3 ms·
NHS has been pretty terrible in my experience and thank God I have Bupa now. You don't have to, but if you have something you need serious treatment for you'd b
by jokethrowaway 5y ago
NHS has been pretty terrible in my experience and thank God I have Bupa now. You don't have to, but if you have something you need serious treatment for you'd better go private.
They didn't do any tests when presenting symptoms of a stomach ulcer after queueing for 3 hours (I had to do a private test to find out). Statistically I was unlikely t have it because of my age.
The first pregnancy went ok (albeit nowhere close to the level of instrumentation you see in the states), for the second one they delayed epidural until it was too late to administer and my wife gave birth on a sofa without pain relief.
My son had teeth problems since birth and they wanted to remove 4 front teeth saying an abscess was inevitable. Luckily we have dentists abroad who advised otherwise and it turned out removing teeth was not needed (and it would have been years of pain, spacers and ruined roots).
All in all, considering all the money I paid over the years to the government, it was a pretty shoddy deal.
- growse 5y agoI have extensive experience with the NHS (unfortunately) and have pretty much always been very well looked after. The only exception was probably maternity post-delivery, but that's not anything to do with the fact that it was the NHS. But that's irrelevant. You can prove pretty much anything with personal anecdotes - what matters is the big picture. If you're against the NHS, you should probably put some thought into answering the question of "How do we stop poor people dying from preventable conditions?" (assuming that this is a desired end goal). Also, Bupa aren't going to take you to the hospital at 3am when you have severe kidney stones, or unconscious after having been hit by a drunk driver.