4 ms·

Though it’d probably take 666 days to see a sleep specialist and get your first CPAP machine… (which I suspect you’d agree is part of the stealth dissolution pl

Though it’d probably take 666 days to see a sleep specialist and get your first CPAP machine… (which I suspect you’d agree is part of the stealth dissolution plan)

p_l 3y ago
Depending on how defunding worked so far in one's area, but NHS generally prioritised potentially dangerous issues. Means it's easier to be frustrated waiting and then getting a 10 minute talk when it's flu or something similar, but get seen to in 10 minutes after arriving at a walk-in centre because you're worried of bine fissure in leg (turned out to be inflammation fortunately)
- stavros 3y ago
  I went to A&E with symptoms of appendicitis. They took me in, put me in a bed, next day I was operated on, stayed one night and out the door. Everyone was great and seemed very competent. This was on a three-day business trip to the UK, which was extremely unlucky, but the NHS was fantastic.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    You got lucky. My father went to a&e recently with breathing problems due to some non COVID respiratory virus. He was struggling to breathe. They had zero free beds and he stayed overnight on the chairs waiting to be admitted. Eventually they found him a recliner. And then of course you have the constant strikes and inability to even see a doctor at all unless you win the game of phone lottery. The NHS may have a simple user interface, but it doesn't actually work when you need it so that's not very helpful. And the idea this is a Tory problem is propaganda. The NHS budget only ever goes higher yet service gets worse. Dumping ever more money into this third world system is never going to work.
    - p_l 3y ago
      Part of it is a Tory problem - when they changed how the funding gets distributed, so that overall bigger fund is divided now into smaller pieces that still have to cover the same population, but without the scaling benefits that previous allocation provided. It's visible in other systems too, where for example you end up with local government politicians fighting for "prestige" or even perceived need to have a specific kind of hospital in their area, but they don't have a way to bring enough patients to support it, so you get a system too fragmented to sustain despite spending more and more money.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        The NHS doesn't have a problem with too few patients anywhere. Just look at the chaos of the recently opened dentists that saw massive queues down the street, where police had to intervene to control the crowds. The reason: the dentist was new and accepting NHS patients. A system that can't even provide dental slots without needing police to break up fights is a catastrophically failed system and it is a huge problem of the UK that people have loyalty to this dying corpse of a department.
        p_l 3y ago
        It is a problem with funding when you need to break it down into smaller pieces because some very expensive things that are used by less patients now do not have support of budget for a larger area, and become an extra drain on the administrative region - because you still need to maintain neurosurgery units etc. Suddenly there's less money for smaller, cheaper things. And what is the alternative? For-profit systems?
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        Sure. Most parts of the world don't have the government run the entire healthcare system. It's an obviously bad idea everywhere To everyone except Brits.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
robmccoll 3y ago
I have terrible news about systems built on private health insurance (USA): it will still take 666 days to see a specialist, and you will need a referral from your PCP who may also decide they want to see you in person first. This may be its own scheduling nightmare. Then you may find out that your preferred specialist is out of network for your private insurance. The waits are a generally a supply and demand issue more than a beurocracies issue, but I can assure you that multiplying the number of beurocracies involved in getting healthcare doesn't speed anything up.
- dralley 3y ago
  I've never had to wait more than a month to see a specialist in the US
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    That’ll depend heavily on location and specialty. Neurology and dermatology book 3-5 months out for new patient visits in my area, from personal experience.
  - bentt 3y ago
    LOLOLOL that is not typical
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - coldtea 3y ago
      LOLOLOL depends on the area.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    I think it heavily depends. I know a friend who can only see her neurologist with a 3 month wait. Rheumatologists and specialized cardiologists are about the same issues. As an adult, trying to speak to a neurologist for an autism, ADHD, or learning disability evaluation is also a nightmare time-wise.
hnlmorg 3y ago
My sleep apnea went from initial visit to an NHS GP to a working CPAP machine in under 3 months. This includes multiple consultations with sleep specialists and zero chasing from me.

Though it’d probably take 666 days to see a sleep specialist and get your first CPAP machine… (which I suspect you’d agree is part of the stealth dissolution plan)

p_l 3y ago

Depending on how defunding worked so far in one's area, but NHS generally prioritised potentially dangerous issues. Means it's easier to be frustrated waiting and then getting a 10 minute talk when it's flu or something similar, but get seen to in 10 minutes after arriving at a walk-in centre because you're worried of bine fissure in leg (turned out to be inflammation fortunately)

stavros 3y ago
I went to A&E with symptoms of appendicitis. They took me in, put me in a bed, next day I was operated on, stayed one night and out the door. Everyone was great and seemed very competent. This was on a three-day business trip to the UK, which was extremely unlucky, but the NHS was fantastic.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  You got lucky. My father went to a&e recently with breathing problems due to some non COVID respiratory virus. He was struggling to breathe. They had zero free beds and he stayed overnight on the chairs waiting to be admitted. Eventually they found him a recliner. And then of course you have the constant strikes and inability to even see a doctor at all unless you win the game of phone lottery. The NHS may have a simple user interface, but it doesn't actually work when you need it so that's not very helpful. And the idea this is a Tory problem is propaganda. The NHS budget only ever goes higher yet service gets worse. Dumping ever more money into this third world system is never going to work.
  - p_l 3y ago
    Part of it is a Tory problem - when they changed how the funding gets distributed, so that overall bigger fund is divided now into smaller pieces that still have to cover the same population, but without the scaling benefits that previous allocation provided. It's visible in other systems too, where for example you end up with local government politicians fighting for "prestige" or even perceived need to have a specific kind of hospital in their area, but they don't have a way to bring enough patients to support it, so you get a system too fragmented to sustain despite spending more and more money.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      The NHS doesn't have a problem with too few patients anywhere. Just look at the chaos of the recently opened dentists that saw massive queues down the street, where police had to intervene to control the crowds. The reason: the dentist was new and accepting NHS patients. A system that can't even provide dental slots without needing police to break up fights is a catastrophically failed system and it is a huge problem of the UK that people have loyalty to this dying corpse of a department.
      - p_l 3y ago
        It is a problem with funding when you need to break it down into smaller pieces because some very expensive things that are used by less patients now do not have support of budget for a larger area, and become an extra drain on the administrative region - because you still need to maintain neurosurgery units etc. Suddenly there's less money for smaller, cheaper things. And what is the alternative? For-profit systems?
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        Sure. Most parts of the world don't have the government run the entire healthcare system. It's an obviously bad idea everywhere To everyone except Brits.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

robmccoll 3y ago

I have terrible news about systems built on private health insurance (USA): it will still take 666 days to see a specialist, and you will need a referral from your PCP who may also decide they want to see you in person first. This may be its own scheduling nightmare. Then you may find out that your preferred specialist is out of network for your private insurance. The waits are a generally a supply and demand issue more than a beurocracies issue, but I can assure you that multiplying the number of beurocracies involved in getting healthcare doesn't speed anything up.

dralley 3y ago
I've never had to wait more than a month to see a specialist in the US
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  That’ll depend heavily on location and specialty. Neurology and dermatology book 3-5 months out for new patient visits in my area, from personal experience.
- bentt 3y ago
  LOLOLOL that is not typical
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldtea 3y ago
    LOLOLOL depends on the area.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  I think it heavily depends. I know a friend who can only see her neurologist with a 3 month wait. Rheumatologists and specialized cardiologists are about the same issues. As an adult, trying to speak to a neurologist for an autism, ADHD, or learning disability evaluation is also a nightmare time-wise.

hnlmorg 3y ago

My sleep apnea went from initial visit to an NHS GP to a working CPAP machine in under 3 months. This includes multiple consultations with sleep specialists and zero chasing from me.