5 ms·

I signed up to post to correct this comment. My wife was nearly killed twice this year by NHS bean counting: Firstly they missed a strangulated hernia because

I signed up to post to correct this comment. My wife was nearly killed twice this year by NHS bean counting: Firstly they missed a strangulated hernia because they wanted to cut back on x-ray usage in A&E. Then after five visits to A&E and threats of being sued, they did one and booked surgery on the "oh shit" moment the consultant noticed it. She was dragged in each time paralysed with pain in an ambulance, which took at least an hour to arrive each time. Secondly, after the surgery, they left her without any post-op checks for 17 hours due to staff shortages leading to a collapsed lingular, pneumonia and a massive internal bleed which took additional surgery. My wife now requires full time care as her immune system has collapsed from the repeated infections and started attacking her body which has pretty much fucked me as the NHS won't foot the bill so I have to work full time at home dangling off an RDP connection (thankfully I write software rather than fix cars or something) and look after her. This is also problematic as I have a disabled daughter who requires full time care, who incidentally receives precisely fuck all care of any significance. And they cut our child benefit because I earn too much but I have to pay a huge rent to keep a job that pays enough to live on in London which leaves me -£100 every month. Fortunately I found a solicitor to work for free on this case. The NHS is a disaster as is the rest of this country. They are thinking of their budget which is worse than their profit margins. To hell with it. Edit: There is a lot of completely un-objective, unrealistic propaganda about the NHS all over the television from documentaries to reality shows (24 hours in A&E for an example). This is all completely detached from reality.

Osmium 13y ago
I'm sorry to hear what's happened to you and your family -- it's clearly unacceptable. I'm not going to defend that. But I do want to respond to your last comment, because I don't want you to think I posted what I said from a position of being brainwashed by propaganda. I wasn't. It just happens that my own experiences, and my family's experiences, with the NHS have been positive (so far at least). I'm actually due to have an operation myself next week, one that is more preventative than anything and which could've been deferred had cost been a factor. Hopefully it'll go well. I know it's of little comfort that someone else's experiences have been good, but there it is anyway. For what it's worth, how would you make things better?
- jff 13y ago
  Well, if the eeeeeeevil doctors are really recommending things like x-rays based on profits, her problem would have been caught on the first visit, presumably.
- pointyhats 13y ago
  It is entirely up to the luck of the draw unfortunately. The problem being that it shouldn't be at all down to luck. How would I make things better? Unfortunately the government seem to think that capitalism can be a host to socialism (i.e. the UK can host the NHS as a socialist concept). This plainly doesn't work as the last few years in particular have proven and ends up creating a dumping ground for the elite, the unionised masses and the worst of all: the incompetent. The solution is pick capitalism or socialism and all their associated ills, then eliminate the elite, the unions and the incompetent universally. A secondary problem is that this country is entirely skill-less and the population is growing rapidly. The skilled public workforce isn't growing at all with this. Can we fix this? Probably not.
  - takluyver 13y ago
    > The solution is pick capitalism or socialism and all their associated ills That sounds like a terrible solution. I'd much rather try to balance bits of capitalism and socialism as necessary. Yes, it's hard, yes, we'll get things wrong, no, that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. 'Be wary of simple answers to complex problems'.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
shawabawa3 13y ago
I'm sorry about your experience, however it definitely isn't everbody's experience. When I was 13 I had a stomache ache, my mother being overly paranoid took me to the hospital after a few hours of it not getting any better. After about an hours wait I saw 3 or 4 doctors in quick succession, was diagnosed with appendicitis and had surgery scheduled for around 7 hours later. I was taken care of excellently and wasn't charged a penny. Anecdotally, almost everyone I know has only had positive experiences with the NHS. Of course it isn't perfect, but it sure as hell isn't a disaster.
- xenophanes 13y ago
  A government medical system that is a disaster for, say, 10% of the population, is a disaster overall. Anecdotal evidence doesn't change that. And you were charged more than a penny in additional taxes. Government services are not a Free Lunch. The money has to come from somewhere and does.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    But a system that kills because you're not covered is a better alternative? Oh and 10% [citation needed]
    - pointyhats 13y ago
      Neither is the right solution, which is the problem. You pay for both systems. One kills you because you can't afford it and the other kills you because they can't afford to keep you alive.
      - mhurron 13y ago
        You pay significantly less in a single payer regulated system, because everyone pays into it. Often, you pay less for better care. Other than your anecdote, which I could counter with my own that a government run healthcare system is why I can call my dad right now and say 'hi', do you have any real information to back up the government health care system is killing you? I can find this: America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm
vidarh 13y ago
Here's a tip about A&E for the future: While I have had nothing but great experiences with A&E in London over repeated visits (ex wife had several problems that resulted in ambulance visits, as well as managed to hurt her arm badly) as well as ambulance wait times, there are certainly differences between boroughs, both in funding but more importantly in policies. If you find one A&E is not providing what you want, and ambulance times like that: Drive to another hospital. They are legally obliged to admit you at A&E (just don't tell them you on purpose drove there - it can't stop them admitting you, but it will make some consultants assy). Chelsea and Westminster is a good choice. Outside rush hour, if you had ambulance waits of an hour you can likely have reached any number of hospitals unless you're far outside the centre. In terms of budgets, we get what we are willing to pay for, unfortunately. As it is, our healthcare costs us half of what the extremely limited public healthcare funding in the US costs US tax payers (per capita), and for that we get universal coverage. Clearly we could pay more. We don't, because most people are satisfied with what the NHS provides - something we also see in the low takeup of supplemental private health insurance in this country.

Osmium 13y ago

I'm sorry to hear what's happened to you and your family -- it's clearly unacceptable. I'm not going to defend that. But I do want to respond to your last comment, because I don't want you to think I posted what I said from a position of being brainwashed by propaganda. I wasn't. It just happens that my own experiences, and my family's experiences, with the NHS have been positive (so far at least). I'm actually due to have an operation myself next week, one that is more preventative than anything and which could've been deferred had cost been a factor. Hopefully it'll go well. I know it's of little comfort that someone else's experiences have been good, but there it is anyway. For what it's worth, how would you make things better?

jff 13y ago
Well, if the eeeeeeevil doctors are really recommending things like x-rays based on profits, her problem would have been caught on the first visit, presumably.
pointyhats 13y ago
It is entirely up to the luck of the draw unfortunately. The problem being that it shouldn't be at all down to luck. How would I make things better? Unfortunately the government seem to think that capitalism can be a host to socialism (i.e. the UK can host the NHS as a socialist concept). This plainly doesn't work as the last few years in particular have proven and ends up creating a dumping ground for the elite, the unionised masses and the worst of all: the incompetent. The solution is pick capitalism or socialism and all their associated ills, then eliminate the elite, the unions and the incompetent universally. A secondary problem is that this country is entirely skill-less and the population is growing rapidly. The skilled public workforce isn't growing at all with this. Can we fix this? Probably not.
- takluyver 13y ago
  > The solution is pick capitalism or socialism and all their associated ills That sounds like a terrible solution. I'd much rather try to balance bits of capitalism and socialism as necessary. Yes, it's hard, yes, we'll get things wrong, no, that doesn't mean it's not worth trying. 'Be wary of simple answers to complex problems'.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

shawabawa3 13y ago

I'm sorry about your experience, however it definitely isn't everbody's experience. When I was 13 I had a stomache ache, my mother being overly paranoid took me to the hospital after a few hours of it not getting any better. After about an hours wait I saw 3 or 4 doctors in quick succession, was diagnosed with appendicitis and had surgery scheduled for around 7 hours later. I was taken care of excellently and wasn't charged a penny. Anecdotally, almost everyone I know has only had positive experiences with the NHS. Of course it isn't perfect, but it sure as hell isn't a disaster.

xenophanes 13y ago
A government medical system that is a disaster for, say, 10% of the population, is a disaster overall. Anecdotal evidence doesn't change that. And you were charged more than a penny in additional taxes. Government services are not a Free Lunch. The money has to come from somewhere and does.
- mhurron 13y ago
  But a system that kills because you're not covered is a better alternative? Oh and 10% [citation needed]
  - pointyhats 13y ago
    Neither is the right solution, which is the problem. You pay for both systems. One kills you because you can't afford it and the other kills you because they can't afford to keep you alive.
    - mhurron 13y ago
      You pay significantly less in a single payer regulated system, because everyone pays into it. Often, you pay less for better care. Other than your anecdote, which I could counter with my own that a government run healthcare system is why I can call my dad right now and say 'hi', do you have any real information to back up the government health care system is killing you? I can find this: America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

vidarh 13y ago

Here's a tip about A&E for the future: While I have had nothing but great experiences with A&E in London over repeated visits (ex wife had several problems that resulted in ambulance visits, as well as managed to hurt her arm badly) as well as ambulance wait times, there are certainly differences between boroughs, both in funding but more importantly in policies. If you find one A&E is not providing what you want, and ambulance times like that: Drive to another hospital. They are legally obliged to admit you at A&E (just don't tell them you on purpose drove there - it can't stop them admitting you, but it will make some consultants assy). Chelsea and Westminster is a good choice. Outside rush hour, if you had ambulance waits of an hour you can likely have reached any number of hospitals unless you're far outside the centre. In terms of budgets, we get what we are willing to pay for, unfortunately. As it is, our healthcare costs us half of what the extremely limited public healthcare funding in the US costs US tax payers (per capita), and for that we get universal coverage. Clearly we could pay more. We don't, because most people are satisfied with what the NHS provides - something we also see in the low takeup of supplemental private health insurance in this country.