Do you like kids?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ceili

will it go to the UK thing, where you can wait for months? (if this is wrong, sorry, but it is the view the rest of us gets when we hear about it).

The way the UK system works is this:

Everyone has a local GP ("General Practioner") whom you can generally see that same day if you wish (that's certainly the case with mine, anyway). If you need more specialist treatment, your GP will refer you to the appropriate specialist consultant. That is where the delays can occur; if your GP suspects that you might have a "life threatening" condition, you'll see a specialist within a week or two, but if it's something non-dangerous, you might have to wait a couple of months for an appointment. The specialist will then decide if hospital treatment is required.

ie, life-threatening conditions take priority over non-threatening ones. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Nobody HAS to have a cateract operation "instantly"; it may be inconvenient to your lifestyle, but it won't kill you.

Personally I have always found it to be an excellent system. I certainly would not like to be subject to a healthcare system in which my access to treatment depended upon my ability to pay for it; I consider it a basic duty of government to give me access to healthcare, funded by my taxes.

[benham]

How did a thread about cute and cuddly kids turn into a major discussion on health care?

[ruth1304]

Originally Posted by benham

How did a thread about cute and cuddly kids turn into a major discussion on health care?

The wonders of MR - I was thinking earlier how what people end up talking about isn't usually what the thread starts with.

It's an interesting insight into how people's minds work ...

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The way the UK system works is this:

Everyone has a local GP ("General Practioner") whom you can generally see that same day if you wish (that's certainly the case with mine, anyway). If you need more specialist treatment, your GP will refer you to the appropriate specialist consultant. That is where the delays can occur; if your GP suspects that you might have a "life threatening" condition, you'll see a specialist within a week or two, but if it's something non-dangerous, you might have to wait a couple of months for an appointment. The specialist will then decide if hospital treatment is required.

ie, life-threatening conditions take priority over non-threatening ones. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Nobody HAS to have a cateract operation "instantly"; it may be inconvenient to your lifestyle, but it won't kill you.

I don't want to come across as an NHS basher - but it is an increasingly target driven system, and that can mean priorities get skewed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...an-be-hit.html

"People arriving at Accident and Emergency departments with symptoms which could indicate the aggressive spread of the disease [cancer] are waiting weeks for diagnosis and treatment while “routine” cases are prioritised. "

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Any healthcare system has to do a "cost/benefit analysis" of treatments. If spending $10,000 a day would keep someone alive, but they would die anyway after a month, I suspect that not many insurance schemes would consider that an effective use of their clients' money. Treatments that merely "extend" life rather than provide a "cure" for a condition are especially hard to justify financially.

Would a patient in this hypothetical situation in the UK receive the care at the cost of $10K a day? It's not "life SAVING", but clearly a decision has to be made quickly or the care will be too late to even prolong life for that month.

I think in the US (and I may be wrong, but....) most health insurance would pay for this assuming we're talking about accepted, non-experimental treatments. An insurance company tends not to question the necessity case-by-case, they decide whether particular procedures are covered on a more general basis. An HMO on the other hand, would probably opt not to provide this type of expensive care with no hope of a life-saving outcome.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

"People arriving at Accident and Emergency departments with symptoms which could indicate the aggressive spread of the disease [cancer] are waiting weeks for diagnosis and treatment while “routine” cases are prioritised. "

This is EXACTLY the type of scenario that opponents of government run health care in the US pull out as an example. We hear example after example of Canadians who come to the US at their own expense either for tests that would determine their condition where the wait they expect in Canada (just for the test, not even talking about treatment yet) could cost them their life.

I keep telling myself I need to make another thread on this topic - I'm really curious, all politics and googleable horror stories aside, what is the day to day experience of people who live where the government provides the health care? Harry's post above is the kind of thing I'm interested in.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Would a patient in this hypothetical situation in the UK receive the care at the cost of $10K a day? It's not "life SAVING", but clearly a decision has to be made quickly or the care will be too late to even prolong life for that month.

I think in the US (and I may be wrong, but....) most health insurance would pay for this assuming we're talking about accepted, non-experimental treatments. An insurance company tends not to question the necessity case-by-case, they decide whether particular procedures are covered on a more general basis. An HMO on the other hand, would probably opt not to provide this type of expensive care with no hope of a life-saving outcome.

The NHS does provide life-extending drugs, yes, but as (I think Sparrow) mentioned earlier, there is a governing body called "NICE" (the "National Institute for Clinical Excellence") which decides which drugs the NHS should prescribe and which not. It's the ultra-expensive life-extending drugs which are always the contraversial ones.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlennD

I keep telling myself I need to make another thread on this topic - I'm really curious, all politics and googleable horror stories aside, what is the day to day experience of people who live where the government provides the health care? Harry's post above is the kind of thing I'm interested in.

I do not have good health, Glenn and, as I say, my personal and family experience of the NHS has been overwhelmingly positive. Of course it's not perfect, but my personal life-long experience has been that it's pretty damned good.