The NHS.... - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/08/2006 12:41:02 PM · #1

I'd like to apologise now for the length of this post!!

Firstly, for my friends 'across the pond' the NHS stands for National Health Service and it is the publicly-funded healthcare system of the United Kingdom. The organisation provides the majority of healthcare in the UK.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose this situation could be considered 'silly' but its because of this that my life is currently on hold...

In July 2005 (15 months ago) I broke the navicular bone in my left foot. 5 days after the break I was taken to hospital with blood clots in my left leg. They whipped me out of the normal plaster cast and placed me in an Aircast boot...

Much more comfortable and better for me now I was dealing with the clots as well as the break. Everything seemed to be going ok, I was on blood thinners and had to visit the hospital everyday for a blood test but this would all contribute to getting my leg fixed, right?

Wrong! After 6 weeks I had another X-Ray and the consultant advised me that my break wasn't healing and I would need surgery, due to the clots the best thing he could suggest was a further 3 months in the Aircast boot in the hope that it would heal eventually as surgery was too risky.

Fast forward to March 2006.....I have a CT scan and return to the Consultant for the results. He tells me "It's a little more complicated than we first thought, I need to refer you to an ankle and foot specialist". I am given my 3rd 'boot' and told the wait could be sometime.

October 10th 2006 I finally get to see an ankle and foot specialist! WOOHOO!!

He explains I have to have extensive surgery on my foot, removing bone, shaving bits off other bones, inserting metal plates and pins, stitching tendons on to metal plates...I stopped listening at this point!

I told you this would be long winded....

After this appointment I was told I would be contacted and advised when I would be able to see the surgeon.

Well today I have found out my fate.....

I have to wait 6 to 9 MONTHS to even GET ON THE LIST to see the Surgeon. Once I am on that list it's likely to be a further 3 to 6 MONTHS before I see him. Altogether they suggest it will be about 18 MONTHS before I can have the surgery.

I want to laugh but right now all I can do is cry :o(

So, anyone else got nightmare healthcare stories to tell???

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 13:36:17.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

11/08/2006 01:36:29 PM · #2

Oh my gosh. That stinks.

I am so sorry. It is NOT a silly situation. No one should have to wait 3 years to get a broken foot fixed. That is absurb.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/08/2006 01:37:46 PM · #3

Sounds like a solid health care system you have there. Similar to the one many here in the US want to adopt. Now that control of the House and possibly Senate are in the Liberals hands, we can expect a faster transition to this very system.

Truly regret your plight. I have known of others caught in similar medical positions with similar waits and outcomes. Does not sound like a health care system improvement to me.

[edit to add] What I find most absurd is the fact that you pay higher taxes to fund the system that has you in limbo without the care required. Truly absurd.

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 13:41:02.

violinist123

Canon EOS-6D

11/08/2006 01:44:57 PM · #4

Originally posted by Flash:

Sounds like a solid health care system you have there.
(snip)
What I find most absurd is the fact that you pay higher taxes to fund the system that has you in limbo without the care required.

This is a similiar tale to what I hear from friends in Canada regarding their healthcare system as well. So while I'm puzzled that you praise such a system and condem it at the same time, I'm truly hopeful that one of the many things that (are unlikely to) get accomplished by our new Liberal Overlords is not a socialized healthcare system.

11/08/2006 01:52:38 PM · #5

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by Flash:

Sounds like a solid health care system you have there.
(snip)
What I find most absurd is the fact that you pay higher taxes to fund the system that has you in limbo without the care required.

This is a similiar tale to what I hear from friends in Canada regarding their healthcare system as well. So while I'm puzzled that you praise such a system and condem it at the same time, I'm truly hopeful that one of the many things that (are unlikely to) get accomplished by our new Liberal Overlords is not a socialized healthcare system.

Believe me, I for one DO NOT praise the system we have here! :o(

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/08/2006 01:55:49 PM · #6

Originally posted by talj:

Believe me, I for one DO NOT praise the system we have here! :o(

I believe you. Hope americans are reading.

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 13:56:17.

Rompy

Canon EOS-5D

11/08/2006 02:05:24 PM · #7

I suppose going private would put you in the poor house.... I lived in London for 7 years. I have heard horror stories such as yours but also some more positive ones. My ex mother-in-law was treated for breast cancer promptly and with great care. I think that there are pros and cons to the system. I for one was a big fan of being able to see a doctor on a moments notice and NOT have to pay an arm and a leg for the privilege.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/08/2006 02:14:46 PM · #8

Originally posted by Rompy:

I suppose going private would put you in the poor house....

Hi Sharon,

Thanks for your reply. Sadly, as I have been supporting myself the past 15 months whilst being unable to work, going private just isn't an option for me. In all honesty if they had told me a year ago I would be in this situation I would have gone private there and then. Now all I can do is sit and wait.

- Natalya

Rompy

Canon EOS-5D

11/08/2006 02:19:17 PM · #9

I figured. It must be soooo frustrating.

Telehubbie

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/08/2006 02:21:47 PM · #10

That is one heck of a story there, sorry to hear about your troubles. My story, although nothing compared to yours... when I was 9 years old, practicing for baseball I got hit in the mouth with the ball. My jaw was dislocated, my palette (roof of the mouth bone) was shattered, and lost a few teeth. Pretty nasty injury for a young kid. So my parents rushed me to the ER 1/2 hour away where their insurance was for (Kaiser) and I was turned away because it was an oral injury and they don't handle that. So I spent that night at home with my jaw dislocated, TONS of pain, bleeding off and on, and my two front teeth barely hanging on by a blood clot and about 1/2 inch lower than normal. The next day my parents found an outside oral surgeon who would operate on me there and went in for surgery. I spent a week in the hospital and 2 months with my jaw wired shut, couldn't eat anything but drink liquids. Shortly after my parents switched insurance providers.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2006 02:24:40 PM · #11

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by talj:
Believe me, I for one DO NOT praise the system we have here! :o(

I believe you. Hope americans are reading.

Sure, over here we have forty million people who might not get any care at all.

11/08/2006 02:25:29 PM · #12

Originally posted by Telehubbie:

Oooh Marc thats nasty!! Am glad you got sorted out eventually but it would seem no system works perfectly then! I hope they fixed you up properly and you haven't had any further troubles!! :o)

Telehubbie

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/08/2006 02:37:36 PM · #13

Originally posted by talj:

I hope they fixed you up properly and you haven't had any further troubles!! :o)

Well, as good as they could, 8 years of braces and a couple "falsies" later.

11/08/2006 02:50:16 PM · #14

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by talj:
Believe me, I for one DO NOT praise the system we have here! :o(

I believe you. Hope americans are reading.

Sure, over here we have forty million people who might not get any care at all.

And your point is that we should all pay 60% taxes and none of us get timely care?

[edit to add]could those under a national health care system use the money they are currently paying in taxes to support the system, for private care? I suspect yes. And further get better care. Why do you think that a government run system would be better? The government can't even run itself, let alone another burecratic system filled with tax money to be scammed and spent on god knows what.

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 14:54:51.

posthumous

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/08/2006 02:54:59 PM · #15

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by talj:
Believe me, I for one DO NOT praise the system we have here! :o(

I believe you. Hope americans are reading.

Sure, over here we have forty million people who might not get any care at all.

And your point is that we should all pay 60% taxes and none of us get timely care?

and your point is that because their system doesn't work we should keep using our system that doesn't work?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

11/08/2006 02:57:53 PM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

IMO, waiting three is basically the same. . .

And yes, I've been "uninsured" (and delivered a baby without insurance -- not fun).

Socialized health care makes me shudder.

11/08/2006 02:58:35 PM · #17

Originally posted by posthumous:

and your point is that because their system doesn't work we should keep using our system that doesn't work?

Our system doesn't work? Thought is was the envy of the civilized world.

Your point is that we should go to their system that doesn't work?

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 15:01:08.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2006 03:00:34 PM · #18

Originally posted by Flash:

And your point is that we should all pay 60% taxes and none of us get timely care?

Gee, is that the only alternative you can think of for our current system, where insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry are among the top profit-making enterprises (that's "profit" not revenues), and the average doctor's staff spends 30% of their time filling out various claim forms or fighting for denied reimbursements?

I don't know enough about the UK's NHS to offer any specific suggestions for improving it, but I know you can find plenty of horror stories like that in any health care system -- such anecdotal evidence is not a valid way to evaluate it. Most studies which look at overall costs and effectiveness of health care place the US version below those in most of the rest of the "western world."

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

11/08/2006 03:03:11 PM · #19

Originally posted by posthumous:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by talj:
Believe me, I for one DO NOT praise the system we have here! :o(

I believe you. Hope americans are reading.

Sure, over here we have forty million people who might not get any care at all.

And your point is that we should all pay 60% taxes and none of us get timely care?

and your point is that because their system doesn't work we should keep using our system that doesn't work?

my sister had an injury very similar to talj's. oddly enough, my father had the same thing happen to him a week or two later.

my sister had no insurance. my father had excellent private insurance.

both were treated in timely fashions, and their injuries were an afterthought three years later.

Our health system doesn't work perfectly, but it works. There is help available to those that need it and ask for it.

The ones that "fall through the cracks" and get stung are the ones that work and make too much for "government assistance."

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 15:03:31.

11/08/2006 03:03:54 PM · #20

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:
And your point is that we should all pay 60% taxes and none of us get timely care?

Gee, is that the only alternative you can think of for our current system, where insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry are among the top profit-making enterprises (that's "profit" not revenues), and the average doctor's staff spends 30% of their time filling out various claim forms or fighting for denied reimbursements?

I don't know enough about the UK's NHS to offer any specific suggestions for improving it, but I know you can find plenty of horror stories like that in any health care system -- such anecdotal evidence is not a valid way to evaluate it. Most studies which look at overall costs and effectiveness of health care place the US version below those in most of the rest of the "western world."

It is not the only alternative, but it is the one purported by the liberal left as a bastion of salvation to america's uninsured.

got to go...will definately be back.

Message edited by author 2006-11-08 15:07:06.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/08/2006 03:11:45 PM · #21

Why do you all think that leaving our care in the hands of government bureaucrats is bad, but leaving your fate in the hands of some insurance company bureaucrat is good?

Do you all understand the concept of "insurance" (pooled/shared risk)?

Can you offer a rational explanation why a system which requires paying for care and administrative costs plus generating a healthy profit (pun intended) should cost less than one which only has to pay for care and administration? And don't give the "government is always more inefficient" line because in this case it's not true -- the administrative costs for Medicare are far below those found in private health insurance companies.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

11/08/2006 03:16:33 PM · #22

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I assume that you are referring to the 40+ million folks living in the U.S. who do not have medical insurance. In which case the keyword in your statement is "might", as in "might" not get any care at all.

In fact, The U.S. Government spends over $100 BILLION dollars a year on health services for those who are unable to pay. U.S. Hospitals provided another $34 BILLION dollars worth of uncompensated health services. And another $37 BILLION dollars worth of health services was paid for by private and public payers.

That comes to over $171 BILLION dollars worth of health services at no cost to those who are un/under-insured..

By contrast, The UK's 2006-2007 NHS budget is 96 Billion Pounds ( 182 Billion Dollars ). So the U.S. spends around 94% of what the NHS budgets on health care for those who cannot pay for themselves.

posthumous

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/08/2006 03:17:59 PM · #23

Originally posted by karmat:

Our health system doesn't work perfectly, but it works. There is help available to those that need it and ask for it.

The ones that "fall through the cracks" and get stung are the ones that work and make too much for "government assistance."

um... that would be me. There in the crack.

11/08/2006 03:23:35 PM · #24

Reading between the lines, if I can get a cheap flight to the US in the next couple of weeks do you folks reckon I'd get to have my OP done over there, on you, before Christmas?? ;o) lol