Surgery VS Ransom - Page 5

Clodfobble · 03-26-2007, 08:22 AM

Yeah, if I wasn't already convinced how much the NHS sucked before, all the various threads here about it by UK folks have really won me over...

Sundae · 03-26-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Yeah, if I wasn't already convinced how much the NHS sucked before, all the various threads here about it by UK folks have really won me over...

I work in the NHS and I do whinge about the NHS - it should be much better for the amount of money it costs. But I think it's much better than nothing.

When my Dad was taken into hospital three weeks ago the one thing Mum didn't have to worry about finding money to pay for it. He had a whole series of tests and ended up lying in a hospital bed waiting for a theatre slot in order to have angioplasty.

We were frustrated that it took 13 days from admission to discharge but we knew he was in the best place. We moaned (esp Mum who doesn't drive and had to get lifts/ take the bus for the best part of two weeks - and missed him terribly of course) and commented on how in another country he'd have had the operation the same day. We didn't really talk about the fact that in another country they might have had to sell the house to pay for the operation, or in fact he might just have died (not referring to America here of course). Too depressing- better to moan about the bus journey instead.

The positive part of the waiting is that Dad is easily bored and hates to be away from all his little projects, so he promises faithfully he won't suffer chest pain stoically ever again - he'll be at the Doctors the same afternoon.

DanaC · 03-26-2007, 09:08 AM

Glad to hear your Dad's on the mend SG.

My Dad has been taken into hospital for emergency treatment five times in the last two years. He has to have regular oxygen treatment and also uses a nebuliser daily. As a pensioner he doesn't even have to pay for his prescriptions.

For myself, I have regular medication which even at the standard prescription charge of £6.50 per item would amount to approx. £45 per month, except that I am able to buy a prepay certificate for £90 per year. When I was unemployed for two years I didn't even have to pay that. In the UK we moan a lot about the NHS....because it's not perfect and it could be run much better. What we don't have in the UK is an acceptance of the fact that if someone is poor they should just be abandoned to their fate. If I have to see my doctor, I don't have to check what money I have first. Dentists are a little different, we have some access to dentists on NHS, but still have to pay charges (even though much reduced from private prices) and lo and behold the number of Brits who don't go regularly to a dentist is very high. I recently had some serious pain in my tooth and went for a check up: I was told I needed two fillings and a root canal. For the treatment and the sedation ( I am dental phobic) I will have to pay £180. I am still in pain and haven't been for the treatment yet because I can't afford it. The idea that someone might have to make such a decision about something more serious appalls me. The sooner one seeks treatment the better usually, and many people who live in countries where seeing a doctor isn't free at the point of need will make the same calculation I have made over my teeth and just not go.....until they absolutely have to, at which point their overall health and even life may have been put at much greater risk by the delay.

wolf · 03-26-2007, 01:52 PM

I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

Sundae · 03-26-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

Even if the patient was stable and monitored? If Dad had needed immediate surgery he would have received it immediately. As it was, patients who already had scheduled operations took priority as he was considered safe.

I'm not asking this because I am trying to defend our system (which I have always admitted has faults) just to clarify.

I know in many countries in Europe he would have had his operation sooner because they have smaller waiting lists, as well as (effectively) free of charge. If he was unable to pay in the US (retired, fairly low pension) would he still have received immediate treatment if he was on a cardio ward?

TheMercenary · 03-27-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

If he was unable to pay in the US (retired, fairly low pension) would he still have received immediate treatment if he was on a cardio ward?

The answer is yes, we have medicad and medicare. It will cover those costs, at a loss to the hospital I will say, but it will cover them. The problem here for people not receiving care is not among the poor but among the working poor and lower middle class who are under insured. I still say the answer is not a system like you have in the US or in Canada. These issues are not simplistic. You can not simply take a place the size of the US and apply solutions that apply to a country or economy the size of the UK. There are soooo many differences.

Spexxvet · 03-26-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis.

Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally.

On the other hand, the boss is scheduling cataract surgery 6 months out. Not life saving, though.

Ibby · 03-26-2007, 08:32 PM

AH! AH! I CALL GODWIN.

Spexxvet · 03-26-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

AH! AH! I CALL GODWIN.

Wait! Wasn't he talking about repubicans?

Ibby · 03-26-2007, 10:14 PM

What's the difference?

DanaC · 03-27-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

I believe, and have always believed that we are, at heart "how we treat the least of us".

Well said rkzenrage.

piercehawkeye45 · 03-27-2007, 05:05 PM

I think it is the state's job to make sure everyone can get decent health care. The state needs to invest in some issues and lay off others.

03-27-2007, 08:59 PM

As I stated earlier, the idea is not to do that.

Happy Monkey · 03-27-2007, 10:31 PM

As are the people currently using the system. And they're welcome to it.

TheMercenary · 03-27-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

As are the people currently using the system. And they're welcome to it.

Absolutely, that was not the point of the discussion.

03-26-2007, 08:22 AM	#1
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Yeah, if I wasn't already convinced how much the NHS sucked before, all the various threads here about it by UK folks have really won me over... __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

03-26-2007, 01:52 PM	#4
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	I think the horror of the our private payer system vs. your govt funded system is that it would be unthinkable here to have to wait 13 days for a lifesaving procedure done on an outpatient basis. Regardless of insurance coverage, incidentally. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

03-26-2007, 08:32 PM	#8
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	AH! AH! I CALL GODWIN. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

03-26-2007, 10:14 PM	#10
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	What's the difference? __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

03-27-2007, 10:31 PM	#14
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	As are the people currently using the system. And they're welcome to it. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

03-26-2007, 09:08 AM	#3
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Glad to hear your Dad's on the mend SG. My Dad has been taken into hospital for emergency treatment five times in the last two years. He has to have regular oxygen treatment and also uses a nebuliser daily. As a pensioner he doesn't even have to pay for his prescriptions. For myself, I have regular medication which even at the standard prescription charge of £6.50 per item would amount to approx. £45 per month, except that I am able to buy a prepay certificate for £90 per year. When I was unemployed for two years I didn't even have to pay that. In the UK we moan a lot about the NHS....because it's not perfect and it could be run much better. What we don't have in the UK is an acceptance of the fact that if someone is poor they should just be abandoned to their fate. If I have to see my doctor, I don't have to check what money I have first. Dentists are a little different, we have some access to dentists on NHS, but still have to pay charges (even though much reduced from private prices) and lo and behold the number of Brits who don't go regularly to a dentist is very high. I recently had some serious pain in my tooth and went for a check up: I was told I needed two fillings and a root canal. For the treatment and the sedation ( I am dental phobic) I will have to pay £180. I am still in pain and haven't been for the treatment yet because I can't afford it. The idea that someone might have to make such a decision about something more serious appalls me. The sooner one seeks treatment the better usually, and many people who live in countries where seeing a doctor isn't free at the point of need will make the same calculation I have made over my teeth and just not go.....until they absolutely have to, at which point their overall health and even life may have been put at much greater risk by the delay.

03-27-2007, 05:05 PM	#12
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	I think it is the state's job to make sure everyone can get decent health care. The state needs to invest in some issues and lay off others.

03-27-2007, 08:59 PM	#13
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	As I stated earlier, the idea is not to do that.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)