Health Care

[NOLA]

I would like to hear from those of you who come from countries that have government sponsored or other free health care programs and how you feel about the care you receive...thanks NOLA

[jackspratt]

From Oz - care (on the few occasions I have used it) has been excellent.

But it ain't free - we pay a surcharge on our tax.

[mortiboy]

The one and only NHS! For everybody! any country. Especially say the magic word......ASYLUM!
But If you have paid into the system all your life,
You are born and bred UK,and you live overseas and not in the Europe countries,You are FORBIDDEN treatment! You must PAY!
To me, default of contract.But UK must take care the foreigners! A disgrace!

[Philrjones]

Hi Nola,

Why do you want to know? Research?

[Nobby]

mortiboy you are generally right with your comments,however I do believe the NHS has to treat emergency cases for UK born and bred nationals, now living outside of the EC, should they return for treatment.

Foreigners are first priority in many aspects, as far as the Westminster government is concerned, which as you say is a disgrace.One day the silent majority will stand up and be counted. =D> =D> =D>

Nobby

[NOLA]

nobby...even illegals are first priority in the U.S.

[jackspratt]

So NOLA, your question was more related to politics, rather than health systems.

Shame you didn't say that in your OP.

In which case, I wouldn't have wasted my time responding.

[Nobby]

NOLA.. yes I know thro conversations with my American friends in Udon... US & UK have many things in common,some good and some not so good.

[mortiboy]

mortiboy you are generally right with your comments,however I do believe the NHS has to treat emergency cases for UK born and bred nationals, now living outside of the EC, should they return for treatment.

Foreigners are first priority in many aspects, as far as the Westminster government is concerned, which as you say is a disgrace.One day the silent majority will stand up and be counted. =D> =D> =D>

Nobby

So, If I went back to UK and visited my Doctor,
(Who I am told, If I am outside the country has been taken off his list),
Would he treat me for ....say(God forbid) cancer of prostate? Now that's what I call an emergency!
This is my biggest worry here.At 67 I cant get health care.(Apparently I am nearly at deaths door)
If the above is correct ...That's OK with me.

[Nobby]

Yes that's how I understand it to be... No doctor (who ever he/she is) can refuse you treatment, money or no money

[JimboPSM]

I’ve always lived with National Health Services (NHS) in the UK & the Isle of Man and in my opinion, although the NHS has many faults (easily found via Google), the benefit of the NHS to its citizens vastly outweigh its faults (I should also state that for most of my working life I have also had the benefit of company provided private health insurance).

My parents experienced both the private health system in the UK and the NHS, it was something that we discussed on a number of occasions and it is an area where both admitted to completely changing their opinion - before the NHS was introduced (and for quite some time after) they were vehemently opposed to it, as they grew older they acknowledged that it was probably one of the best, if not the best, measure that any UK government ever introduced for its citizens.

It’s extremely difficult trying to measure and compare health services in different countries, the only reasonably comparable numbers that I have been able to find are life expectancy and health expenditure.

Although there are many factors that can be considered in terms of health service they tend to be of a qualitative nature – for instance luxury hospitals complete with all the bells, whistles and toys may look good on paper, however if they don’t produce longer life expectancy for the citizens what use are they (other than for making health industry owners wealthier)?

Looking at the efficiency of the UK health service purely in terms of its financial cost against its result of life expectancy in 2006 the UK was ranked 15th highest in terms of Government health expenditure (or 20th based on the total of Government plus Private health expenditure) however the result of this expenditure only left the UK ranked 26th in terms of life expectancy (with life expectancy of 77 for males and 81 for females).

Probably the biggest benefit as one gets older is that compared to some other countries no one worries that the increasing level of ill health that tends to come with age will not result in the increasing danger of withdrawal of coverage for spurious reasons (to ensure the bottom line of an insurance company) with the attendant possibility of bankruptcy if one becomes ill. For context, please note that I have a particular beef in this regard as some wealthy retired friends of mine in New York ended up bankrupt when their insurance company withdrew their cover following illnesses and no other company would take them on.

Some time ago I did some research on health expenditure and life expectancy, part of it can be found on this thread:

• http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/l ... 14395.html

In conclusion:

• • Could the NHS be better? - Definitely
  
  • Would I want to swap the NHS for a Private Health Service? - Absolutely not

[tinyterry]

I would like to comment on JimboPSM remarks and would agree with his conclusion.

In my working life I was able through my companies to private medical care which yes has some advantages in being seen sooner and having a private room in hospital.

Since retirement I have found private health care to be impossible to pay for as a few previous treatments seem to have made such adifference to premiums albeit non of these were life threatning.

Since being on the NHS i have needed to have operations on both shoulders due to bone growth which inpinged on the tendon. I have since had both these operations done with keyhole surgery on the NHS but in a private hospital. This is because my consultant finds that he can get through 50% more operations in a private facility than in an NHS hospital. The cost to me was zero and I was in and out the same day. Both ops were very successful.

So yes jimbopsm I totally agree with your comments.

It would appear that many other consultants are also now taking this route but I do not know how this is achieved without cost to the patient. Maybe he has to stand a cost.

Cheers Terry

[NOLA]

jackspratt...crawl back into your hole...my intent was not politically motivated...i just wanted to know what those who have NHS think of it, so i could pass it on to those naysayers in my country who also have their heads up their holes.

[jackspratt]

nobby...even illegals are first priority in the U.S.

So this is not a political comment - gimme a break.

[davecryan]

tinyterry

I was told years ago, that when your GP says that he is going to send you to a Specialist, for further opinion under the NHS, that if you offered to pay privately for that consultation, you would receive quicker
treatment.
The Specialist carries out a mixture of Private and NHS operations on the same day in the same theatre, but because you have gone in on his recommendation you are "his" patient, but the NHS pays !!
I acted on this a few years ago for heart tests and the Specialist did a mixture of both Private and NHS
examinations. I had MRI and Cat scans, heart monitoring etc. paying only for expediency...total cost 400 GBP. At the time both scans privately were 1000 GBP each.
Heard recently that the NHS have tightened up on this loophole.

[laphanphon]

before i left the usa, non gov't funded hospitals didn't have to serve anyone they didn't want to. of course if the patient died because of it, they could be sued. if at the doorstep, and life or death, they would probably stabilize, then ship out to gov't hosp. all hospitals, gov't or non, have no priorities agenda, 1st come, 1st served, unless delay would endanger patient.

i had a minor mishap, fractured wrist, went to hospital in texas, asked if had insurance...NO...they wouldn't even open the door, they asked through an intercom, too funny, had cash, but turned me away.

in usa, for legal age retired, medicare/gov't insurance is available for 100 bucks a month, approx. was 78 nine yrs ago. depending where you live, it may be fine, but most docs don't like medicare/workman's compensation (on job injury/gov't and employer sponsored)/HMO's........simply because they don't allow for some procedures, cap what they can charge, and don't pay in a timely manner. the doc will be filling out forms and on the phone trying to get procedures approved or paid for more than servicing patients. taking that into consideration, supply and demand of docs, and depending where you live, it may not matter, or, only the desperate docs will service you, and good chance there will be a long waiting period for some specialist. throat cancer in philadelphia is a fine example of medicare failure, after diagnosed with cancer, my mother had to wait 3 months for next appointment, needless to say, it spread at that point and killed her.

as you all hear on the news, in the usa, if the insurance company doesn't want to honor it''s contract, after accepting your payment for years, they simply refuse to pay for treatment, or simply drop you. figuring you'll be dead before any lawsuit, if filed hits them. the bean counters have it down to a science. unless you have you own money for treatment, if life threatening or time to wait and sue, health insurance in the usa, unless for the retired sucks. with exception of auto insurance, i've had to sue every health insurance carrier in the usa. luckily i had the funds and could wait it out. sued private insurance, workman's comp, social security all for benefits i've paid for over the years, but refused claims when time for them to pay.

i trust no insurance company to be there when i need them. so i'll save my premium payments for medical services instead, and at the cost of premiums for no service..........i'm way ahead.

[Galee]

Anyone notice the health advertising you get on this thread. Apparently BUPA Thailand is only 10baht a day.

[davecryan]

Yeah...but only for people aged 20 and in perfect health !

[JimboPSM]

Its going a little off topic, but I came across an article on Bloomberg today which brings another interesting aspect of the health debate into the equation; it is the continued willingness of western pharmaceutical companies to peddle drugs for unauthorized and/or unapproved uses despite incurring fines in the billions – maybe it is because it makes them even more billions in revenues?

Across the U.S., pharmaceutical companies have been pleading guilty to criminal charges or paying penalties in civil cases when the U.S. Department of Justice finds that they deceptively marketed drugs for unapproved uses, putting millions of people at risk of chest infections, heart attacks, suicidal impulses or death........

Since May 2004, Pfizer, Eli Lilly & Co., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and four other drug companies have paid a total of $7 billion in fines and penalties......

In pushing off-label use of drugs, companies find ready and willing partners in physicians. Under the fragmented system of medical regulation in the U.S., it’s legal for doctors to prescribe FDA-approved drugs for any use......

Full article on Bloomberg, it’s quite a long and interesting read:

• http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... GoA&pos=10

I find it strange how little traction the cost of these practices both in financial and health terms has received from politicians and the media – could it possibly be due to the effectiveness of the lobbyists along with the possible loss of advertising revenues and brown bags?

Although the Bloomberg article primarily covers US corporations, the UK & the rest of Europe have their share also, for example:

http://www.attorneyatlaw.com/2009/10/as ... -seroquel/

[Khun Paul]

..........i'm way ahead.

At the moment................lol