7 ms·

I will counter this with the following. My mother turned 60 late January this year, she received a bowl cancer screening kit which she did and they recommend s

by Zariel 4y ago

I will counter this with the following. My mother turned 60 late January this year, she received a bowl cancer screening kit which she did and they recommend she come in for a colonoscopy, which identified she highly likely had bowl cancer. 3 Weeks later she received the results for a CT with contrast scan which found no evidence of cancer else where in her major organs and nodes. 3 Weeks later she is having surgery to remove the cancerous bowl. All for free. Tell me again why America has the highest rate of Stage 5 Cancers over 65.

stereoradonc 4y ago
Your mother was lucky. It would be interesting to see if this impacts the health seeking behaviour of individuals. It is practically outsourcing the healthcare to a third party agency that has the potential to slip up. In some cases, it does (as the OP). American cancer rates have different etiologies and is not apples to oranges comparison.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
avianlyric 4y ago
Just because the NHS doesn’t fail in all scenarios, or even most scenarios, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have serious problems. GP isn’t making any claims that the US system is better, they don’t even mention the US, they’re pointing out that the NHS has some pretty serious deep seated issues. Which quite frankly should be obvious to anyone who’s interacted with it. Knee jerk responses like this are precisely why attempting to fix the NHS is political suicide. It impossible to even have a open discussion out the problems the NHS faces without people piling on to defend the NHS and drown out criticism. Personally I worry about the future of the NHS. The inability to have an honest and open discussion about the future of the NHS means it’s just going to continue lumbering on until it collapses completely from extraordinary pressures it’s placed under.
- austinjp 4y ago
  > The inability to have an honest and open discussion about the future of the NHS means it’s just going to continue lumbering on until it collapses Agreed. Unfortunately, it often seems that "honest and open discussion" rapidly segues into rancour. The NHS is a behemoth, and healthcare can be astonishingly complex. The NHS was designed for different times and different needs. It's been hacked about and is struggling to hang together. It's a political football, and it's been under-funded for years, probably decades. Cash isn't the only way to fix things, but it's a big part.
michealr 4y ago
To counter your counter and to refocus the point on the potential improvements for the NHS. I think the parent is correct with regard to the NHS there are a lot of issues with it. And with meaningful consequences for people's health and well-being, but having followed discussions about it there seems to be an overt focus on comparisons to America and American healthcare costs. The UK and by extension the discussions on issues with the NHS would be better served by comparing and looking at healthcare costs and outcomes of other neighbouring peer countries. Such as the Netherlands or France. Or even further afield in the likes of Singapore. Note, I'm neither from the UK nor America, and looking in from the outside this aspect of the UK discussion comparing and contrasting with America seems to be the wrong idea.
acta_non_verba 4y ago
The NHS has been unable to send an ambulance to me in two separate cases in which the operator confirmed I was high priority. 5 years apart. Once in York, once in Bedfordshire. But it doesn’t matter —- it’s anecdata. The NHS has a lot of data available. Some is public, some available only to those that have a commercial relationship with them. There are areas in which the NHS is exceptional — generally those areas which require no personalisation of care and a mass-production style of work (e.g. cervical smear tests and their associated health outcomes) - and then there are the many areas in which it really is appalling. Lionising the NHS doesn’t help it. Opening discussing its faults does.
mmarq 4y ago
Your mother was quite lucky, the NHS doesn’t do much prevention compared to other healthcare systems. Everything goes through GPs, that are the medicine homologues of a guy that works in IT and can set the background of his Drupal blog. GPs have budgets, are very vocal about it, and would rather run silly experiments for months than writing a referral (the latter impacting on their budget). My girlfriend’s GP wanted to change her birth control pill because it was too expensive, and he has a budget (it’s not a problem anymore, because thanks to Brexit that pill is no longer available in the UK). Children are not assigned to a paediatrician and women are not assigned to a gynaecologist. Women go through pregnancies without ever seeing a person with a degree in medicine, it’s all handled by midwives. If you want access to western medicine you either have an insurance or you’ll have to spend 200-300£ per visit. For some weird reason the NHS has you covered if you need a magician, such as an osteopath, or some magic homeopathic pills. The NHS has seasons, for instance a few years ago it was chlamydia season and so I was forced to go through a chlamydia screening, but it proved impossible to get tested for any other STD. It is possible that your mother was saved by the colonoscopy season.
- austinjp 4y ago
  > Everything goes through GPs, that are the medicine homologues of a guy that works in IT and can set the background of his Drupal blog. I don't follow you. GPs go through specialist training and assessment (general practice is, perhaps paradoxically, a specialism). The comparison you draw seems to be with someone who is unskilled. Can you explain? Perhaps I'm missing something. While it seems true that GPs are the gate keepers for referral to secondary care, this is largely due to factors that are outside the control of GPs themselves. I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Do you expect to have direct access to pediatricians and gynaecologists without referral? There simply are not enough of them for that. I'm curious; without being identified as someone who needs specialist care, why would you want access to someone like that? The -icians and -ologists within the NHS deal with specific situations. Perhaps you think you'd receive better care if you simply had direct access to secondary care. Fair enough.... so, that itch you get occasionally, or that nagging ache... are you going to visit the neurologist, or the rheumatologist, or the radiologist, or....? > GPs have budgets, are very vocal about it I've literally never heard a GP mention budgets to me as a patient. Or are you referring to GP representation in the media? > would rather run silly experiments for months than writing a referral (the latter impacting on their budget). You say that GPs will knowingly experiment on their patients to save money. Are you sure that's what's happening? > My girlfriend’s GP wanted to change her birth control pill because it was too expensive Is that actually the reason they gave? Or something you've inferred? Did they, perhaps, want to provide your girlfriend with the service she requested, using what they had at their disposal?

by Zariel 4y ago

stereoradonc 4y ago

Your mother was lucky. It would be interesting to see if this impacts the health seeking behaviour of individuals. It is practically outsourcing the healthcare to a third party agency that has the potential to slip up. In some cases, it does (as the OP). American cancer rates have different etiologies and is not apples to oranges comparison.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

avianlyric 4y ago

Just because the NHS doesn’t fail in all scenarios, or even most scenarios, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have serious problems. GP isn’t making any claims that the US system is better, they don’t even mention the US, they’re pointing out that the NHS has some pretty serious deep seated issues. Which quite frankly should be obvious to anyone who’s interacted with it. Knee jerk responses like this are precisely why attempting to fix the NHS is political suicide. It impossible to even have a open discussion out the problems the NHS faces without people piling on to defend the NHS and drown out criticism. Personally I worry about the future of the NHS. The inability to have an honest and open discussion about the future of the NHS means it’s just going to continue lumbering on until it collapses completely from extraordinary pressures it’s placed under.

austinjp 4y ago
> The inability to have an honest and open discussion about the future of the NHS means it’s just going to continue lumbering on until it collapses Agreed. Unfortunately, it often seems that "honest and open discussion" rapidly segues into rancour. The NHS is a behemoth, and healthcare can be astonishingly complex. The NHS was designed for different times and different needs. It's been hacked about and is struggling to hang together. It's a political football, and it's been under-funded for years, probably decades. Cash isn't the only way to fix things, but it's a big part.

michealr 4y ago

To counter your counter and to refocus the point on the potential improvements for the NHS. I think the parent is correct with regard to the NHS there are a lot of issues with it. And with meaningful consequences for people's health and well-being, but having followed discussions about it there seems to be an overt focus on comparisons to America and American healthcare costs. The UK and by extension the discussions on issues with the NHS would be better served by comparing and looking at healthcare costs and outcomes of other neighbouring peer countries. Such as the Netherlands or France. Or even further afield in the likes of Singapore. Note, I'm neither from the UK nor America, and looking in from the outside this aspect of the UK discussion comparing and contrasting with America seems to be the wrong idea.

acta_non_verba 4y ago

The NHS has been unable to send an ambulance to me in two separate cases in which the operator confirmed I was high priority. 5 years apart. Once in York, once in Bedfordshire. But it doesn’t matter —- it’s anecdata. The NHS has a lot of data available. Some is public, some available only to those that have a commercial relationship with them. There are areas in which the NHS is exceptional — generally those areas which require no personalisation of care and a mass-production style of work (e.g. cervical smear tests and their associated health outcomes) - and then there are the many areas in which it really is appalling. Lionising the NHS doesn’t help it. Opening discussing its faults does.

mmarq 4y ago

Your mother was quite lucky, the NHS doesn’t do much prevention compared to other healthcare systems. Everything goes through GPs, that are the medicine homologues of a guy that works in IT and can set the background of his Drupal blog. GPs have budgets, are very vocal about it, and would rather run silly experiments for months than writing a referral (the latter impacting on their budget). My girlfriend’s GP wanted to change her birth control pill because it was too expensive, and he has a budget (it’s not a problem anymore, because thanks to Brexit that pill is no longer available in the UK). Children are not assigned to a paediatrician and women are not assigned to a gynaecologist. Women go through pregnancies without ever seeing a person with a degree in medicine, it’s all handled by midwives. If you want access to western medicine you either have an insurance or you’ll have to spend 200-300£ per visit. For some weird reason the NHS has you covered if you need a magician, such as an osteopath, or some magic homeopathic pills. The NHS has seasons, for instance a few years ago it was chlamydia season and so I was forced to go through a chlamydia screening, but it proved impossible to get tested for any other STD. It is possible that your mother was saved by the colonoscopy season.

austinjp 4y ago
> Everything goes through GPs, that are the medicine homologues of a guy that works in IT and can set the background of his Drupal blog. I don't follow you. GPs go through specialist training and assessment (general practice is, perhaps paradoxically, a specialism). The comparison you draw seems to be with someone who is unskilled. Can you explain? Perhaps I'm missing something. While it seems true that GPs are the gate keepers for referral to secondary care, this is largely due to factors that are outside the control of GPs themselves. I'm not sure I understand your complaint. Do you expect to have direct access to pediatricians and gynaecologists without referral? There simply are not enough of them for that. I'm curious; without being identified as someone who needs specialist care, why would you want access to someone like that? The -icians and -ologists within the NHS deal with specific situations. Perhaps you think you'd receive better care if you simply had direct access to secondary care. Fair enough.... so, that itch you get occasionally, or that nagging ache... are you going to visit the neurologist, or the rheumatologist, or the radiologist, or....? > GPs have budgets, are very vocal about it I've literally never heard a GP mention budgets to me as a patient. Or are you referring to GP representation in the media? > would rather run silly experiments for months than writing a referral (the latter impacting on their budget). You say that GPs will knowingly experiment on their patients to save money. Are you sure that's what's happening? > My girlfriend’s GP wanted to change her birth control pill because it was too expensive Is that actually the reason they gave? Or something you've inferred? Did they, perhaps, want to provide your girlfriend with the service she requested, using what they had at their disposal?