3 ms·

She had two options: go through the GP-based system where treatment can take anything from days to months, or take the initiative by jumping the line and go to

She had two options: go through the GP-based system where treatment can take anything from days to months, or take the initiative by jumping the line and go to A&E. Going to A&E is like having your tech support handled by engineers. Going through the GP system is like calling a support line. She got a positive outcome because she went with the option that costs the most. I'm pointing this out as someone who has gone through both methods. Don't believe the hype that you read about the NHS. It's good to have, but it's not amazing and if everyone went through A&E, the system would probably collapse.

AYBABTME 10y ago
Do believe the hype. It might be imperfect, but it's definitely better than what people go thru in the US, and hype is something it could use.
have_faith 10y ago
Struggling to understand your point of view. It's not really a case of GP or A&E. They are two different things with different purposes. The A&E is designed for problems that shouldn't wait. Your GP is for ongoing issues that aren't crucial to be sorted right away. It's called Accident and Emergency for a reason. The NHS is far from perfect but I don't know what a better system would be.
- privateersman 10y ago
  Just pointing out that what people experience from A&E is vastly different from what people experience from the GP system. This article highlights the best part of the NHS, whereas the GP system is like being caught in limbo. If you are rich enough and plan in advance, it can be avoided by going private, otherwise it can mean months, even years of suffering through long waits.
mcintyre1994 10y ago
> if everyone went through A&E, the system would probably collapse. I don't understand how this is a bad thing about the system. Yes, if everyone went through the most expensive system designed for urgent things, the system would presumably collapse. But they don't, because the system includes something for less urgent cases, and thus doesn't collapse. Doesn't that just mean that aspect is well designed to avoid collapse that would apparently be inevitable if it were less well designed? Isn't that a good thing?
- joncrocks 10y ago
  I don't think he's saying it's a bad thing, just that it's not a good idea to say "See I got my injury sorted in 4 hours!" and use this as an example of how great the NHS is. i.e. If the article read: "I had an issue with my ankle, waited two weeks to see a GP, then was in the waiting room for an hour after my appointment was meant to start, then had to wait a week to a referral for a scan." It wouldn't be such a clickbaity story.
peteretep 10y ago
She had two options and she took the one recommended to her by a physician.

AYBABTME 10y ago

Do believe the hype. It might be imperfect, but it's definitely better than what people go thru in the US, and hype is something it could use.

have_faith 10y ago

Struggling to understand your point of view. It's not really a case of GP or A&E. They are two different things with different purposes. The A&E is designed for problems that shouldn't wait. Your GP is for ongoing issues that aren't crucial to be sorted right away. It's called Accident and Emergency for a reason. The NHS is far from perfect but I don't know what a better system would be.

privateersman 10y ago
Just pointing out that what people experience from A&E is vastly different from what people experience from the GP system. This article highlights the best part of the NHS, whereas the GP system is like being caught in limbo. If you are rich enough and plan in advance, it can be avoided by going private, otherwise it can mean months, even years of suffering through long waits.

mcintyre1994 10y ago

> if everyone went through A&E, the system would probably collapse. I don't understand how this is a bad thing about the system. Yes, if everyone went through the most expensive system designed for urgent things, the system would presumably collapse. But they don't, because the system includes something for less urgent cases, and thus doesn't collapse. Doesn't that just mean that aspect is well designed to avoid collapse that would apparently be inevitable if it were less well designed? Isn't that a good thing?

joncrocks 10y ago
I don't think he's saying it's a bad thing, just that it's not a good idea to say "See I got my injury sorted in 4 hours!" and use this as an example of how great the NHS is. i.e. If the article read: "I had an issue with my ankle, waited two weeks to see a GP, then was in the waiting room for an hour after my appointment was meant to start, then had to wait a week to a referral for a scan." It wouldn't be such a clickbaity story.

peteretep 10y ago

She had two options and she took the one recommended to her by a physician.