Good old NHS

[Mr Grumpy]

Just been to the dentist for the first time in 10 years ( not entirely my fault, but a long story...)

 I had a quote from a private practice for approx £15 to fix my teeth.....yup £15k

 Half way through my treatment now, total cost so far.....less than £100.

 I don't mind paying into this club, and despite having 2 teeth pulled and 2 fillings, I feel great, and can manage a half smile ( which is 50% better then normal..)

 Don't complain folks, we all benefit in one way or another.

 

 

[Paulbrown]

Nice to hear a positive story about the NHS for a change!!

[Mr Grumpy]

Nice to hear a positive story about the NHS for a change!!

The mad Wife is on the verge of quitting working for the NHS, after a long number of years because of the stupid amount of wastage in all areas, plus the 'favours for friends 'mentality' that is rife in her area, she is much better off working in the private sector, which is a shame, as it is such a magnificent 'thing' that is being spoilt by so many factors ( I am sure you are aware of its deficiencies...)

[Paulbrown]

Having worked both in the private and NHS I would say hands down NHS is better

[Evil]

Love the NHS.. saved my life in 2001 and have given me no cause for complaint since (having had maybe a dozen operations and half a dozen stays of 3+ days (following that 2001 incident where I was in for 10 days) between '02 and ~'09). A+E can be arduous but they always seem to be heavily up against it.

 

Been lucky with dentists too.

[Mr Grumpy]

Having worked both in the private and NHS I would say hands down NHS is better

Not from her point of view at all Paul..

 When she works along side £40 an hour agency nurses, who are lazy, can't speak English properly, and are mates of mates who own agencies, or opposed to working in an Hospice giving care to the terminally ill, who appreciate the care, for the minimum wage...guess where she would rather work....a sad indictment really

[Paulbrown]

Well from a a and e point private services are awful!!

As soon as making money comes before patient care you have issues

[Mr Grumpy]

Well from a a and e point private services are awful!!

As soon as making money comes before patient care you have issues

The very sad truth I am afraid.....

[cheezemonkhai]

It doesn't help that when the staff put in 12 hour days, they get told to work more.

Chronic underfunding causes problems.

When you look at the spending, you see that benefits are more than education and the NHS combined.

Personally I'd rather they cut the benefits so everyone still gets free (At the point of use), good quality education and health care.

(Also be nice going after travel insurance and EHIC for EU citizens to get the costs of non UK citizens back too.)

No point having a bit more money and having to pay it and much much more out of education or health insurance.

Anyway, I think the NHS is a good thing, be nice if we could get an NHS dentist around here, but I won't complain about that here.

[Redboy]

Glad you could actually access the NHS dentists. There is no or very little access in this area. I reluctantly paid £3000 for my wife to have 4 teeth capped. Yes she could have not had it done but my gripe is that having paid into the system for 35+ years without a break, I am unable to access it myself. Before anybody says the obvious, Yes I am lucky to have saved that amount up but it took me a long time and of course it benefited my wife, however I would rather spend it helping my sons.

[cheezemonkhai]

Don't let your wife hear you say you prefer your sons :p

[Mr Grumpy]

It has taken me 5 years to find an NHS Dentist....

 I could probably afford private treatment, but why should I have to pay for a dentist to drive a Bentley.?

My 'new' practice hasn't a European dentist in the building.......Bolivian, yup, some other South American countries as well, I don't care,,,come from where ever you like, fix my teeth, and I love you...

[gadgetman]

The dentist treatment bands are a god send

[Clunkclick]

Next time you're a recipient of NHS treatment try asking the foreign nurses what the equivalent treatment would be in their country and brace yourself for the shocker ! Usually, the service described is way less than we expect as a minmum over here and 9 times out of 10 has to be paid for upfront.

 

We are very lucky to have the NHS.

 

Its certainly done me proud over the last year and on the ither two occasions in my life when I've been an inpatient..

 

I just regret the 'Creeping" privatisation where facilities previously available to NHS patient are niw being "Roped-off" for the purposes of maximising revenue from private patients, even though that may feed extra "Rent" money back into the NHS sude.

 

Alk that would be unnecessary if there was a special "Social impact" NHS levy on the drinks, sugar, fast food and motor industries and if the likes of Zuckerberg and hus more numerous UK ex-pats and residents in receipt of foreign sourced income paid their kittening taxes.

 

Whilst George us at it how about a compulsory insurance for those who deliberately put themselves at risk by undertaling risky leisure pursuits and sports with part of the premium of remiited to the NHS.

 

The Free at point of use should be reserved for those who through  force of  circumstances, environment, genetics and background find themselves requiring treatment because of events that they were unable to avoid or mitigate.

 

If the annual per patient budget  is just under  £2,000 (You do the maths for 65 million population) then that would give a person lifetime budget of £160,000 for an 80 year life. Its not inconceivable that you could get an insurance fir this amount. But that said, there must be lots of people who, through no fault of there own, will bust their lifetime budget. But luckily under the NHS system there us a pool of other budget holders who will underspe d (Again through no fault of their own !) and this larger grouo essentually cross-subsudize the others

 

Giiven my usuage as an inpatient as a child and again on rwo further iccasions as an adult over the last 15 years, I estimate that I  must have already blown 25 % of my lifetine budget, but then I'm at 75% point in the life journey. QED,  I an underspender ?

 

Nick

 

 

 

[Evil]

Whilst George us at it how about a compulsory insurance for those who deliberately put themselves at risk by undertaling risky leisure pursuits and sports with part of the premium of remiited to the NHS.

 

The Free at point of use should be reserved for those who through  force of  circumstances, environment, genetics and background find themselves requiring treatment because of events that they were unable to avoid or mitigate.

Problem I see with that is how you'd define risky pursuits.

I mean, riding a bike (motorised or pedal-powered).. would that be deemed a risky pursuit? It's incredibly dangerous.

What about driving a car? It's not solely business, I'd hazard that everyone who gets behind the wheel does so, at some point, for leisure/pleasure. Being in control of a 1 tonne plus lump of machinery that can more in excess of 100mph sounds risky to me.

[trundlenut]

Next time you're a recipient of NHS treatment try asking the foreign nurses what the equivalent treatment would be in their country and brace yourself for the shocker ! Usually, the service described is way less than we expect as a minmum over here and 9 times out of 10 has to be paid for upfront.

We are very lucky to have the NHS.

Its certainly done me proud over the last year and on the ither two occasions in my life when I've been an inpatient..

I just regret the 'Creeping" privatisation where facilities previously available to NHS patient are niw being "Roped-off" for the purposes of maximising revenue from private patients, even though that may feed extra "Rent" money back into the NHS sude.

Alk that would be unnecessary if there was a special "Social impact" NHS levy on the drinks, sugar, fast food and motor industries and if the likes of Zuckerberg and hus more numerous UK ex-pats and residents in receipt of foreign sourced income paid their kittening taxes.

Whilst George us at it how about a compulsory insurance for those who deliberately put themselves at risk by undertaling risky leisure pursuits and sports with part of the premium of remiited to the NHS.

The Free at point of use should be reserved for those who through force of circumstances, environment, genetics and background find themselves requiring treatment because of events that they were unable to avoid or mitigate.

If the annual per patient budget is just under £2,000 (You do the maths for 65 million population) then that would give a person lifetime budget of £160,000 for an 80 year life. Its not inconceivable that you could get an insurance fir this amount. But that said, there must be lots of people who, through no fault of there own, will bust their lifetime budget. But luckily under the NHS system there us a pool of other budget holders who will underspe d (Again through no fault of their own !) and this larger grouo essentually cross-subsudize the others

Giiven my usuage as an inpatient as a child and again on rwo further iccasions as an adult over the last 15 years, I estimate that I must have already blown 25 % of my lifetine budget, but then I'm at 75% point in the life journey. QED, I an underspender ?

Nick

You have roughly a 50:50 chance of developing cancer over your lifetime.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[Clunkclick]

Problem I see with that is how you'd define risky pursuits.

I mean, riding a bike (motorised or pedal-powered).. would that be deemed a risky pursuit? It's incredibly dangerous.

What about driving a car? It's not solely business, I'd hazard that everyone who gets behind the wheel does so, at some point, for leisure/pleasure. Being in control of a 1 tonne plus lump of machinery that can more in excess of 100mph sounds risky to me.

Rugby . . . . .

 

You start with a list which cross-refers the number and cost of  A & E admissions, Inpatient and outpatient stays, plus contractor provided services in total per sporting or leisure activity and outsort all of those above a certain threshold and start charging for them - possibly not at full cost at first, but on a marginal basis for a couple of years, in the hope that behaviour may be influenced and numbers sustaining injuries reduced by self-help measures taken by potential patients e.g. spine pads and crash helmets for motor cyclists. You then monitor the patient figures for any changes in numbers i.e changes in behaviour having a positive welfare effect and then remove those activities  or add activities where the numbers have increased  from the list based on the casualty (in the widest sense) figures - an output measure. Perhaps you would have a running consultation period over the next 2 years when you would tell the populace via intensive advertising (Go compare style reminder on TV linking to a reference page on NHS direct) that the following activities will be added to the chargeable list unless the figures drop before the end of the consultation period. If the figures didn't reduce, on they'd go on the list. And the longer they stayed on the list without equivalent proportional  linear improvement the higher the charging would ramp up (Say 25% each year over 4 years) until treatment for certain activities reached the full cost of the service. All this could be done by a small band of  stats collecting chums in NHS England HQ and implemented by a NHS HQ  Dear Secretary or CEO letter (Or whatever flavour the command nomenclature is this five minutes) every year.

 

No need for Health Education pricing does it for you. And cybernetic feedback through behaviourist doctrine and pricing does the rest on incidence and cost of injuries per problem activity, which, I'd think you'd find the numbers would come screaming down.

 

Nick

[Evil]

Wow... well thought out. 

Cost a mint to implement I reckon.. although perhaps not as much as it'd save over a longer period.

[Clunkclick]

You have roughly a 50:50 chance of developing cancer over your lifetime.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

You're talking to someone who has just got the all clear from Diffuse B-cell Lymphoma (Blood cancer) two  and a half months ago, and, I know (What a surprise), after treatment, the 5 year survival rates for people in my postion is can be between 30-70% depending on sub-type of the disease - my sub-type puts me in the 70% region.

 

My treatment which included 1 x CT scan, 7 in patients days + colorectal surgery + drugs, dressings etc, 1` x month of daily visits to the GP surgery nurse for dressing changes, followed 2 months later by  + 6 x  outpatient sessions and 6 x Chemotherapy  treatment sessions and 1 x CT scan 24 x blood-tests  + 1x bone marrow biopsy + 1 x urine analysis + 3  x CT/PET scans probably cost in the region of £15,000. So for less than 10% of  the monetary value my lifetime budget I get a 70% chance of living more than 5 years ( 70% of 5/80). So, a minimum of five years, is adjusted for likelihood,  4.375% of a lifespan. Ok so its double the cost. But then 50% of the population (30 million) will never get cancer. Hence the cross subsidy.

 

But if the diamonds in the headlining of the Celestial are calling, they'll be no reasoning with you as regards population based risk sharing.

 

Nick

Edited 4 March, 2016 by Clunkclick

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

I'm another who'd be dead 10 years ago if it wasnt for the NHS. Had my yearly check up with my DR last month, we are very lucky to have the health service, we just need to keep it! 

[Clunkclick]

Wow... well thought out. 

Cost a mint to implement I reckon.. although perhaps not as much as it'd save over a longer period.

Usually, the BBC is so good at putting out the "Other" frightening propaganda i.e. the stuff that benefits the few, perhaps they'd do it for free - or an extension of the licence fee  .

 

You telling me that the data collect would be that problematic nowadays - Nah ! Anyway you could contract it out on a regional basis to an insurance company.

 

Nick

[Clunkclick]

And what's more, my NHS dentist of 25 years is top-hole as well !

 

 

Nick

[Evil]

You telling me that the data collect would be that problematic nowadays - Nah ! Anyway you could contract it out on a regional basis to an insurance company.

 

Nick

Yeah I reckon it'd be hellish.. primarily because the government would probably be in control of it and make a cluster-f*** of it that'd last far too long, cost way too much (although one of their chums would do very well) and end nowhere.

[trundlenut]

You're talking to someone who has just got the all clear from Diffuse B-cell Lymphoma (Blood cancer) two and a half months ago, and, I know (What a surprise), after treatment, the 5 year survival rates for people in my postion is can be between 30-70% depending on sub-type of the disease - my sub-type puts me in the 70% region.

My treatment which included 1 x CT scan, 7 in patients days + colorectal surgery + drugs, dressings etc, 1` x month of daily visits to the GP surgery nurse for dressing changes, followed 2 months later by + 6 x outpatient sessions and 6 x Chemotherapy treatment sessions and 1 x CT scan 24 x blood-tests + 1x bone marrow biopsy + 1 x urine analysis + 3 x CT/PET scans probably cost in the region of £15,000. So for less than 10% of the monetary value my lifetime budget I get a 70% chance of living more than 5 years ( 70% of 5/80). So, a minimum of five years, is adjusted for likelihood, 4.375% of a lifespan. Ok so its double the cost. But then 50% of the population (30 million) will never get cancer. Hence the cross subsidy.

But if the diamonds in the headlining of the Celestial are calling, they'll be no reasoning with you as regards population based risk sharing.

Nick

Sorry to hear that my mum has just had a similar cancer and treatment, bar the chemo. This was the second time she had cancer though - she has already had breast cancer.

It's chronic conditions that cost more though, over the last 20 years my dad has probably blown the sort of amount your talking about. But the cause was not a result of him undertaking risky activities, more likely a genetic predisposition and to some degree not undertaking "risky" activities. I am more active than he was and I am in better physical shape than he was at the same age, though this is as a result of doing risky activities.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

[trundlenut]

I got hearing aids from the NHS just after Christmas and the service I got from my GP, the hospital consultants and the audiology people was first rate. The aids themselves are great and even the batteries are supplied for free.

Whilst I only have a mild hearing loss (not enough on its own to warrant aids), I do have constant tinnitus in both ears and it was causing me problems being able to understand people. I feel they have made a big improvement to me.

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk