FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Nowhere for the nhs to hide.
Nowhere for the nhs to hide.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients " A postcode lottery. My postcode is also crap. Thanks to the incompetence of the parliamentary ombudsman, I ran out of time to sue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients " Don’t forget to bash your pots and pans…then be grateful they didn’t kill you. Laughing stick of an organisation… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients A postcode lottery. My postcode is also crap. Thanks to the incompetence of the parliamentary ombudsman, I ran out of time to sue." I didn't think you could run out of time to sue. As it depends on the nature ofnthe injury etc and how long it would take to become aware. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure "the private dr at spire" was only too happy to take your cash... Did you have good medical insurance? I'm undergoing immunotherapy here in France, 400mg Pembrolizumab injections every 6 weeks; for two years or until "disease progression, loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity". Or I die, of course... American Big Pharma patent, eleven grand an injection here, the NHS gets a "special price" of only ten. In theory available on the NHS, in practice my GP warned me that the prescribing clinician would find every reason to "prefer" chemo- or radiotherapy. But to be honest, if I were an NHS Administrator I'd also prioritise others than myself." Oh I should say I also saw another private dr first at bula with the scans And then 2 drs at spire. Again. I also had an nhs dr 15 years ago completely contradict what the dr whoa stressed my scans said. I knkw people love to defend the religion that is the nhs. But I have all the evidence for my legal case. They literally video the entire procedure  take photos and document everything done.
My solicitors also have their own dr verify everything before launching the suit.
But yeah..
Spire are evil...Big pharma...blah blah. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It you have the option ego private at any time. Will suing your local NHS trust solve anything other than getting people in trouble who have choice in your treatment. Want change vote someone else in next time." Yes. It will give me my money back that I should have never had to spend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients " Sounds awful. So the rugby playing picture must have been after the accident but before the problems started? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients A postcode lottery. My postcode is also crap. Thanks to the incompetence of the parliamentary ombudsman, I ran out of time to sue. I didn't think you could run out of time to sue. As it depends on the nature ofnthe injury etc and how long it would take to become aware. " Three years. But then solicitors want at least nine months of that, so 27 months. It probably depends on whether you can afford to sue. And if you have 51+% of winning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients Sounds awful. So the rugby playing picture must have been after the accident but before the problems started?" I'd always had problems with my knee. Which as above the original Dr said 15 years ago. I'd never run a marathon again but I could always do a steady 10mile run or intermittently sprinting like football and rugby. The meniscus tear I am pretty sure happend exactly 2 years ago. Went to kick a football I'm 11 a side the exact time another player did and we both went down in agony and had to stop playing. Never run since then. Rugby photo is now about 3 years old. I'd have maybe bought their lies had they bot said my cartilage was fine and dandy. Which directly contradicted what I was told previously. For me I am very practical and the lies would have come out anyway. As my knee was in constant pain. I'd have just got my lower leg amputated and had a prosthetic. What's the point in having a knee and shin that just causes constant pain and stop you doing things in life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients A postcode lottery. My postcode is also crap. Thanks to the incompetence of the parliamentary ombudsman, I ran out of time to sue. I didn't think you could run out of time to sue. As it depends on the nature ofnthe injury etc and how long it would take to become aware. Three years. But then solicitors want at least nine months of that, so 27 months. It probably depends on whether you can afford to sue. And if you have 51+% of winning." Thankfully I have a solicitor in the family who has friend my way who was happy to help. I am sorry you werent able to pursue your claim. I wasn't aware of any rule time barring a legal claim . Or was this just the ombudsmen? My mother sued the nhs on mine and her behalf in 2006 due to horrific negligence that saw my uncle die as a direct result of absolutely appalling behaviour by ambulance medics. But I am not sure of the details on that as she took care of it all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds shit. Did the car crash contribute in any way? The big trouble with the NHS is it that it has to manage with an eye on costs. That leads to poor outcomes. " To the cartilage 100% I'd always dealt with that and knew my limits. The meniscus tear certainly wasn't. That was I beleive a result of the football event. The floaters/debris, sharp bone could have been the result of cartilage damage. He couldn't be 100% certain on knee cap alignment. But said it could have happened any time. I could travel had it years and never noticed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds shit. Did the car crash contribute in any way? The big trouble with the NHS is it that it has to manage with an eye on costs. That leads to poor outcomes. To the cartilage 100% I'd always dealt with that and knew my limits. The meniscus tear certainly wasn't. That was I beleive a result of the football event. The floaters/debris, sharp bone could have been the result of cartilage damage. He couldn't be 100% certain on knee cap alignment. But said it could have happened any time. I could travel had it years and never noticed." thx. I got confused as you mentioned the crash and not the football. What's the prognosis ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients A postcode lottery. My postcode is also crap. Thanks to the incompetence of the parliamentary ombudsman, I ran out of time to sue. I didn't think you could run out of time to sue. As it depends on the nature ofnthe injury etc and how long it would take to become aware. Three years. But then solicitors want at least nine months of that, so 27 months. It probably depends on whether you can afford to sue. And if you have 51+% of winning. Thankfully I have a solicitor in the family who has friend my way who was happy to help. I am sorry you werent able to pursue your claim. I wasn't aware of any rule time barring a legal claim . Or was this just the ombudsmen? My mother sued the nhs on mine and her behalf in 2006 due to horrific negligence that saw my uncle die as a direct result of absolutely appalling behaviour by ambulance medics. But I am not sure of the details on that as she took care of it all " I chose the ombudsman route as they can rule in favour and make recommendations. The twat I had gave me no indication that all he was going to do is make enquiries into the trust following complaint procedures properly. The thing is, I had guidance by a different representative who ensured I got the trust to follow the correct procedures before they gave me a case worker to look at the content of the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no complaints about the NHS, all my treatment for various injuries and health issues, have been dealt with perfectly." Aye, same. A long wait in A&E is a pain in the balls, but the one time I needed urgent attention (in on an ambulance) I was rushed straight in and was being seen in moments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. " I’m assuming this bit of nonsense is grounded in some kind of data, and you haven’t just had a fever dream? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. I’m assuming this bit of nonsense is grounded in some kind of data, and you haven’t just had a fever dream?" Do you work for NHS customer services? “Anyone who isn’t happy with the service will be reported to the police”. It’s probably why when I call my GP the first thing I have to listen to is a five minute diatribe about how they won’t put up with abuse of their staff. All perfectly normal when one seeks services anywhere else. Let me guess, you think the NHS is the “best in the world”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. I’m assuming this bit of nonsense is grounded in some kind of data, and you haven’t just had a fever dream? Do you work for NHS customer services? “Anyone who isn’t happy with the service will be reported to the police”. It’s probably why when I call my GP the first thing I have to listen to is a five minute diatribe about how they won’t put up with abuse of their staff. All perfectly normal when one seeks services anywhere else. Let me guess, you think the NHS is the “best in the world”." I mean you could just answer my question, lad. Got any evidence that middle aged white blokes are bumped down the queue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have no complaints about the NHS, all my treatment for various injuries and health issues, have been dealt with perfectly." I'm happy for you. I'm the complete opposite. I brought up this thread because I'd previously spoken with hovis and others about the problems I'd always faced with GPS and hospitals. And it was to elaborate further, as about 2 months ago I'd mentioned about my knee and my poor treatment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. " There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. I’m assuming this bit of nonsense is grounded in some kind of data, and you haven’t just had a fever dream? Do you work for NHS customer services? “Anyone who isn’t happy with the service will be reported to the police”. It’s probably why when I call my GP the first thing I have to listen to is a five minute diatribe about how they won’t put up with abuse of their staff. All perfectly normal when one seeks services anywhere else. Let me guess, you think the NHS is the “best in the world”. I mean you could just answer my question, lad. Got any evidence that middle aged white blokes are bumped down the queue? " This does actually happen at sti clinics. Women are seen first as are ethnic minorities. I've witnessed this neither my own eyes at Leeds still clinic. You need to turn up at 8 to book an appointment that day. I had mine at 12. 2 ladies turned up no appointment and were immediately seen as well as a black chap. I eventually got into my appointment around 1.15pm I would assuming a hospital it's triage problems and facing the worst problem first. But there's nothing in an anti clinic that could be a reason for this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse." You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting." The next door neighbours were both drs in A&E. One in pads. I should have been given the medicine. You would do it for any cut needing stitches in a river. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting." I am so sorry for your shit experience. It really is a shame lives can be so adversely affected by negligence. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either)." The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either)." I currently have a casual relationship with a Dr at St James in Leeds. They have their admin days. They dictate their notes into a dictaphone. It's sent off to a 3rd party to type up. Then the 3rd party sent it back to them to read. They must then listen to their original copy vs the type up. Before submission I think she gets this admin day once every 2 weeks. That's about 20 hours ofnbon clinical work. She also work with people with cystic fibrosis. Instead of treating people with lung problem and bumping them form a 5 week wait to a 3 week. She must sit and chat with people with cf in Leeds and see how their lives are going. Again.surely better time out to treating dying people witb immediate problems than spending a 6 month rotation chatting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting. The next door neighbours were both drs in A&E. One in pads. I should have been given the medicine. You would do it for any cut needing stitches in a river." You certainly would nowadays with the state of our rivers, bloody privatised water companies!  couldn’t resist that Morley  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. " Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting. I am so sorry for your shit experience. It really is a shame lives can be so adversely affected by negligence. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary." Thanks. To add insult to injury I was gaslighted. I was sent home because "I wanted to go home" - in my notes there was evidence I had no capacity to make that decision, neither could I walk/talk/see properly yet was discharged to go home alone (as they needed the bed), without help, discharge papers and medication. The only silver lining was that I wasn't in this country when I received an insult to the brain. I would have died. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting. The next door neighbours were both drs in A&E. One in pads. I should have been given the medicine. You would do it for any cut needing stitches in a river. You certainly would nowadays with the state of our rivers, bloody privatised water companies! couldn’t resist that Morley " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved." Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved." Want to elaborate on the greedy money grabbing staff? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour. "Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they? Should their policies not be of interest to us? Or are you like Starmer? Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they? Should their policies not be of interest to us?
Or are you like Starmer? Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?"Are you referring to any particular people when you fling around accusations of anti-semitism? Please feel free to name them, I don’t want them in my party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
"I don't think so. " Should their policies not be of interest to us? " But yes, their real life policies could be of interest. " Or are you like Starmer? " Don't think I am. " Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions " I very much like asking questions. " and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?" Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground. But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!"I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something? The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS. That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value. So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it? Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel. The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms. The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions. So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service? Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms." So what are your ideas? I provided some further up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
"Does calling people antisemites help in any way? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way? "Yes. The only solution is to ridicule and insult anyone who dares to discuss or even consider the current government. We should all: 1. Put all our attention onto something else. 2. Preferably Labour. 3. Make up random nonsense like "demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do" 4. Get so angry about the thing you made up, that you have to start insulting random people on a swingers forum. 5. Failing all that, label people anti semitic. It's the only way we can get the healthcare system improved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A while ago there was a discussion om the nhs. I detailed me perosnal experiences with it and my ongoing issues. I went private. And am now in the process of having to sue. 15 years ago I had a car crash that tore the cartilage in my knee For the last 2 years I've had severe knee problems. Where even walking up stairs was painful. I had 4 gp appointments. Sent to physios twice. Where I had to do 2 x 10 weeks strengthening exercises And ( see if there's an improvement) There was never going to be any improvement as it was nothing any amount of muscle building could improve. I went for an xray and MRI. The NHS were happy there were bonproblem with my knee. All seemed and perfect working order. I never mentioned to them the original Dr's assessment of my knee. So their conclusion directly contradicted his assessment. I gave them a a chance to re assess they were happy with their assessment.cand advised som ( core work and strength ) would work. I said I would end my care there and take all my notes and go private, but that I would sue them when I came back with a private assessment. ( this turned the call into a 30 minute back and forth of the consultant begging) The private dr at spire was appalled they gave me the all clear. I had torn my meniscus, my cartilage needed a complete overhaul and cleaning out some of the broken cartilage and pulling across the better cartilage, my knee was out of position by a few mm causing bones to rub, and I had several "floaters" chipped bone in my knee and it needed smoothing on my tibia. This isnsadly just plain incompetence and laziness. Nothing to do with money or time. Just complete disregard for patients " Your local neighbourhood gp only treats you and sends you somewhere they do not cure you, you need a real doctor for to be cured. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way? "“My party”. Say no more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
Yes. The only solution is to ridicule and insult anyone who dares to discuss or even consider the current government.
We should all:
1. Put all our attention onto something else.
2. Preferably Labour.
3. Make up random nonsense like "demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do"
4. Get so angry about the thing you made up, that you have to start insulting random people on a swingers forum.
5. Failing all that, label people anti semitic.
It's the only way we can get the healthcare system improved. "I’m heading off to the sun lounger to enjoy some sunshine and cocktails. I’ll be back in about six hours. I look forward to reading your next fifty posts then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
“My party”. Say no more."No, I’d like to know whether you think your calling of names is beneficial to the NHS, as you brought it up randomly on this thread. Also, I’ll ask again, do you have any specific names that you’d like to say are antisemitic? If you care about antisemitism you’ll want to see them kicked out of labour, right? I know I would. Please share, assuming you’re not attempting to slander a whole party with no basis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
Yes. The only solution is to ridicule and insult anyone who dares to discuss or even consider the current government.
We should all:
1. Put all our attention onto something else.
2. Preferably Labour.
3. Make up random nonsense like "demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do"
4. Get so angry about the thing you made up, that you have to start insulting random people on a swingers forum.
5. Failing all that, label people anti semitic.
It's the only way we can get the healthcare system improved.
I’m heading off to the sun lounger to enjoy some sunshine and cocktails.
I’ll be back in about six hours.
I look forward to reading your next fifty posts then."Come on lad, don’t leave us all hanging. Who are the antisemites? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
Yes. The only solution is to ridicule and insult anyone who dares to discuss or even consider the current government.
We should all:
1. Put all our attention onto something else.
2. Preferably Labour.
3. Make up random nonsense like "demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do"
4. Get so angry about the thing you made up, that you have to start insulting random people on a swingers forum.
5. Failing all that, label people anti semitic.
It's the only way we can get the healthcare system improved.
I’m heading off to the sun lounger to enjoy some sunshine and cocktails.
I’ll be back in about six hours.
I look forward to reading your next fifty posts then."To be 100% clear. Your argument that the NHS is struggling is based around the perceived frequency of a random person posting on a swingers forum? If so, I'm with you. Although to be honest, I think we should blame Labour, we should make up weird things about "leftists" and call some people antisemitic. What do you reckon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
Yes. The only solution is to ridicule and insult anyone who dares to discuss or even consider the current government.
We should all:
1. Put all our attention onto something else.
2. Preferably Labour.
3. Make up random nonsense like "demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do"
4. Get so angry about the thing you made up, that you have to start insulting random people on a swingers forum.
5. Failing all that, label people anti semitic.
It's the only way we can get the healthcare system improved.
I’m heading off to the sun lounger to enjoy some sunshine and cocktails.
I’ll be back in about six hours.
I look forward to reading your next fifty posts then.
To be 100% clear. Your argument that the NHS is struggling is based around the perceived frequency of a random person posting on a swingers forum?
If so, I'm with you. Although to be honest, I think we should blame Labour, we should make up weird things about "leftists" and call some people antisemitic. What do you reckon? "That’s one post. What’s the average each day? 100? 200? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
Yes. The only solution is to ridicule and insult anyone who dares to discuss or even consider the current government.
We should all:
1. Put all our attention onto something else.
2. Preferably Labour.
3. Make up random nonsense like "demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do"
4. Get so angry about the thing you made up, that you have to start insulting random people on a swingers forum.
5. Failing all that, label people anti semitic.
It's the only way we can get the healthcare system improved.
I’m heading off to the sun lounger to enjoy some sunshine and cocktails.
I’ll be back in about six hours.
I look forward to reading your next fifty posts then.
To be 100% clear. Your argument that the NHS is struggling is based around the perceived frequency of a random person posting on a swingers forum?
If so, I'm with you. Although to be honest, I think we should blame Labour, we should make up weird things about "leftists" and call some people antisemitic. What do you reckon?
That’s one post. What’s the average each day? 100? 200?"The green arrow suggests you made 8 posts today. This post right now is my 8th. Does this coincidence mean than you will now attempt to ridicule yourself for posting an average of 100 or 200 times a day? And second question, does this prove that you're correct to call people antisemitic? And third question, what's any of this got to do with Labour and leftists causing all the problems with the NHS. Obviously I am 100% in agreement with you. But for others, might be good to explain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
“My party”. Say no more.
No, I’d like to know whether you think your calling of names is beneficial to the NHS, as you brought it up randomly on this thread.
Also, I’ll ask again, do you have any specific names that you’d like to say are antisemitic? If you care about antisemitism you’ll want to see them kicked out of labour, right? I know I would. Please share, assuming you’re not attempting to slander a whole party with no basis."Has this post been approved by “the Party”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a former ex-pat I've had far better and faster treatment in foreign countries, even 'third world' countries. The NHS is so bureaucratic and slow. First a wait to see a GP (or more likely a triage Nurse), then appointments in the distant future for blood tests, scans etc. Then a further wait to see a Consultant ...... so it goes on. In foreign hospitals much of this is done in a single visit. But we cling to the notion that the NHS is a 'national treasure' (it isn't) mainly because it's free (it isn't that either). The Tories are doing a fine job of running it into the ground so the electorate won't bat an eyelid when the flog it off to their pals. Struggling to see how the Tories are “running it into the ground” given the amount of borrowed and printed money they have pissed down the drain on “saving the NHS”. I’m sure the greedy money grubbing staff who inhabit the NHS are perfectly capable of destroying it themselves without any government assistance. Still Labour is promising to waste even more borrowed money on it so problem solved. Good point, we should ignore reality and focus on Labour.
Well Labour are likely to be the next government aren’t they?
I don't think so.
Should their policies not be of interest to us?
But yes, their real life policies could be of interest.
Or are you like Starmer?
Don't think I am.
Just keeping quiet and hoping nobody asks any questions
I very much like asking questions.
and that the anti semitic bigots manage to keep their mouths shut for long enough?
Absolutely no clue what this misinformed rhubarb has got to do with the Tories running the NHS into the ground.
But maybe you're right, we should completely ignore all forms of reality, and 100% focus on Labour. And even go as far as logging onto a swingers website with multiple profiles and ridicule people who think it's pertinent to consider the actions of the current government. The fools!
I have zero idea what you are talking about re profiles. I only have one profile on this site. You are the one who seems to be available on here 24/7/365 to spout your ridiculous bile. Shouldn’t you get a job or some friends or something?
The dismal service that the NHS provides is of enormous concern to me. As I set out my recent experience above, the failure of the NHS to provide me with an adequate service has cost me several thousand pounds over the past year when I was forced to pay privately for care that should have been rapidly available through the NHS.
That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value.
So I am intimately aware of the failings of the NHS. The question is what can be done to improve healthcare in this country so that people like me actually get a service when we are paying so much for it?
Whose fault do I think it is? The Tories are the government so they cannot escape responsibility for what has happened on their watch. But do I think the reason why we have a shit healthcare system in this country is solely down to “the Tories”? That is simplistic drivel.
The question I am interested in is how healthcare in this country can be improved, as it is costing me and many millions of others dear both financially and in health terms.
The fundamental problem we have in this country is that we have an out of date health service that continues to exist purely for ideological reasons. It is far easier for politicians to keep talking guff about “Our NHS” than it is to actually do something about a long failed system which would necessarily involve them confronting the medical unions.
So they keep spouting the same tripe and just wasting more borrowed cash on it to no end. The Conservatives have obviously failed. Everyone can see that, but what is to be done about the failed health service?
Simply shouting “Fuck the Tories” and “Tory Cuts” and demanding billions more in printed cash all day long like the cretinous left in the UK do isn’t going to solve anything.
Does calling people antisemites help in any way?
“My party”. Say no more.
No, I’d like to know whether you think your calling of names is beneficial to the NHS, as you brought it up randomly on this thread.
Also, I’ll ask again, do you have any specific names that you’d like to say are antisemitic? If you care about antisemitism you’ll want to see them kicked out of labour, right? I know I would. Please share, assuming you’re not attempting to slander a whole party with no basis.
Has this post been approved by “the Party”?"I thought you were off for a few hours? Why won’t you tell us more about your antisemitism statement? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some weird thought processes observed on this thread. Back to a failing NHS, we should research into the areas that are doing well, discover why and see if their strategies can be replicated. " There’s nothing wrong with looking to the private sector to see what they do well, and using consultants to fund the explicit NHS failings. We’re never going to have a fully privatised nor fully socialised health system now, so let’s look at how we can make it the best service we can. As long as - and this is the vital part - nobody is left without a form of healthcare due to financial constraints. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some weird thought processes observed on this thread. Back to a failing NHS, we should research into the areas that are doing well, discover why and see if their strategies can be replicated. There’s nothing wrong with looking to the private sector to see what they do well, and using consultants to fund the explicit NHS failings. We’re never going to have a fully privatised nor fully socialised health system now, so let’s look at how we can make it the best service we can. As long as - and this is the vital part - nobody is left without a form of healthcare due to financial constraints. " Then progression should really involve means testing. If you are in the position to self fund or even partially. The problem with this is, it's going to end up like nursing homes people selling their houses that they have worked their entire lives for to fund care. Whilst those who have payed nothing into the system their working lives continue to get free care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some weird thought processes observed on this thread. Back to a failing NHS, we should research into the areas that are doing well, discover why and see if their strategies can be replicated. There’s nothing wrong with looking to the private sector to see what they do well, and using consultants to fund the explicit NHS failings. We’re never going to have a fully privatised nor fully socialised health system now, so let’s look at how we can make it the best service we can. As long as - and this is the vital part - nobody is left without a form of healthcare due to financial constraints. Then progression should really involve means testing. If you are in the position to self fund or even partially. The problem with this is, it's going to end up like nursing homes people selling their houses that they have worked their entire lives for to fund care. Whilst those who have payed nothing into the system their working lives continue to get free care. " If the price for a good healthcare system is that I have to pay a bit more in than someone below me, I’m ok with that - same as a benefit system - there but the grace of god go any of us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some weird thought processes observed on this thread. Back to a failing NHS, we should research into the areas that are doing well, discover why and see if their strategies can be replicated. There’s nothing wrong with looking to the private sector to see what they do well, and using consultants to fund the explicit NHS failings. We’re never going to have a fully privatised nor fully socialised health system now, so let’s look at how we can make it the best service we can. As long as - and this is the vital part - nobody is left without a form of healthcare due to financial constraints. Then progression should really involve means testing. If you are in the position to self fund or even partially. The problem with this is, it's going to end up like nursing homes people selling their houses that they have worked their entire lives for to fund care. Whilst those who have payed nothing into the system their working lives continue to get free care. " Yep. With regards healthcare, those who can afford private often do have private medical insurance, either personal or through work. So a two tier system already exists. And just as with the private school argument, these people’s taxes are paying for a public service they don’t use, so in fact are doing everyone else a favour! So leave that alone and prioritise NHS on saving/preserving life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some weird thought processes observed on this thread. Back to a failing NHS, we should research into the areas that are doing well, discover why and see if their strategies can be replicated. There’s nothing wrong with looking to the private sector to see what they do well, and using consultants to fund the explicit NHS failings. We’re never going to have a fully privatised nor fully socialised health system now, so let’s look at how we can make it the best service we can. As long as - and this is the vital part - nobody is left without a form of healthcare due to financial constraints. " There are parts and areas that are working - don't need to look at private care in the first instance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some weird thought processes observed on this thread. Back to a failing NHS, we should research into the areas that are doing well, discover why and see if their strategies can be replicated. There’s nothing wrong with looking to the private sector to see what they do well, and using consultants to fund the explicit NHS failings. We’re never going to have a fully privatised nor fully socialised health system now, so let’s look at how we can make it the best service we can. As long as - and this is the vital part - nobody is left without a form of healthcare due to financial constraints. Then progression should really involve means testing. If you are in the position to self fund or even partially. The problem with this is, it's going to end up like nursing homes people selling their houses that they have worked their entire lives for to fund care. Whilst those who have payed nothing into the system their working lives continue to get free care. Yep. With regards healthcare, those who can afford private often do have private medical insurance, either personal or through work. So a two tier system already exists. And just as with the private school argument, these people’s taxes are paying for a public service they don’t use, so in fact are doing everyone else a favour! So leave that alone and prioritise NHS on saving/preserving life." You'd do away with primary care? You seem to want to promote reactive care rather than proactive which is, in the long term, cheaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening." "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value." You have received the service. The money you pay is not for medical treatment, it's to maintain the system that will catch you if something befalls you. It's an insurance policy in case of sickness or accident. That's why they call it National Insurance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value. You have received the service. The money you pay is not for medical treatment, it's to maintain the system that will catch you if something befalls you. It's an insurance policy in case of sickness or accident. That's why they call it National Insurance." Which would be an easier pill to swallow if the Govt ringfenced the money collected through National Insurance to be used solely for the NHS and DWP. But they don’t. It all goes into the big pot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc." Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clearly your personal views on the NHS will be influenced by your personal experience. Some have been horrendous as evidenced in this thread, and some have been good/fine but perhaps few have been exemplary. The post above by Jools and the brain is spot on and excellent. Although the finger of blame cannot solely be pointed at the Tories (though they have accelerated the decline). New Labour introduced part privatisation. Large areas of the NHS are already delivered by the private sector but without seemingly improving quality of service or outcomes. There is a sense of the private sector fleecing the NHS (and taxpayers) while they pick at the bones of the decaying NHS carcass. Just because something is branded with the blue NHS logo do not for a moment assume that means that particular service is being delivered by the public sector. IMHO the biggest issue in the NHS is fragmentation and this has been exacerbated by outsourcing to private sector with inadequate comms/admin to create seamless pathways for patients. After that it is death by a thousand cuts. Just one example...the lack of nurses. Solution was “that’s fine we’ll make it harder to recruit by removing student grants and keeping pay below inflation!” Well that worked, not! We have had this discussion many times but IMHO the NHS (to survive) needs to be prioritised around a core service. Priorities: 1. Treating immediate threat to life (A&E car crashes etc). 2. Treating short term physical life threatening illnesses/conditions. 3. Treating medium term physical life threatening illnesses/conditions. 4. Treating long term physical life threatening illnesses/conditions. 5. Rehabilitation or ongoing care as a result of four above. 6.Conditions that are not life threatening but are focused around quality of life would probably come next but you could argue gets dropped if money not there* Where things get tricky, for me, is mental health. I think if there is genuine threat to life (own or others) then NHS should treat. But beyond that there are too many grey areas and it is open to abuse. Nothing elective or cosmetic (unless it is reconstruction after accident and points 1-4 above) should be available on the NHS. *so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening." The only problem is lifestyle choice. If some one decides to drive above the speed limit. They're ina car crash. Do you only treat them to stability? I.e get a steady pulse. Bring them way from dying. Don't immediately fix broken bones eyes sockets ets to save eye sight? Interesting topic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value. You have received the service. The money you pay is not for medical treatment, it's to maintain the system that will catch you if something befalls you. It's an insurance policy in case of sickness or accident. That's why they call it National Insurance. Which would be an easier pill to swallow if the Govt ringfenced the money collected through National Insurance to be used solely for the NHS and DWP. But they don’t. It all goes into the big pot." Well the ni pot wouldn't cover the nhs budget. The nhs I think is crica 250 bn? Ni is 172bn? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value. You have received the service. The money you pay is not for medical treatment, it's to maintain the system that will catch you if something befalls you. It's an insurance policy in case of sickness or accident. That's why they call it National Insurance." And pensions, but all goes to the treasury like income tax. Do they even differentiate it anymore? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium." Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is of course thousands of pounds for private care on top of the thousands of pounds that I will have contributed to the NHS through the tax system this year for which I have received no service, and on top of the hundreds of thousands of pounds that I will have paid to the NHS through the tax system over my working life, for which I again have never received anywhere near an equivalent value. You have received the service. The money you pay is not for medical treatment, it's to maintain the system that will catch you if something befalls you. It's an insurance policy in case of sickness or accident. That's why they call it National Insurance." I haven’t received the service. As I said earlier I called upon the “service” and it wasn’t available. If an insurance company refused to pay out on a policy for no reason it would get shut down by the regulator. But with the NHS it is fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice."Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It you have the option ego private at any time. Will suing your local NHS trust solve anything other than getting people in trouble who have choice in your treatment. Want change vote someone else in next time." You think that level of incompetence should go unchallenged? These types of cultural issues at the NHS will not be solved at the ballot box. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having sone medical issues late last year which needed investigating. I would have been happy going through the NHS but it wasn’t possible to get a GP appointment in any reasonable time. So I went privately. I wasn’t that impressed with the private service but at least you got to see someone and I got the all clear, a few thousand pounds lighter. Frankly I’d rather pay privately. I pay for a service, the doctors and I both know what the transaction is. With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. We are told that we cannot have a US system because poor people can’t get treatment (which isn’t the case) but that is anyway exactly what the situation is here. Medical negligence claims against the NHS are going to skyrocket. As they should. There seems to be this religious cult on the nhs that it can't do any wrong that it's workers aren't to blame. This isn't my experience. I was pushed into a river at 12. It took 9 hours to be seen ( labour gov remember so don't blame tory cuts) They sent me home after 6 stitches in my shin....they forgot the antibiotics. Thankfully we had drs next door who when knfsinted due to the infection came round and sorted me out. Again the above was just incompetence. I have several more stories. I can't access private at my new workplace yet. But i will when I have been there a year. I'd prefer a different model. As this current one just seems a moneybpit where results get worse and worse. You would have to look at whether there was guidance re prophylactic antibiotics back then (NICE), as to whether they forgot or simply didn't prescribe due to no clinical presentation. Having worked for the NHS since before the new millennium, I was under the illusion our NHS was fantastic. One reason could be for putting my all into my job. Then I became a patient... Failure of duty of care even though neurologists from abroad recommended continued investigations. The arrogant arses ignored this advice... No MRI, no lumber puncture, no neurologist. I won't continue it's upsetting." All to familiar. In what I have witnessed personally myself and family members. These instances should be very very rare but unfortunately they are not. I'm sorry they failed you and you didn't get a better outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice. "I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice."Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now? "Last year. Overweight and obese almost two thirds of the population. America was around the same percentage just for obese, if I'm remembering correctly (I didn't need their stats). The thing is the remaining third don't get away with being healthy just because they are not classified according to their BMI, as they may actually be more unhealthy. Go on ask why | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Last year. Overweight and obese almost two thirds of the population.
America was around the same percentage just for obese, if I'm remembering correctly (I didn't need their stats).
The thing is the remaining third don't get away with being healthy just because they are not classified according to their BMI, as they may actually be more unhealthy.
Go on ask why "Ah ok thanks your dissertation was last year. Apologies I made an assumption it was a few years back. Great so you know your stuff... Why are TWO-THIRDS of people in UK classed as overweight (how many obese)? What are the actual reasons? How does that compare to 20/30/40/50 years ago? Is there a trend? What factors are driving that trend? Sorry that is a lot of questions but all interlinked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Last year. Overweight and obese almost two thirds of the population.
America was around the same percentage just for obese, if I'm remembering correctly (I didn't need their stats).
The thing is the remaining third don't get away with being healthy just because they are not classified according to their BMI, as they may actually be more unhealthy.
Go on ask why
Ah ok thanks your dissertation was last year. Apologies I made an assumption it was a few years back.
Great so you know your stuff...
Why are TWO-THIRDS of people in UK classed as overweight (how many obese)? What are the actual reasons? How does that compare to 20/30/40/50 years ago? Is there a trend? What factors are driving that trend?
Sorry that is a lot of questions but all interlinked. "Average sizes shows the increase in obesity over the decades. There's also a hidden increase: dress sizes have grown: a size 10 dress is larger than it was thirty years ago. The average dress size twenty years ago was a 12, a 14 ten years ago and 16 nowadays. Less manual/active work without decreasing portion sizes is a factor. Foods with a calorific density while nutritionally deficit is a factor. Processed foods (which is often the above point). Use of food as a crutch. Healthcare professionals not having the training to deliver innovations that reduce stigma and help educate nutritional values. Healthcare professionals fearful to broach the subject. Obese being "normal", IE not identifying as obese. Majority of people underestimate their obesity classification. Women are better at identifying themselves as obese than men. Men are better at identifying women than themselves. Global obesity is the greatest cause of malnutrition - countries once with high numbers of undernutrition have become obese due to the imports of cheap processed foods (better to be obese than hungry so to speak). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P.S. I know BMI is flawed and there are better models. Many very healthy and very fit professional sports people are classed as obese using BMI. " Knowing the flaws makes BMI an adequate model for indicating malnutrition at both ends. Providing the HCP is aware. One's eyes counteracts the flaws. A better classification for removing obesity is to label people correctly - a person having visceral or peri-renal adiposity (fat around the organs that gives the barrel shape), having sarcopenic adiposity (eg old people who have lost muscle mass and bone density but are still obese but misclassified). The worst of all are the fat on the inside people - when fat is in your organs (triglycerides). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Last year. Overweight and obese almost two thirds of the population.
America was around the same percentage just for obese, if I'm remembering correctly (I didn't need their stats).
The thing is the remaining third don't get away with being healthy just because they are not classified according to their BMI, as they may actually be more unhealthy.
Go on ask why
Ah ok thanks your dissertation was last year. Apologies I made an assumption it was a few years back.
Great so you know your stuff...
Why are TWO-THIRDS of people in UK classed as overweight (how many obese)? What are the actual reasons? How does that compare to 20/30/40/50 years ago? Is there a trend? What factors are driving that trend?
Sorry that is a lot of questions but all interlinked.
Average sizes shows the increase in obesity over the decades. There's also a hidden increase: dress sizes have grown: a size 10 dress is larger than it was thirty years ago. The average dress size twenty years ago was a 12, a 14 ten years ago and 16 nowadays.
Less manual/active work without decreasing portion sizes is a factor.
Foods with a calorific density while nutritionally deficit is a factor.
Processed foods (which is often the above point).
Use of food as a crutch.
Healthcare professionals not having the training to deliver innovations that reduce stigma and help educate nutritional values.
Healthcare professionals fearful to broach the subject.
Obese being "normal", IE not identifying as obese. Majority of people underestimate their obesity classification.
Women are better at identifying themselves as obese than men. Men are better at identifying women than themselves.
Global obesity is the greatest cause of malnutrition - countries once with high numbers of undernutrition have become obese due to the imports of cheap processed foods (better to be obese than hungry so to speak)."Interesting. However, I would still say some of these things are “lifestyle choices”. Lack of exercise vs calorie intake. People have more sedentary jobs, so get out and do some exercise. People have access to more information about nutrition than ever before and yet Deliveroo and JustEat are thriving. Many people are too lazy to cook or simply don’t know how to cook so opt for ready meals and take aways. Without a doubt society as a whole has not helped. Automation has not helped. Increase in processed foods has not helped. And some people really do have health related issues that impact their weight. But some are just lazy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Last year. Overweight and obese almost two thirds of the population.
America was around the same percentage just for obese, if I'm remembering correctly (I didn't need their stats).
The thing is the remaining third don't get away with being healthy just because they are not classified according to their BMI, as they may actually be more unhealthy.
Go on ask why
Ah ok thanks your dissertation was last year. Apologies I made an assumption it was a few years back.
Great so you know your stuff...
Why are TWO-THIRDS of people in UK classed as overweight (how many obese)? What are the actual reasons? How does that compare to 20/30/40/50 years ago? Is there a trend? What factors are driving that trend?
Sorry that is a lot of questions but all interlinked.
Average sizes shows the increase in obesity over the decades. There's also a hidden increase: dress sizes have grown: a size 10 dress is larger than it was thirty years ago. The average dress size twenty years ago was a 12, a 14 ten years ago and 16 nowadays.
Less manual/active work without decreasing portion sizes is a factor.
Foods with a calorific density while nutritionally deficit is a factor.
Processed foods (which is often the above point).
Use of food as a crutch.
Healthcare professionals not having the training to deliver innovations that reduce stigma and help educate nutritional values.
Healthcare professionals fearful to broach the subject.
Obese being "normal", IE not identifying as obese. Majority of people underestimate their obesity classification.
Women are better at identifying themselves as obese than men. Men are better at identifying women than themselves.
Global obesity is the greatest cause of malnutrition - countries once with high numbers of undernutrition have become obese due to the imports of cheap processed foods (better to be obese than hungry so to speak).
Interesting. However, I would still say some of these things are “lifestyle choices”. Lack of exercise vs calorie intake. People have more sedentary jobs, so get out and do some exercise.
People have access to more information about nutrition than ever before and yet Deliveroo and JustEat are thriving. Many people are too lazy to cook or simply don’t know how to cook so opt for ready meals and take aways.
Without a doubt society as a whole has not helped. Automation has not helped. Increase in processed foods has not helped. And some people really do have health related issues that impact their weight. But some are just lazy!"Of course there are life-style choices within the factors. And if someone doesn't even consider themselves as having obesity, they are not going to change anything. Calorie-dense processed crap - the worst thing we can eat. We are preventing our bodies doing what they are designed to do, break down food into its smallest components. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now? "Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated. It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
"Why a travesty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
Why a travesty?"Not you but other stats. Such as child obesity. It's born from extrapolation of America data and standard deviations from 1980 estimates. Which is why. When you look at data on childhood obesity. There a 5-10% drop in total obese people from 12-18 vs 19-25 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Last year. Overweight and obese almost two thirds of the population.
America was around the same percentage just for obese, if I'm remembering correctly (I didn't need their stats).
The thing is the remaining third don't get away with being healthy just because they are not classified according to their BMI, as they may actually be more unhealthy.
Go on ask why
Ah ok thanks your dissertation was last year. Apologies I made an assumption it was a few years back.
Great so you know your stuff...
Why are TWO-THIRDS of people in UK classed as overweight (how many obese)? What are the actual reasons? How does that compare to 20/30/40/50 years ago? Is there a trend? What factors are driving that trend?
Sorry that is a lot of questions but all interlinked.
Average sizes shows the increase in obesity over the decades. There's also a hidden increase: dress sizes have grown: a size 10 dress is larger than it was thirty years ago. The average dress size twenty years ago was a 12, a 14 ten years ago and 16 nowadays.
Less manual/active work without decreasing portion sizes is a factor.
Foods with a calorific density while nutritionally deficit is a factor.
Processed foods (which is often the above point).
Use of food as a crutch.
Healthcare professionals not having the training to deliver innovations that reduce stigma and help educate nutritional values.
Healthcare professionals fearful to broach the subject.
Obese being "normal", IE not identifying as obese. Majority of people underestimate their obesity classification.
Women are better at identifying themselves as obese than men. Men are better at identifying women than themselves.
Global obesity is the greatest cause of malnutrition - countries once with high numbers of undernutrition have become obese due to the imports of cheap processed foods (better to be obese than hungry so to speak).
Interesting. However, I would still say some of these things are “lifestyle choices”. Lack of exercise vs calorie intake. People have more sedentary jobs, so get out and do some exercise.
People have access to more information about nutrition than ever before and yet Deliveroo and JustEat are thriving. Many people are too lazy to cook or simply don’t know how to cook so opt for ready meals and take aways.
Without a doubt society as a whole has not helped. Automation has not helped. Increase in processed foods has not helped. And some people really do have health related issues that impact their weight. But some are just lazy!
Of course there are life-style choices within the factors. And if someone doesn't even consider themselves as having obesity, they are not going to change anything.
Calorie-dense processed crap - the worst thing we can eat. We are preventing our bodies doing what they are designed to do, break down food into its smallest components."Totally agree but will the cost of living help. Saw a perant talk to the kids in a big supermarket talking about cost and it was cheaper to make a lasagne then buy 4 ready made? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
Why a travesty?
Not you but other stats.
Such as child obesity.
It's born from extrapolation of America data and standard deviations from 1980 estimates.
Which is why.
When you look at data on childhood obesity.
There a 5-10% drop in total obese people from 12-18 vs 19-25"I did come across stats for kids (much increase in recent years) but was not relevant to my paper. Health surveys gather data. NHS digital published latest one December 2022. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
Why a travesty?
Not you but other stats.
Such as child obesity.
It's born from extrapolation of America data and standard deviations from 1980 estimates.
Which is why.
When you look at data on childhood obesity.
There a 5-10% drop in total obese people from 12-18 vs 19-25
I did come across stats for kids (much increase in recent years) but was not relevant to my paper. Health surveys gather data. NHS digital published latest one December 2022."because I'm a stat nerd.... Where can we look at this stat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
Why a travesty?
Not you but other stats.
Such as child obesity.
It's born from extrapolation of America data and standard deviations from 1980 estimates.
Which is why.
When you look at data on childhood obesity.
There a 5-10% drop in total obese people from 12-18 vs 19-25
I did come across stats for kids (much increase in recent years) but was not relevant to my paper. Health surveys gather data. NHS digital published latest one December 2022.because I'm a stat nerd.... Where can we look at this stat?"NHS Digital. Or Google health survey 2021 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
Why a travesty?
Not you but other stats.
Such as child obesity.
It's born from extrapolation of America data and standard deviations from 1980 estimates.
Which is why.
When you look at data on childhood obesity.
There a 5-10% drop in total obese people from 12-18 vs 19-25
I did come across stats for kids (much increase in recent years) but was not relevant to my paper. Health surveys gather data. NHS digital published latest one December 2022."Yeah the stats are based on papers form 1960s to 1990. Using estimated child clothing for bmi. It was an extrapolation back then of how fat kids were bo field works and using skin folds or water displacement. And we have measures against that estimationsince then. It's horrid maths and would pass a snofff test normally but it helps lush a narrative. That's not to say I don't believe kids have gotten fatter. I jsut don't beleive anywhere near the rates exclaimed by the ban sugar lobbies and Sadiq Khan etc. The only data we should be using fkr comparison should be doing skin fold tests on kids on school. Direct comparable measurements annually for each age with a large spread of schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"*so I think that means using this model Morley’s injury would not be classed as something covered by NHS if money/budget was getting tight. The injury was sustained as a result of lifestyle choice (playing football) rather than an accident and was not life threatening. "Lifestyle choice" is where things can get very complex. Suffered a heart attack? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to put salt in your food. Been in a car accident? No treatment for you as you made a lifestyle choice to drive a car. Been beaten up by thugs? No treatment for you as you made the lifestyle choice to go out after dark. Etc. Yeah that’s a good challenge. I think if you are regularly playing sports with the potential for injury then there is an argument you should have insurance, like you do with a car, or travel insurance. I used to regularly scuba dive and that whacked up the travel insurance quotes. Skiing and mountain climbing too. I reckon some people would argue that regular over consumption of alcohol, or smoking, or drugs should exempt you from free treatment. Maybe gluttony and obesity too! It certainly sees Private Medical Insurance providers either refuse to give you cover or charge a huge premium. Obesity, by and large, is not a lifestyle choice. Apparently you haven't been to Southern America. It's a choice.
I did my dissertation on obesity - for the majority, it is not a choice.
Not to be overly rude (sorry if this is) but how recent was your dissertation? What was the % of the UK population classed obese then? What is it now?
Have you ever looked into how obesity stats are calculated.
It's a travesty to mathematica and statistics all round.
Why a travesty?
Not you but other stats.
Such as child obesity.
It's born from extrapolation of America data and standard deviations from 1980 estimates.
Which is why.
When you look at data on childhood obesity.
There a 5-10% drop in total obese people from 12-18 vs 19-25
I did come across stats for kids (much increase in recent years) but was not relevant to my paper. Health surveys gather data. NHS digital published latest one December 2022.
Yeah the stats are based on papers form 1960s to 1990. Using estimated child clothing for bmi.
It was an extrapolation back then of how fat kids were bo field works and using skin folds or water displacement.
And we have measures against that estimationsince then.
It's horrid maths and would pass a snofff test normally but it helps lush a narrative.
That's not to say I don't believe kids have gotten fatter.
I jsut don't beleive anywhere near the rates exclaimed by the ban sugar lobbies and Sadiq Khan etc.
The only data we should be using fkr comparison should be doing skin fold tests on kids on school. Direct comparable measurements annually for each age with a large spread of schools."NHS digital again for childhood obesity is this country. Such old research would not be acceptable evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven’t read the whole thread because I imagine it’s just a lot of NHS bashing which people are absolutely free to do but my experiences have been good because I was lucky enough to be signed up to a gp surgery that has lots of committed doctors, nurses and support staff plus regularly visiting physios etc and they have always given me good advice and help. My experiences at one of our local a&e departments were not so good when I had a bad fall at work and they just stitched my scalp up while failing to notice the fractured cervical vertebrae until it was too late to do anything about it. On the other hand though my daughter had a scoliosis which was operated on by the local children’s hospital and she is now teaching dance so like anything in life sometimes you get better luck than at other times unlike fab where I very rarely get lucky these days "Good healthcare shouldn't be through luck or a postcode lottery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No I quite agree. A relative of mine recently passed away from the damage Covid had caused to her lungs and in the three years since she caught it her gp practice were so useless that I would regard it as possible negligence but, like a lot of older people, she didn’t want to cause a fuss and so it was easy for her gp to sign her off rather than try a bit harder to help her. It was a two doctor surgery with only a couple of receptionists and a nurse so very easy for them to become lazy or complacent. I can’t help wondering if gp’s should really work in larger groupings so that they are under more scrutiny? " Or maybe overworked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone " A crap NHS is better than no NHS. Is that your sentiment? It is mine. Let's improve it with a new government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone A crap NHS is better than no NHS. Is that your sentiment? It is mine. Let's improve it with a new government." Absolutely. Recently been watching American TV hospital dramas And their insurance based system is just shit ,over inflated price's, unnecessary tests and treatment to inflate costs. And given the rip off culture ours would be more expensive for probably worse treatment. How many times do insurance companies worm their way out of paying for something? I've recently had to pay over £600 privately to get an MRI scan and frankly the service wasn't any better just minus the 18month waiting time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone A crap NHS is better than no NHS. Is that your sentiment? It is mine. Let's improve it with a new government. Absolutely. Recently been watching American TV hospital dramas And their insurance based system is just shit ,over inflated price's, unnecessary tests and treatment to inflate costs. And given the rip off culture ours would be more expensive for probably worse treatment. How many times do insurance companies worm their way out of paying for something? I've recently had to pay over £600 privately to get an MRI scan and frankly the service wasn't any better just minus the 18month waiting time. " It depends on what insurance a individual chooses. I have 0 issues with my insurance. I like the personal responsibility. I can pick and choose what my personal needs requires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone A crap NHS is better than no NHS. Is that your sentiment? It is mine. Let's improve it with a new government. Absolutely. Recently been watching American TV hospital dramas And their insurance based system is just shit ,over inflated price's, unnecessary tests and treatment to inflate costs. And given the rip off culture ours would be more expensive for probably worse treatment. How many times do insurance companies worm their way out of paying for something? I've recently had to pay over £600 privately to get an MRI scan and frankly the service wasn't any better just minus the 18month waiting time. " A colleague was mistakenly asked to pay £2000. When she stated she was NHS she had her appointment cancelled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone A crap NHS is better than no NHS. Is that your sentiment? It is mine. Let's improve it with a new government. Absolutely. Recently been watching American TV hospital dramas And their insurance based system is just shit ,over inflated price's, unnecessary tests and treatment to inflate costs. And given the rip off culture ours would be more expensive for probably worse treatment. How many times do insurance companies worm their way out of paying for something? I've recently had to pay over £600 privately to get an MRI scan and frankly the service wasn't any better just minus the 18month waiting time. It depends on what insurance a individual chooses. I have 0 issues with my insurance. I like the personal responsibility. I can pick and choose what my personal needs requires." Blu hope you don’t mind me asking but does your policy cover hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle related conditions (smoking, alcohol, dangerous sports)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""recently had to pay over £600 privately to get an MRI scan and frankly the service wasn't any better just minus the 18month waiting time" WOW!!!!! I had an MRI (brain-scan) just yesterday, a little more complicated in that here one is expected to pick up from the pharmacie the necessary material oneself: in my case 15ml GADOVIST contrast agent, catheter and tap, total cost 111 euro. Total charge for the procedure 125 euro, broken down 70 euro for the technician/doctor who'll make the analysis and report (it'll be ready by Monday morning for my consultant), 55 euro for the clinic. Finance-wise, 85% is automatically paid by the State to the clinic (for those "in the system", illegal immigrants get shown the door), the other 15% is covered by the patient or by private insurance. Obviously, this 15% isn't applicable to the old, unemployed, out of work etc., again only if they're "in the system". No waiting lists because people are covered either 100% or 85% plus private insurance, anybody "sans papiers" can go fuck themselves. You won't see French or Germans clogging up the NHS!" I have read here before of a similar / same set up, might well have been France. It does sound like it should at least be considered here. Sounds a bit unusual that you supply your own items yourself but probably because we are not used to doing that. When you say immigrants get shown the door, do you mean no medical help at all? Even if it's a life or death emergency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In more detail: Firstly, a GP, dentist etc., will do almost nothing without prior blood tests, x-rays, scans and so on, obviously if it's a hospital emergency it'll be done in-house. Otherwise, you'll be given a "prescription" which you present to a lab, clinic etc. to do the necessary. As another example, for recent dental work I needed a panoramique x-ray for which my dentist didn't have the specialised equipment, I had to travel about 10 miles to a clinic where I was charged 22 euro. On the basis of these results, the GP will commence treatment or refer you to a hospital consultant. Blood test results, x-rays etc. are your property, so although doctors can directly log in to centralised databases it's not unusual to see patients walking around carrying their whole medical history. Everybody legally in France has the right to register for the basic 85% reimbursement system, the top-up is by an optional "mutuelle" insurance the cost of which depends on age etc. I personally have private insurance through my employer which, again, reimburses me at 85% so there's no advantage in my registering in France for a Carte Vitale. Persons let's say "less than legal" will, of course, be treated for accidents and emergencies but the bare minimum and they will themselves hardly want to raise their heads too far above the parapet. But, as you see, everybody is aware of the REAL costs of treatments, medicines etc., and the hospital A & E waiting rooms are not full of krinklies who have stubbed their toe or mothers of little Johnny who may have swallowed a spider..." I got stung by a bee in my mouth as a kid, would I get free help? or have to use pocket money. To be fair it was probably my fault as I should have checked the lolly ice before licking. I'll never learn, sometimes still lick things without looking. Liz. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In more detail: Firstly, a GP, dentist etc., will do almost nothing without prior blood tests, x-rays, scans and so on, obviously if it's a hospital emergency it'll be done in-house. Otherwise, you'll be given a "prescription" which you present to a lab, clinic etc. to do the necessary. As another example, for recent dental work I needed a panoramique x-ray for which my dentist didn't have the specialised equipment, I had to travel about 10 miles to a clinic where I was charged 22 euro. On the basis of these results, the GP will commence treatment or refer you to a hospital consultant. Blood test results, x-rays etc. are your property, so although doctors can directly log in to centralised databases it's not unusual to see patients walking around carrying their whole medical history. Everybody legally in France has the right to register for the basic 85% reimbursement system, the top-up is by an optional "mutuelle" insurance the cost of which depends on age etc. I personally have private insurance through my employer which, again, reimburses me at 85% so there's no advantage in my registering in France for a Carte Vitale. Persons let's say "less than legal" will, of course, be treated for accidents and emergencies but the bare minimum and they will themselves hardly want to raise their heads too far above the parapet. But, as you see, everybody is aware of the REAL costs of treatments, medicines etc., and the hospital A & E waiting rooms are not full of krinklies who have stubbed their toe or mothers of little Johnny who may have swallowed a spider..." Thank you for the additional info. It does indeed sound interesting. It's good to hear those less than legal people are given at least basic emergency help. As you say it also highlights to the public the cost of procedures especially for minor problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone A crap NHS is better than no NHS. Is that your sentiment? It is mine. Let's improve it with a new government. Absolutely. Recently been watching American TV hospital dramas And their insurance based system is just shit ,over inflated price's, unnecessary tests and treatment to inflate costs. And given the rip off culture ours would be more expensive for probably worse treatment. How many times do insurance companies worm their way out of paying for something? I've recently had to pay over £600 privately to get an MRI scan and frankly the service wasn't any better just minus the 18month waiting time. It depends on what insurance a individual chooses. I have 0 issues with my insurance. I like the personal responsibility. I can pick and choose what my personal needs requires. Blu hope you don’t mind me asking but does your policy cover hereditary conditions? What about lifestyle related conditions (smoking, alcohol, dangerous sports)?" Yes ACA covers pre existing conditions. You can't be denied. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone " My belief in the the NHS is being deliberately under funded. When the government tell you that are putting money into the NHS they are not saying if that's going to shareholders of companies like Virginia care or into the NHS direct & patient care You only have to look at the PPE contracts to see how bent this government is / fast lane & friends Save the NHS keep it public is what I am saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good luck when it's gone My belief in the the NHS is being deliberately under funded. When the government tell you that are putting money into the NHS they are not saying if that's going to shareholders of companies like Virginia care or into the NHS direct & patient care You only have to look at the PPE contracts to see how bent this government is / fast lane & friends Save the NHS keep it public is what I am saying. " So keep it public so it's efficient and transparent. Like the Post Office you mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. I’m assuming this bit of nonsense is grounded in some kind of data, and you haven’t just had a fever dream? Do you work for NHS customer services? “Anyone who isn’t happy with the service will be reported to the police”. It’s probably why when I call my GP the first thing I have to listen to is a five minute diatribe about how they won’t put up with abuse of their staff. All perfectly normal when one seeks services anywhere else. Let me guess, you think the NHS is the “best in the world”. I mean you could just answer my question, lad. Got any evidence that middle aged white blokes are bumped down the queue? " No. He has none. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" With the NHS I have no idea whether the staff are ideological nut jobs, what is driving the service or lack of it, what diversity courses they have been on that might be pushing middle aged white males down the treatment list, what the current rationing priorities are. I’m assuming this bit of nonsense is grounded in some kind of data, and you haven’t just had a fever dream? Do you work for NHS customer services? “Anyone who isn’t happy with the service will be reported to the police”. It’s probably why when I call my GP the first thing I have to listen to is a five minute diatribe about how they won’t put up with abuse of their staff. All perfectly normal when one seeks services anywhere else. Let me guess, you think the NHS is the “best in the world”. I mean you could just answer my question, lad. Got any evidence that middle aged white blokes are bumped down the queue? No. He has none." Only in the gynae dept | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know how insurance companies will do everything they can to get out of paying out after a car accident or burglary? That, but with your heart attack. " This is absolutely correct. Insurance is a business. They don’t want to pay out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money?" I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth." But I have not said it can’t work. Nor passed comment on other countries. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You know how insurance companies will do everything they can to get out of paying out after a car accident or burglary? That, but with your heart attack. " I like how you mix all these things up as though they have significant connection to one another. Breaking it down, a car accident and burglary, will be paid out if you have the correct insurance to cover you whether you are at fault or not. A person having a heart attack, what is the person actually claiming for during this awful episode? Post heart attack, assuming not fatal, I would expect insurance if appropriate will pay out for any medical procedures to minimise another life threatening heart attack. Or you can hold onto everything is shit because I can think it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. Nor passed comment on other countries. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that?" Private healthcare can run alongside national healthcare. I'll attempt to answer in the way I could see it working. 1. Hereditary should be covered. 2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing). 3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer. As far as number 3 goes, national should always picked up critical illness. I'm not sure there's gonna be many people in the UK who want to completely disband the NHS, more that they'd like to see it completely reformed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money?" "I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth." "But I have not said it can’t work." No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. "I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that?" It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth." If you look on WHO, you can see what type of healthcare member states have. Provision of a national health service is not exclusive to the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work." But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions?" Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding" Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. Nor passed comment on other countries. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? Private healthcare can run alongside national healthcare. I'll attempt to answer in the way I could see it working. 1. Hereditary should be covered. 2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing). 3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer. As far as number 3 goes, national should always picked up critical illness. I'm not sure there's gonna be many people in the UK who want to completely disband the NHS, more that they'd like to see it completely reformed. " Thanks for trying when others don’t bother or appear to deflect... "1. Hereditary should be covered" By who? The insurance company or a state provider? Not clear but your point on critical being national says you want a mixed insurance and NHS style offer? Is that right? "2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing)." So a mixed approach not insurance only? A generation will need to pass before nothing is classed as pre-existing right? "3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer." Indeed but your insurance premium will be higher based on lifestyle choices including smoking. ++++ As someone lucky enough to have no known hereditary illnesses in my family, who is in good health, doesn’t smoke, light drinker, good fitness levels and financially well off, this doesn’t obviously affect me as far as I can see. But what if my child had been born with serious health issues? Right now the NHS step in. So a mixed approach may see this still be the case. But what if we went down the USA style approach? What then? Can you take out health insurance for an unborn child? Not a gotcha, I genuinely don’t know. Let’s say they get fixed but it turns out their illness could be passed on in future to their child. Will insurance be prepared to cover that? I mean they might, but what would the premium be? If the state (NHS) still covers critical/hereditary/pre-existing then that in theory could reduce the cost of NHS so will that be reflected in reduced NI contributions and will those savings be sufficient for an individual to cover the cost of additional medical insurance (which will surely be dependent on their income). What about unemployed people? Who pays their medical insurance? Disabled people with acute needs? So many questions (not for you Feisty per se but your reply was the springboard). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. " Maybe not enough? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. Maybe not enough?" Maybe not, I honestly don't know. I really quickly searched. Alcohol duty is confusing to say the least. Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. Maybe not enough? Maybe not, I honestly don't know. I really quickly searched. Alcohol duty is confusing to say the least. Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. " I find it crackers anyone would smoke  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks for trying when others don’t bother or appear to deflect... 1. Hereditary should be covered By who? The insurance company or a state provider? Not clear but your point on critical being national says you want a mixed insurance and NHS style offer? Is that right? " By the state, should've made that clear. " 2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing). So a mixed approach not insurance only? A generation will need to pass before nothing is classed as pre-existing right? " I would never advocate for insurance only. I'd imagine 2/3 generations would need to pass. " 3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer. Indeed but your insurance premium will be higher based on lifestyle choices including smoking. " Insurance premium would likely be higher, that would be upfront and on quotation questionnaires. The idea is that if something is pre-disclosed, insurance companies can't use it to wriggle out later. " As someone lucky enough to have no known hereditary illnesses in my family, who is in good health, doesn’t smoke, light drinker, good fitness levels and financially well off, this doesn’t obviously affect me as far as I can see. But what if my child had been born with serious health issues? Right now the NHS step in. So a mixed approach may see this still be the case. But what if we went down the USA style approach? What then? Can you take out health insurance for an unborn child? Not a gotcha, I genuinely don’t know. " State should take care of children, period. There wouldn't be anything elective for children anyway. " Let’s say they get fixed but it turns out their illness could be passed on in future to their child. Will insurance be prepared to cover that? I mean they might, but what would the premium be? If the state (NHS) still covers critical/hereditary/pre-existing then that in theory could reduce the cost of NHS so will that be reflected in reduced NI contributions and will those savings be sufficient for an individual to cover the cost of additional medical insurance (which will surely be dependent on their income). " I'm only speaking for myself but I'm not fussed on a reduction in NI contributions, I'm fussed about the NHS being fit for purpose for those who need it much more than I do (at present) " What about unemployed people? Who pays their medical insurance? Disabled people with acute needs? So many questions (not for you Feisty per se but your reply was the springboard). " Unemployed, acute needs etc. Would all be covered under the NHS. For me, one of the main issues with the NHS is the sheer scope. An awful lot of treatments offered on NHS are elective. Take cosmetic for instance, that can be gamed using mental health. That uses vital resources than could be deployed elsewhere. None of this us really about finances for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. Maybe not enough? Maybe not, I honestly don't know. I really quickly searched. Alcohol duty is confusing to say the least. Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. I find it crackers anyone would smoke "We both used to. Trust me when I say nicotine is a highly, highly addictive substance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. " And? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I ask this all the time whenever anyone espouses moving to a health insurance based system, and nobody ever gives us an answer... What happens with: 1. Hereditary conditions? 2. Pre-existing conditions? 3. Lifestyle related conditions? If Govt made covering these mandatory then how will insurance companies make any money? I feel sorry for the rest of the world. They must have an awful time of it, what with not having an NHS and being forced to rely on inadequate and expensive private health care to cover all their illnesses. That must be why the UK has a reputation for being the fittest and healthiest nation on earth. But I have not said it can’t work. No, you haven't actually said that it can't work in this thread, you just posted the above with the heavy implication that there are no answers. I asked about specific situations and once again nobody can answer? Why is that? It could be because you're asking on an almost exclusively UK forum, and no one from countries where it does work ever sees your question. Or it could be because people have already given you answers in other threads, but you just dismissed them by saying that all private enterprise is greedy, and therefore it can't work. But this exclusively UK forum is seemingly populated with a fair few who advocate an insurance based system so if they are supporting/arguing for that then why can’t they answer those three questions? Too many people would be paying rated risk premiums for insurance based; obesity, weight, smoking etc This in part is why the nhs is screwed by people’s self abuse abd the same then complaining about waiting lists A few diets would not go a miss, ban unhealthy/ sugary foods, introduce urban farms encouraging people to grow their own and away from reliance on fast foods, the drinkers and smokers tax them more putting the extra taxes to nhs funding Drinkers and smokers already pay 'extra' taxes. Maybe not enough? Maybe not, I honestly don't know. I really quickly searched. Alcohol duty is confusing to say the least. Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. I find it crackers anyone would smoke "Agreed. Especially with NHS smoking cessation services and free/reduced priced treatment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. " Smoking is estimated to cost the Nhs £2.6bn every year, equivalent to 2% of health service budget. Add obesity, estimated cost to nhs £6.5bn a year, estimated to increase to £9.7bn a year by 2050 Add alcohol related diseases, another £3.5bn a year " Tobacco receipts are circa 10b per year. And for alcohol circa 12.5b per year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. Hereditary should be covered By who? The insurance company or a state provider? Not clear but your point on critical being national says you want a mixed insurance and NHS style offer? Is that right? By the state, should've made that clear. 2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing). So a mixed approach not insurance only? A generation will need to pass before nothing is classed as pre-existing right? I would never advocate for insurance only. I'd imagine 2/3 generations would need to pass. 3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer. Indeed but your insurance premium will be higher based on lifestyle choices including smoking. Insurance premium would likely be higher, that would be upfront and on quotation questionnaires. The idea is that if something is pre-disclosed, insurance companies can't use it to wriggle out later. As someone lucky enough to have no known hereditary illnesses in my family, who is in good health, doesn’t smoke, light drinker, good fitness levels and financially well off, this doesn’t obviously affect me as far as I can see. But what if my child had been born with serious health issues? Right now the NHS step in. So a mixed approach may see this still be the case. But what if we went down the USA style approach? What then? Can you take out health insurance for an unborn child? Not a gotcha, I genuinely don’t know. State should take care of children, period. There wouldn't be anything elective for children anyway. Let’s say they get fixed but it turns out their illness could be passed on in future to their child. Will insurance be prepared to cover that? I mean they might, but what would the premium be? If the state (NHS) still covers critical/hereditary/pre-existing then that in theory could reduce the cost of NHS so will that be reflected in reduced NI contributions and will those savings be sufficient for an individual to cover the cost of additional medical insurance (which will surely be dependent on their income). I'm only speaking for myself but I'm not fussed on a reduction in NI contributions, I'm fussed about the NHS being fit for purpose for those who need it much more than I do (at present) What about unemployed people? Who pays their medical insurance? Disabled people with acute needs? So many questions (not for you Feisty per se but your reply was the springboard). Unemployed, acute needs etc. Would all be covered under the NHS. For me, one of the main issues with the NHS is the sheer scope. An awful lot of treatments offered on NHS are elective. Take cosmetic for instance, that can be gamed using mental health. That uses vital resources than could be deployed elsewhere. " I'd go for: Hereditary: must be covered. I'm assuming here that you are talking about hidden diseases, not ones that are known about and are therefore pre-existing. Pre-existing: the insurance company must treat, and the government pays the bills. Lifestyle: must be covered. The insurance companies would not be allowed to ask UK citizens any questions other than name, address, date of birth. They would not be able to refuse any application, and they would not be able to drop anyone, except for fraud, or after a court order for non-payment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. " Smoking is estimated to cost the Nhs £2.6bn every year, equivalent to 2% of health service budget. Add obesity, estimated cost to nhs £6.5bn a year, estimated to increase to £9.7bn a year by 2050 Add alcohol related diseases, another £3.5bn a year Tobacco receipts are circa 10b per year. And for alcohol circa 12.5b per year. " Malnutrition stated as £19.6bn annual cost to nhs 90% of uk land mass is undeveloped why are we not growing more of our own food. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. " Smoking is estimated to cost the Nhs £2.6bn every year, equivalent to 2% of health service budget. Add obesity, estimated cost to nhs £6.5bn a year, estimated to increase to £9.7bn a year by 2050 Add alcohol related diseases, another £3.5bn a year Tobacco receipts are circa 10b per year. And for alcohol circa 12.5b per year. Malnutrition stated as £19.6bn annual cost to nhs 90% of uk land mass is undeveloped why are we not growing more of our own food. " That's a valid question but I don't feel targeting smokers and drinkers even more than already is valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. " Smoking is estimated to cost the Nhs £2.6bn every year, equivalent to 2% of health service budget. Add obesity, estimated cost to nhs £6.5bn a year, estimated to increase to £9.7bn a year by 2050 Add alcohol related diseases, another £3.5bn a year Tobacco receipts are circa 10b per year. And for alcohol circa 12.5b per year. Malnutrition stated as £19.6bn annual cost to nhs 90% of uk land mass is undeveloped why are we not growing more of our own food. That's a valid question but I don't feel targeting smokers and drinkers even more than already is valid. " Don’t disagree but when you look at isolated causes and nhs costs they add up to a considerable amount £19.6bn a year would pay for many allotments. £200bn over a decade into urban agriculture infrastructure, huge benefits for health and well being. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Breaking it down, a car accident and burglary, will be paid out if you have the correct insurance to cover you whether you are at fault or not. " Will they? Or will they attempt to minimise their payout by whatever means they can? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Cigarettes duty is £6odd plus 16.5% (of retail price) per packet. That seems quite a lot. " Smoking is estimated to cost the Nhs £2.6bn every year, equivalent to 2% of health service budget. Add obesity, estimated cost to nhs £6.5bn a year, estimated to increase to £9.7bn a year by 2050 Add alcohol related diseases, another £3.5bn a year Tobacco receipts are circa 10b per year. And for alcohol circa 12.5b per year. Malnutrition stated as £19.6bn annual cost to nhs 90% of uk land mass is undeveloped why are we not growing more of our own food. That's a valid question but I don't feel targeting smokers and drinkers even more than already is valid. Don’t disagree but when you look at isolated causes and nhs costs they add up to a considerable amount £19.6bn a year would pay for many allotments. £200bn over a decade into urban agriculture infrastructure, huge benefits for health and well being. " I don't think we need subsidised allotments. There is plenty of access to healthy foods. Personally I'd tax food would doesn't meet a set nutritional value. I wouldn't ban it because I want to eat it sometimes. Selfish I know, but I'm willing to pay extra when I'm buying it. Another reason I wouldn't ban it is because prohibition doesn't work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks for trying when others don’t bother or appear to deflect... 1. Hereditary should be covered By who? The insurance company or a state provider? Not clear but your point on critical being national says you want a mixed insurance and NHS style offer? Is that right? By the state, should've made that clear. 2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing). So a mixed approach not insurance only? A generation will need to pass before nothing is classed as pre-existing right? I would never advocate for insurance only. I'd imagine 2/3 generations would need to pass. 3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer. Indeed but your insurance premium will be higher based on lifestyle choices including smoking. Insurance premium would likely be higher, that would be upfront and on quotation questionnaires. The idea is that if something is pre-disclosed, insurance companies can't use it to wriggle out later. As someone lucky enough to have no known hereditary illnesses in my family, who is in good health, doesn’t smoke, light drinker, good fitness levels and financially well off, this doesn’t obviously affect me as far as I can see. But what if my child had been born with serious health issues? Right now the NHS step in. So a mixed approach may see this still be the case. But what if we went down the USA style approach? What then? Can you take out health insurance for an unborn child? Not a gotcha, I genuinely don’t know. State should take care of children, period. There wouldn't be anything elective for children anyway. Let’s say they get fixed but it turns out their illness could be passed on in future to their child. Will insurance be prepared to cover that? I mean they might, but what would the premium be? If the state (NHS) still covers critical/hereditary/pre-existing then that in theory could reduce the cost of NHS so will that be reflected in reduced NI contributions and will those savings be sufficient for an individual to cover the cost of additional medical insurance (which will surely be dependent on their income). I'm only speaking for myself but I'm not fussed on a reduction in NI contributions, I'm fussed about the NHS being fit for purpose for those who need it much more than I do (at present) What about unemployed people? Who pays their medical insurance? Disabled people with acute needs? So many questions (not for you Feisty per se but your reply was the springboard). Unemployed, acute needs etc. Would all be covered under the NHS. For me, one of the main issues with the NHS is the sheer scope. An awful lot of treatments offered on NHS are elective. Take cosmetic for instance, that can be gamed using mental health. That uses vital resources than could be deployed elsewhere. None of this us really about finances for me. " While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind." Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. Hereditary should be covered By who? The insurance company or a state provider? Not clear but your point on critical being national says you want a mixed insurance and NHS style offer? Is that right? By the state, should've made that clear. 2. Pre-existing can be covered under national (eventually nothing will be pre-existing). So a mixed approach not insurance only? A generation will need to pass before nothing is classed as pre-existing right? I would never advocate for insurance only. I'd imagine 2/3 generations would need to pass. 3. Lifestyle is about opinion. For example a smoker could get cancer, but there is no guarantee smoking caused the cancer. Indeed but your insurance premium will be higher based on lifestyle choices including smoking. Insurance premium would likely be higher, that would be upfront and on quotation questionnaires. The idea is that if something is pre-disclosed, insurance companies can't use it to wriggle out later. As someone lucky enough to have no known hereditary illnesses in my family, who is in good health, doesn’t smoke, light drinker, good fitness levels and financially well off, this doesn’t obviously affect me as far as I can see. But what if my child had been born with serious health issues? Right now the NHS step in. So a mixed approach may see this still be the case. But what if we went down the USA style approach? What then? Can you take out health insurance for an unborn child? Not a gotcha, I genuinely don’t know. State should take care of children, period. There wouldn't be anything elective for children anyway. Let’s say they get fixed but it turns out their illness could be passed on in future to their child. Will insurance be prepared to cover that? I mean they might, but what would the premium be? If the state (NHS) still covers critical/hereditary/pre-existing then that in theory could reduce the cost of NHS so will that be reflected in reduced NI contributions and will those savings be sufficient for an individual to cover the cost of additional medical insurance (which will surely be dependent on their income). I'm only speaking for myself but I'm not fussed on a reduction in NI contributions, I'm fussed about the NHS being fit for purpose for those who need it much more than I do (at present) What about unemployed people? Who pays their medical insurance? Disabled people with acute needs? So many questions (not for you Feisty per se but your reply was the springboard). Unemployed, acute needs etc. Would all be covered under the NHS. For me, one of the main issues with the NHS is the sheer scope. An awful lot of treatments offered on NHS are elective. Take cosmetic for instance, that can be gamed using mental health. That uses vital resources than could be deployed elsewhere. I'd go for: Hereditary: must be covered. I'm assuming here that you are talking about hidden diseases, not ones that are known about and are therefore pre-existing. Pre-existing: the insurance company must treat, and the government pays the bills. Lifestyle: must be covered. The insurance companies would not be allowed to ask UK citizens any questions other than name, address, date of birth. They would not be able to refuse any application, and they would not be able to drop anyone, except for fraud, or after a court order for non-payment." On last point I agree but in practice the risk and exposure to the insurance companies will be very high so they will mitigate that with higher premium/ surely? Will these be affordable by ordinary people? On earlier points, that will still mean a hefty NHS bill for taxpayers right? Will people accept the reduced NHS coverage without a corresponding reduction in tax/NI? Will that be enough to cover cost of medical insurance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. " I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident." Have a rethink about elective surgery. Think hip replacements, for example, they are far less costly to the NHS, economy and patient than trauma surgery. Although it's not an either or consideration, but could be if replacements are only as traumatic injuries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident." Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd go for: Hereditary: must be covered. I'm assuming here that you are talking about hidden diseases, not ones that are known about and are therefore pre-existing. Pre-existing: the insurance company must treat, and the government pays the bills. Lifestyle: must be covered. The insurance companies would not be allowed to ask UK citizens any questions other than name, address, date of birth. They would not be able to refuse any application, and they would not be able to drop anyone, except for fraud, or after a court order for non-payment." "On last point I agree but in practice the risk and exposure to the insurance companies will be very high so they will mitigate that with higher premium/ surely?" Yes. If it bothers you that someone might make a profit, we can always pass a law limiting the level of profit that can be made. "Will these be affordable by ordinary people?" If not, we'll have to introduce some sort of benefit payment to cover it. "On earlier points, that will still mean a hefty NHS bill for taxpayers right? Will people accept the reduced NHS coverage without a corresponding reduction in tax/NI? Will that be enough to cover cost of medical insurance?" If we want a better service, we will have to pay for it. If the private system does actually cost more, at least people will be aware of what they are paying, and what they get in return. But there's always the possibility that it will end up costing less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out?" I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. " Should transpeople get free ops? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops?" No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. " Free counselling? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. Free counselling? " The would fall under mental health which needs much more understanding than I could give it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. " At least you're consistent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. At least you're consistent." And you have run out of arguments? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. Free counselling? The would fall under mental health which needs much more understanding than I could give it. " Given suicide and self harming rates, particularly in men, I’d strongly lobby for much more MH spending in the NHS. Preventative measures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. Free counselling? The would fall under mental health which needs much more understanding than I could give it. Given suicide and self harming rates, particularly in men, I’d strongly lobby for much more MH spending in the NHS. Preventative measures." I agree, so what is the plan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. Free counselling? The would fall under mental health which needs much more understanding than I could give it. Given suicide and self harming rates, particularly in men, I’d strongly lobby for much more MH spending in the NHS. Preventative measures." I'm not against mental health being under the NHS per se. It's definitely much more easily gamed than a physical condition though. Something I wouldn't be qualified to give a diagnosis on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. At least you're consistent. And you have run out of arguments? " Wtf?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" While I am sure there are grey areas and granular detail, we are of the same mind. Of course, there would be certain things I'd like that you wouldn't and vice versa. It's about finding common (sense) ground, which isn't going to happen with the 2 big parties in power. I have often said on these forums that the NHS should be there to save lives. That elective surgery/procedures should not be provide. But as you say, some cosmetic surgery could be gamed by using a mental health issue (I know some are genuine). I would however say that not all cosmetic surgery is elective. Thinking cleft palettes or reconstruction after an accident. Breast reconstruction is elective cosmetic surgery after removal of cancerous tissue, would you have that opted in or out? I'd ask if those treatments affects someone's ability to live a healthy life. Should transpeople get free ops? No. Free counselling? The would fall under mental health which needs much more understanding than I could give it. Given suicide and self harming rates, particularly in men, I’d strongly lobby for much more MH spending in the NHS. Preventative measures. I'm not against mental health being under the NHS per se. It's definitely much more easily gamed than a physical condition though. Something I wouldn't be qualified to give a diagnosis on. " Are you qualified to give any diagnoses? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
