that they may return to their birth family - then fostering will work for you.

    Most of the parents I know who have adopted, have gone overseas (Eastern Europe, Asia) to adopt.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:36 am

    I'll have to answer these questions individually.

    I agree with Lynz, I don't think IVF should be funded.

    Hubby's nephew and his wife had no other option than to seek IVF in order to conceive (I don't know why they couldn't do it naturally). Neither family is super wealthy, but they could probably have paid a portion of the costs. On their second attempt, they did conceive and had a great little boy. When they decided (soon after) they would want a second, they saved up the full amount for themselves. They were lucky that time and hit the target first time.

    Mental health issues CAN arise from being unable to conceive naturally. I don't agree with it not being funded at all, unless a couple is literally wealthy enough to afford it for themselves. Perhaps it should be means tested with flexibility considering each case individually.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:38 am

    The breast cancer drug needs more funding.

    Agreed. Did anyone realise that men can get breast cancer? I wonder if Herceptin works for them too. scratch

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:43 am

    83T'na wrote:The breast cancer drug needs more funding.

    Agreed. Did anyone realise that men can get breast cancer? I wonder if Herceptin works for them too. scratch

    Possibly not, it only works on specific types of breast cancer.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:47 am

    Does a patient who has mental health problems relating to their appearance get tax payer funded cosmetic surgery?

    I would like this to be decided on a case by case basis. About 35 years ago I was at school with a guy whose ears stuck out really badly. He suffered badly from teasing and took some real thumpings because he didn't stick up for himself much. It still only takes a relatively simple operation to fix this. I believe the tax payer funded operation he got saved his life. He had already tried to suicide at the age of 10.

    Personally, I have one ear that sticks out more than the other. I was able to hide it with my hair, but I'm sure that it has had a subliminal effect on how people 'see' me. It's not that noticable, but if your face isn't symmetrical, you are simply less attractive to others. Now, I would like to have this fixed, but not at the expense of the tax payer. It simply hasn't affected me in the same way it did him.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:52 am

    Does a patient who suffers with back problems get a tax payer funded breast reduction surgery?

    Yes, and it should continue. My best friend had this some 15 years ago.

    She had always been quite petite but when she entered menopause, her breasts grew. Lucky cow. Anyway, they got so big (32E) that it affected her back, and her ability to work and exercise. This created other health issues. Her doctor warned her she was a definate candidate for diabetes and heart problems. She had to reduce them by a significant amount or she could well be dead within 5 years. The cost of the operation has long since been paid back many times in the amount of tax she's been able to pay in the ensuing years.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Waireka on Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:15 am

    83T'na wrote:Does a patient who has mental health problems relating to their appearance get tax payer funded cosmetic surgery?

    I would like this to be decided on a case by case basis. About 35 years ago I was at school with a guy whose ears stuck out really badly. He suffered badly from teasing and took some real thumpings because he didn't stick up for himself much. It still only takes a relatively simple operation to fix this. I believe the tax payer funded operation he got saved his life. He had already tried to suicide at the age of 10.

    Personally, I have one ear that sticks out more than the other. I was able to hide it with my hair, but I'm sure that it has had a subliminal effect on how people 'see' me. It's not that noticable, but if your face isn't symmetrical, you are simply less attractive to others. Now, I would like to have this fixed, but not at the expense of the tax payer. It simply hasn't affected me in the same way it did him.


    That's a problem with people, not a problem with his ears.
    avatar
    83T'na
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  83T'na on Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:22 am

    Waireka wrote:
    83T'na wrote:Does a patient who has mental health problems relating to their appearance get tax payer funded cosmetic surgery?

    I would like this to be decided on a case by case basis. About 35 years ago I was at school with a guy whose ears stuck out really badly. He suffered badly from teasing and took some real thumpings because he didn't stick up for himself much. It still only takes a relatively simple operation to fix this. I believe the tax payer funded operation he got saved his life. He had already tried to suicide at the age of 10.

    Personally, I have one ear that sticks out more than the other. I was able to hide it with my hair, but I'm sure that it has had a subliminal effect on how people 'see' me. It's not that noticable, but if your face isn't symmetrical, you are simply less attractive to others. Now, I would like to have this fixed, but not at the expense of the tax payer. It simply hasn't affected me in the same way it did him.


    That's a problem with people, not a problem with his ears.

    Yes. It is a BIG problem with people. But, if you can't change people, (which you can't) what is wrong with changing the way he looks? It helped him. Enourmously. Knowing the boy he was back then, I know he's made a contribution to society somewhere, somehow. Isn't that worth it?
    avatar
    ____
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ____ on Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:38 am

    If its elective, and not required to stay alive, you should pay for it yourself.
    avatar
    canterella
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  canterella on Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:41 am

    I believe that only breast reductions for cases of bad back pain/headaches should be funded by the state because there is no alternative to the op.
    The breast cancer drug is way too expensive, too specific for a small minority of women, that it's simply not viable to be funded unless you cut out other vital health services.
    Infertility - if you really really love and want children (not exclusively just your own flesh and blood), there's an adoption alternative, or perhaps even fostering. I'm not sure if childless couples are legally allowed to foster though.
    Cosmetic surgery - sorry but it could open too big a can of worms where we would end up paying for botox for the over 30es.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Waireka on Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:47 am

    canterella wrote:I believe that only breast reductions for cases of bad back pain/headaches should be funded by the state because there is no alternative to the op.
    The breast cancer drug is way too expensive, too specific for a small minority of women, that it's simply not viable to be funded unless you cut out other vital health services.
    Infertility - if you really really love and want children (not exclusively just your own flesh and blood), there's an adoption alternative, or perhaps even fostering. I'm not sure if childless couples are legally allowed to foster though.
    Cosmetic surgery - sorry but it could open too big a can of worms where we would end up paying for botox for the over 30es.

    They are allowed to foster, but knowing the child will never be 'yours' and the CYFs will be the middleman in your relationship with these kids until they are 18?

    It has already been mentioned that Adoption rarely happens in NZ and that people have to look to Asia and Eastern Europe for Adopting children. Which would be insanely expensive I imagine.

    ydekm
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  ydekm on Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:01 am

    Waireka wrote:
    canterella wrote:I believe that only breast reductions for cases of bad back pain/headaches should be funded by the state because there is no alternative to the op.
    The breast cancer drug is way too expensive, too specific for a small minority of women, that it's simply not viable to be funded unless you cut out other vital health services.
    Infertility - if you really really love and want children (not exclusively just your own flesh and blood), there's an adoption alternative, or perhaps even fostering. I'm not sure if childless couples are legally allowed to foster though.
    Cosmetic surgery - sorry but it could open too big a can of worms where we would end up paying for botox for the over 30es.

    They are allowed to foster, but knowing the child will never be 'yours' and the CYFs will be the middleman in your relationship with these kids until they are 18?

    It has already been mentioned that Adoption rarely happens in NZ and that people have to look to Asia and Eastern Europe for Adopting children. Which would be insanely expensive I imagine.

    Yeah but is having a child a right? I dont think so.
    If you can't have children, these are your options - pick one or suck it up. Unfortunately.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Tax payer funded medical treatment

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:40 pm