Which is more important, medically speaking – aggressive cancer treatment, or tattoo removal? If you are Great Britain’s National Heath Service, the answer is obvious – the tattoo work.

A former sailor who has had a sex-change is to have her tattoos removed on the NHS because she feels "unladylike", it has been revealed.
NHS bosses who agreed the procedure have been criticised for wasting taxpayers' money, as thousands of nurses and doctors lose their jobs in cuts.

Tanya Bainbridge, 57, who was born Brian, wants the tattoos removed so she can wear sleeveless dresses and tops in summer. The procedure reportedly costs £2,500.

Miss Bainbridge, who has nine children - from whom she is now estranged - by three different women, had a £20,000 sex-change operation on the NHS in 2001 at Charing Cross Hospital in London.

Her local primary health care trust will pay for her to visit the hospital again for laser treatment to remove the tattoos.

Miss Bainbridge lives with her boyfriend, Mark, in Middleton, Greater Manchester. They are both unemployed.

Now a faded blue, the tattoos show a ship and a swallow which includes the names of some of her children. She had them done when she served in the Merchant Navy from 1964 to 1976.

Yes, we must help sexually confused ex-sailors with amputated genitalia get themselves into sun dresses. What could possibly be more important?

Certainly not this lady.

Mother-of-three Claire McDonnell, 33, has been refused "wonder drug" Herceptin by Wokingham Primary Care Trust to treat her aggressive form of breast cancer because of its cost.

Mrs McDonnell, from Reading in Berkshire, said the cost of removing Miss Bainbridge's tattoos, £2,500, was the same amount as the initial treatment of Herceptin. She added: "That money could pay for my breast cancer treatment."

Well, come on, how can this woman be so insensitive? ItÂ’s not like she is going to die and leave her children motherless without that medication.

Oh, wait – she will die without that treatment.

I guess NHS just feels there are some sacrifices that must be made in the name of fashion -- and it doesnÂ’t matter how many lives it costs.

Anyone need more reason to object to nationalizing healtcare in the manner advocated by Senator Clinton?

Posted by: Greg at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

My Darling Democrat takes a lot of medications, due to some serious health issues. We are fortunate to have reasonably decent insurance, but there are still some medications that end up costing us as much as $30, or even $50, each every month because they are brand name drugs -- and other medications that are not a consideration for the same reason. If moreedications were generics, we would be talking about a cost of under $75. Now I understand that the higher-priced drugs are under patent, and the need to recoup development costs. Still, I expect a quick release of a generic after the patent goes off.
That isn't always happening.

The brand-name drug industry is aggressively working to keep blockbuster drugs widely used by the elderly from being sold in cheaper generic versions when their patents expire, the organization that represents pharmacy benefit managers said yesterday.

With an unprecedented number of top-selling drugs scheduled to go off patent within five years, the organization said, branded drug companies are constructing roadblocks to potential savings of $23 billion to seniors and the Medicare system.

"There's an agenda to prevent generics from getting to the market as soon as they could," said Mark Merritt, president of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which conducted the study. The association represents companies that administer prescription drug plans for employers and government programs.

"If they succeed," Merritt said, brand-name drug companies "could reduce the savings significantly."

Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, disputed the charge and pointed to the high rate of generic drug usage in the United States as proof that branded companies are not keeping generics off the market. More than 53percent of prescriptions are filled with generic drugs.

"It would be more useful for the Pharmaceutical Care Association to collaborate with physicians and others in the health-care system to help achieve the highest quality of care for patients, and this includes use of new medicines which play a critical role in saving lives and reducing overall health costs," Johnson said.

What would be the cost differential for government if 14 commonly prescribed drugs within 4 years of patent expiration were to go generic immediately upon the expiration? Well, $13 billion just for Medicate -- and that doesn't include Medicaid, VA, and military expenditures. Nor does that take into account the savings to insurance companies (and, by extension, patients) if that happened. As i indicated, we are talking about a cost reduction in my household of some 60-70%. And i won't raise the issue of better outcomes for patients if the medications become more accessible financially.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Ever since Grandma battled breast cancer some thirty years ago, I have had an interest in this disease. It now appears there is another breakthrough in the prevention of breat cancer -- and it is from a drug that many women take to treat another common medical condition.

A drug used to prevent bones from thinning also offers millions of older women a powerful way to protect themselves against breast cancer, a large government-sponsored study has found.

The study of nearly 20,000 postmenopausal women found that raloxifene reduces their chance of developing breast cancer as effectively as tamoxifen, the only drug previously shown to reduce the risk, but is less likely to cause serious side effects such as uterine cancer and blood clots.

The findings indicate that raloxifene, sold under the brand name Evista, is a safer alternative for the estimated 9 million postmenopausal U.S. women at increased risk for breast cancer, experts said.

"This is good news for women," said Leslie Ford of the National Cancer Institute, which sponsored the $88 million study and released the preliminary findings early because of their public health implications. "Women now have a new option."

Because an estimated 500,000 women use raloxifene to reduce the risk of osteoporosis, many will be more comfortable using it for breast cancer protection, several experts predicted.

I hope that this treatment becomes common very quickly. Too many women I know have had to deal with this form of cancer in their lifetimes, and I would be happy to never hear them used in the present tense again.

Posted by: Greg at 10:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.