I believe it’s a flat fee. But here in Scotland the cost is nil. And those on some benefits (e.g. unemployment) in England don’t pay either.
In a nutshell. The Conservative gov have kept it in the forefront of the austerity policy, you’d have to think for ideological reasons. They are hemorrhaging votes on their NHS policy.
Same for me in Germany and Spain. Where are you from? London.
Show the card, get treated straight away, no paperwork.
Free for all in Wales too.
My anecdotal experience of the NHS without reference to other systems.
Access to healthcare is taken for granted. I need to see a doctor, I book an appointment with my local GP surgery (where they have about ten doctors, so plenty of choice with little waiting). I can get an appointment the next day. I might have to wait longer if i want an evening or Saturday appointment, as those times are obviously popular.
Mind you, the surgery phoned me yesterday to suggest an unprompted, routine check up, 10 am this Saturday morning.
None of the above costs me any money or paperwork, I just give my name when I turn up.
If the doctor hands me a prescription, I’ll pay the flat fee already posted, as I have a job and am not listed as one of the exemptees. This is the only out of pocket expense I will ever have for NHS care, other than dental (which is subsidised but not free).
My parents have both survived serious conditions treated swiftly by the NHS (heart surgery, breast cancer, aneurism to name but a few). They had private medical insurance as a luxury for many years and used it for non-serious conditions to get rapid surgery for knee ops and a better hotel-quality private room, but were treated on the NHS for the more serious conditions (the surgeons are the same - they work both NHS and private - and the NHS hospitals are larger with more equipment and expertise, so going private makes little sense).
Serious conditions, in my family experience, go to the front of the queue.
Two of my friends have children courtesy of free IVF treatment on the NHS - women under 40 are entitled to 3 cycles of free treatment if they’ve been trying for a baby for two years. Some regions of the UK have additional criteria - eg you need to be a non smoker, have no previous children… but you get the picture.
As you can imagine, as a result, the NHS is indeed a much loved institution. Any suggestion of underfunding by certain governments draws loud complaints from the public - hence the recent march. The Tories are always assumed to be underfunding the NHS (they are the conservative ‘nasty party’ after all, we expect nothing less).
Just a small explanatory footnote, about the importance of GPs on the NHS.
Hospital and other specialist services are accessed on referral from them; they’re there to act as the primary diagnostician and care supervisor as well as gatekeeper, and if necessary advocate, and collectively they are supposed to have the major share in allocating local NHS budgets.
It’s more or less axiomatic that you register with one when you move into a new area, whether you need them at the time or not, and the funding to run their practice comes mainly from a capitation fee per registered patient - which is like what I think I understand is called a “concierge” doctor in the US.
For some reason quoting isn’t working for me on this thread, so I will respond manually to a couple of posts.
Novelty Bobble, I was summarizing a fairly long segment of an interview, and I did get some of it wrong, the attempt to limit wasn’t for all operations only for C sections. Yes, it is an anecdote. What evidence are you bringing?
bob++, where is the book (“I Am, I Am, I Am”) listed as a novel? Amazon has it as autobiography. You yourself gave an explanation in your earlier post about why there was a limitation on C sections. Also you discussed the “post code lottery” about how the quality of care varies from one local area to another.
Novelty Bobble (again) There was nothing in the interview to indicate she had any problems with memory, especially not as an adult. She had the disease as a child and had recovered further than the doctors expected at the time, but she said she had been told that there was a good chance of muscular weakness in the places necessary to expel a child in natural childbirth, which turned out to be true. It is surely only one anecdote but that is no reason to dismiss it as made up or false just because you don’t like it.
I can think of reasons to discount the story (e.g. possibly overblown to make the book more interesting to more readers). But she was clear she wasn’t ragging on NHS, she said she loved it. The explanation of one incompetent or possibly overworked doctor is more persuasive to me as an explanation for the incident than systemic failures. However, it is still scary if you have no choice but the doctor you are assigned to (I don’t know if that’s the case, but it sounds like it) and that doctor’s bad work threatens your life. I guess that was my point, badly as I might have expressed it. I have not experienced NHS care myself.
I am sure I saw it described as a novel, but all the sources I see now, describe it as a ‘memoir’. My point was that her memories are unverifiable and probably exaggerated for dramatic effect (as we all do when recounting such stories about our own pasts).
The limitation on C-sections is and was for sound medical reasons, not financial (I am not convinced that they are any more expensive than natural childbirth since they can be scheduled). Yes - where you live makes a difference, just as it does in the USA or anywhere else. A small town like the one in which I live will not have the same facilities as a large regional centre. Medicine has become so complicated and so dependent on sophisticated (and expensive) machinery that it is becoming more and more regionalised; much to the dismay of people who see the local maternity unit being closed and moved 20 miles away.
Agree with general remarks here: it is a system that works well most of the time. It definitely has challenges to overcome, but anything you may have heard about death squads or whatever is horseshit.
When I was a child, I had a form of tachycardia that meant I needed to go to hospital about once every 8 weeks. There was never any issue with getting the treatment, and no waiting (well…I remember a few long waits to be discharged).
I’m eternally grateful for the NHS for that; there is no way my single-parent family would have been able to afford good health insurance and I could have suffered a great deal had I been born elsewhere.
In the fox interview, Farage mentioned that the cause of issues with the NHS was the “population problem”. I’m not sure what he meant by that other than a veiled criticism about immigration?
But actually one of the main routes for immigrants to come to the UK is to work for the NHS, and so a far higher proportion of immigrants work there than the general population. Anyone with any connection to the NHS is well aware of this.
The same type of evidence that she does. I know the medical system fairly well and the story, as you reported is not representative of the systematic policies. i.e. if there is clinical need you get the c-section. I doubt that the lady in question is giving a full and unbiased account of what happened and if we don’t have the medical opinion as well then we should take it with a pinch of salt.
Medical negligence happens in all systems, it is entirely possible that it happened just as she reported but I suggest that there is far more to this story than is captured in her memoirs, there always is and it is the reason why we have medical tribunals at which both sides of the story can be heard. It would certainly be wrong to take a one-sided recollection of a one-off incident and use it as evidence of a systematic problem in the NHS. (of which there are many, but this isn’t one of them)
That isn’t the way it works, you are not stuck with the doctor assigned to you and you can get a second opinion with no repercussions. A very similar thing happened with my wife and switching to another consultant was easy (apart from a couple of weeks wait for a new appointment)
As mentioned above there is a political aspect to all this. NHS funding comes directly from general taxation and represents about 18.5% of the total income (£140.8 billion). Conservative governments are usually elected to push down public spending, and the corresponding taxation; Labour governments usually campaign to increase spending on health, welfare and housing without increasing taxation.
Effectively, (like Mr Micawber) Conservatives want to balance the books and cover all expenditure from income. Labour argues that this causes unnecessary suffering for the low paid and it is better to spend more now and pay for it by borrowing and taxing businesses and the wealthy. For the most part, voters want to square the circle with more and better services and lower taxes, even though they may say in polls that they would be happy to pay more.
As a lot of other people have said, it’s generally great. There are, of course, problems, but most seem to be due to failings elsewhere, like social care, also staff shortages.
A former housemate who was working as a nurse kept coming back with stories of how they’d get homeless guys brought in having ODed, they’d keep them in til they were vaguely recovered, then have to just kick them out onto the street again. Some would be brought back in every few weeks, until the time the hospital was unable to revive them (or they managed to mess themselves up badly enough that they never reached ‘vaguely recovered’ again, in which case they could maybe get referred to some kind of care home). He reckoned quite a bit of the bed shortage was due to issues like that, as staff were understandably reluctant to release patients back to an environment with no support, so would take up beds where there was no medical need.
For myself, the only issue I’ve had was one ‘human error’ delay in diagnosis, when I was an atypical demographic for the problem I had. I can’t blame them for hearing hoof beats and not assuming zebras though, and once I got the real diagnosis and it became obvious how severe it was, everything went really fast, and the actual care I got was great. Aside from that, I’ve always had good treatment, when I needed it.
I’ve no serious complaints other. Some staff a bit more brusque than others; some shambolic organisational slip-ups. But I’m more than content with the service I’ve had over the decades, and my current GP practice always seems to me to be thorough, efficient and caring.
And we’ve seen how well borrowing has worked.
I just grabbed some waiting statistics from the NHS site. It was from the same time I had surgery 2 years in a row. The average wait was 7.4 weeks for Cardiothoracic Surgery. That’s the wait once surgery is recommended. My experience was a little different. Time to see my family doctor, 1 day. time to see the Cardiologist (that I chose), within that week. Both appointments at my choosing, not theirs. From there I spent a couple of weeks going through a variety of tests starting with an EKG, a TEE, an MRI, a CT scan, and some kind of heart catheter test. Those were to both confirm the heart condition and verify related systems related to the heart. Once those were complete I chose my Heart Surgeon based on the Cardiologist’s recommendations. That surgery was within a week. It was the only appointment chosen by the doctor.
the following year I had a massive blood clot in my leg. I went to my family doctor the week of my first symptom and then had a scan of the leg followed by a specialist, then a different type of test, then back to the specialist. It got worse so I went back to the specialist. I didn’t think the diagnosis was right so I called my family doctor who ordered a different test that day which resulted in surgery the next day. All of the doctor’s appointments and tests were done one right after the other at my choosing. From the first doctor’s visit to surgery was a little over 3 weeks. Multiple doctors told me I was a day away from losing the use of my leg.
I wouldn’t have survived the average waiting times of the NHS. They simply don’t have the capacity available to work in real time. They just cancelled 50,000 surgeries because they didn’t have the bed space needed for the current flu season.
If for some reason I couldn’t get in to see my family doctor I’d go to Urgent Care. They stay open longer and are a convenient alternative. I’ve gone to one twice with heart flutters. I’ve never had to wait for a diagnostic test. All the hospitals have their own MRI/CT/nuclear scanners and we have many stand-alone centers that do nothing but tests with this type of equipment. I’ve never had to wait for a specialist. If my family doctor can’t get the regular specialist they choose another.
When I had a kidney stone I saw my family doctor, a specialist/surgeon, my family doctor and the surgeon again within 2 weeks. At the end of the two weeks the surgeon asked if I wanted to wait it out or have it removed. I had it removed. That day.
Bottom line, I’ve never had to wait for more than a couple of days from when I wanted to see someone.
And how long do people without insurance have to wait?
…can you share how much this cost you out of pocket? How much do you pay for insurance each month? And how much of your tax dollars went towards paying for this care?
How many of those in the UK who had Cardiothoracic Surgery lost the use of their leg?
Why do you think you would have had to have waited “the average waiting time” if the symptoms you were presenting showed that you were a day away from losing the use of your leg? What leads you to believe that in the UK they would have treated you the same as the “average patient?” Have you heard of the concept of triage? Did you know that they triage patients in the UK, just like they do everywhere else?
Well yes, as many posters in the UK have pointed out, thanks to things like Brexit and the current UK government underfunding the NHS and moving it towards a more “US Centric” system, things aren’t as good as they used to be.
How much are you paying out of pocket? How much are you paying in taxes?
I’m not in the UK but we have “universal health care” here. Nothing you say sound remarkable or extraordinary. I see my GP on the same day I call for an appointment. I spent a week in hospital, had an MRI with no delay and when I left the only bill I had to pay was the taxi ride home. The difference is I’m only paying once. I pay my taxes. I don’t have to pay medical insurance. I don’t have to pay anything out of pocket.
A person living on the streets here gets the same high standard of care as everybody else is eligible to get regardless of ability to pay. Is that something you can say where you live?
And I thought we weren’t supposed to do comparisons in this thread. Did you read the OP? Are you sure you posted in the right place?
how much is your life worth? Wait, don’t answer that, just wait.
I don’t know, why don’t you research that. All I know is that I was dissatisfied with the diagnosis of a specialist and my family doctor ordered additional tests the day I called her. For the same day.
My heart condition was caught during a routine exam for something else. It was the result of an office visit on-demand. There was no waiting period for any of it. There was no NEED for triage.
I was specifically addressing the UK system. You can go online and look at the average delays that occur. And last time I checked taxes came out of my pocket. If you enjoy having someone take your money and allocate your healthcare then your choices are limited. However, in the case of the UK system, it’s a function of lengthy delays.
People living on the streets get “free” government care. You can decide if that’s a higher standard.
W
I hear street people in many countries get “free” police and fireman services. Is that only in Nordic socialist places or does the U.K. do that too?
…that wasn’t an answer to my question.
Why should I? You bought up loosing your leg. How many patients on the waiting list have lost their leg? And if you can’t tell me that, then how relevant is it to the discussion?
So you have incompetent specialists. That’s good to know. Isn’t it fortunate you have enough money to get additional tests! According to Novelty Bobble in the UK “you can get a second opinion with no repercussions”. So the only difference I’m seeing here is that you are paying more money than the people in the UK to get exclusive access to something that poor people can’t get access too.
How is this relevant to the statistics you cited? This happens in the UK as well. This happens here. If you don’t have health insurance and you have hardly any money in the bank, would you be getting a “routine exam?” Do people without health insurance have “waiting period” problems, or do they not get the opportunity to wait at all because they can’t access the healthcare system? Which is the bigger problem?
So if you weren’t in danger of loosing your leg, you would have gotten surgery before people who would have lost their leg, but didn’t have the money to pay?
That doesn’t sound like a good system to me.
You have no experience with the UK system. You’ve got no experience with Universal Healthcare.
But you weren’t an “average case.” You were a day away from loosing your leg. It doesn’t matter what the “average delays” are. In most, if not all universal healthcare systems you would have gotten the same, if not better treatment than you got with zero or little out of pocket expense.
In the context of healthcare discussions “out of pocket” has a clear definition. It got introduced into debates like this because people whined and moaned that “free healthcare” really wasn’t “free.” It means the money paid at “point of service.”
Yes: I do enjoy paying significantly less money than you do to get the same, if not better service from my healthcare professionals, and I do enjoy paying less than you do so that everyone in my country can get the same level of healthcare.
“Lengthy” is a subjective term, not an objective one.
What is “free” government healthcare where you live? That person living on the street: do they have the same options that you have? Would that person living on the street with exactly the same health issues as you still have a leg?
OP: “What I DON’T want (though I’m sure this will fall on deaf ears) is the standard comparison to the US”
Magiver: Here, let me compare the US to the NHS, while admitting I’ve never actually had personal experience of the NHS.
Magiver, the key word in your post is “average”. Funnily enough urgent cases are seen more urgently than others. When I was looking at a possible cardiothoracic procedure that was very much elective (sympathectomy) I was told upfront that the waiting time would be significant because there was no pressing need for it, and the condition in question was not affecting my health. When my father needed cardiothoracic surgery for a critical condition, he was operated on the next day. That average waiting time you refer to covers the full gamut of health procedures, and fortunately most are not as pressing as the issues you have.
To answer the OP, I am very happy with the NHS, and indeed feel indebted to the service for the cover and respite it has provided my family, from cradle to grave. I believe that there is scope for improvement, as you would expect with any massively complex undertaking. I also believe it has been underfunded by the conservatives for the last 8 years, and that this cut in funding is the primary cause of the issues we’re currently complaining about in the UK.