As people have said, taking an ‘average wait time’ for something like an MRI is an utter irrelevance. You’re including yourself on the list with someone who’s had a bit of a dodgy toe for the last 6 months, and thinks it’s about time they should maybe get it checked out.
I had a microdiscectomy on the NHS; I was referred to a surgeon within 2 days once it was clear the problem was serious (until then, a ‘wait and see’ approach was recommended, as all spinal surgery carries a risk of paralysis). There were some delays, but mainly in the very early stages, when it didn’t seem like anything bad, and at the end, when the ball was firmly in my court regarding asking for further treatment, but, y’know, paralysis risk, not that inviting, so I left it til it was really bad.
So, I saw the guy, he looked at my scan results, gave me a quick exam, and said (and I swear he got a kick out of this) "I’m going to highly recommend you have surgery. The current waiting list is approximately 10 weeks.
You’re the worst case on it, would you rather stay and have it this evening or come back in the morning?"
Even if you do wind up being told you have to wait for some diagnosis or treatment element, you have the option to pay for it privately if you’d like, and you can even have the rest of the treatment on the NHS. My Mum did that; knee problems, not very serious, so she had a wait, but she had a physical job and was freaking out a bit, so paid for diagnosis privately, then got referred back to the NHS for physio.
My particular GP practice has about 12300 people registered with them. The system works by paying an annual fee for all of them rather than per item of service for those who actually use them.
That pays for 10 doctors (not all of them full-time) plus a couple in post-medical school training, half a dozen nurse practitioners (who have assorted special interests, like maternity/family planning, smoking cessation, diabetes and so on) and a couple of phlebotomists who also double up on other jobs.
Yes, I would often be routed to an NP for routine checks and minor matters.
the point is that I went through 10 medical events consisting of doctors/specialists/diagnostics/surgery at my bidding without waiting for something that was never considered an emergency (until it became one). Any delay waiting in any of that combination would have cost me my leg. This is in comparison to the NHS system of long waits that would have delayed that process. What you’ve posted in comparison is the ability to pay twice for the same medical care because the tax based service failed to meet your medical needs. Are you carrying a separate insurance policy?
Is the NHS postcode lottery in any way tied to the wealth of the neighborhood being served? Do the richer neighborhoods get better care or is it the same quality as the poor neighborhoods?
The life expectancy gap between rich and poor in the UK is almost 10 years, which is roughly what it is in the US. I’d assume with a system like the NHS, the gap would be smaller.
But I assume a big part of that gap is just lifestyle choices (poor people on average probably lead more dangerous, unhealthy lives)
Please stop for a moment and start listening and thinking and fighting your own ignorance. Every single Briton in this thread is telling you that you are wrong about the NHS.
Edit: if you need urgent treatment, you get urgent treatment.
Please stop for a moment and listen to what I’m telling you. I posted your own statistics directly from NHS. The delays in your system are a denial of timely healthcare. Of course urgent treatment goes first. That’s a given. Unless you know for a fact it’s an emergency then the “go to the head of the line” card never gets dealt.
If people are buying private insurance to compensate for the insurance they already paid for with taxes then that validates the problem with NHS documented delays.
Really, why are arguing this? You’re choices are tax funded delays in care or paying more and reducing those delays.
…and “government care” would mean “no leg” right? Chop that leg right off.
“Government care” isn’t the same care that you got was it? That you paid money to get to the front of the queue ahead of people who have might have more pressing medical need is an important part of your narrative that you seem to be ignoring.
“Timely healthcare” is a subjective measure. How are you determining what is and isn’t “timely?” Can a person on “government healthcare” in the United States get “timely healthcare?” Would you care to post some statistics so we can compare?
People might be buying private insurance simply because they want a private room. Travel insurance exists. That doesn’t validate any problems with international travel. If you want to know why people are buying private insurance I would suggest you go talk to the people and ask them why rather than simply guessing.
The system means that everybody gets treated, and if you need urgent treatment you get it urgently, without having to worry about how much it is all going to cost. The system has the advantage that if you pay a little bit extra you can get non-urgent care just a little bit faster, and rather than having to share a room you get to lie there on your lonesome.
In your system: does the poor guy with the same medical conditions as you who doesn’t have health insurance and can barely pay his rent every week…does that guy still have his leg?
Sometimes people buy private insurance because they have fallen into the fallacy that “more expensive means better”. Spanish private medical insurance comes in two flavors:
Some private hospitals have “associates”. If you become an “associate” in the NPO which owns the hospital and you’re ever a patient in that hospital, you have priority for the fancy rooms. Congratulations. The chocolates from the hospital store are still the same. The people I know who subscribe one of these schemes do it because they believe in the mission of the NPO, not because of the fancy room.
Payment schemes for off-system clinics or locations. I had to subscribe one of these because I sometimes travel to locations which are off-system; I specifically chose a policy which includes travel outside the EU (in the last six months I’ve been to the US twice). Most of the people who have these are very surprised the first time they need serious care, because what do those off-system clinics do? Why, refer them to the general system! “Why am I paying extra so I can be sent to the same hospital as everybody else?” Because you’re stupid.
Let me ask a question. Why do you think the people in this thread who’ve actually used the NHS are so overwhelmingly in favour of the system, and are reporting their experience of it working well for them?
If the issue was as neat as your particular dogma would like, you’d be happily sitting back watching us trot out story after story of the time we’d spend 8 hours waiting in a corridor on a trolley only to be told it’d be 8 weeks before we could get urgent surgery. You may note the absence of such stories, hence why you’re now having to argue that average waiting times aren’t actually an average, or that if anyone decides they’d like to speed the process up by going privately clearly there’s a problem.
What’s rather galling is that we’re even going out of our way to stress the system can be improved, and that there are definitely particular regions where the quality of care is worse than others. No-one is pretending it’s a perfect system, which frankly would be impossible considering the size of the operation.
But could you please drop this weird line of argument that in a private system you were misdiagnosed, so clearly in a UHC system you’d have died, because it’s just a very poor position based on a complete non sequitur.
That isn’t the choice. The choice is what precentage of general taxation is channeled to healthcare and what, for example, goes to fund two pointless aircraft carriers at £3 billion each.
It’s not my dogma and I didn’t make up the numbers. I posted the official NHS numbers about delays in the system.
just a quick look on the net produced this:
Complaints about cancelled NHS appointments soar in one year
New figures show the number of patients complaining about cancelled appointments has risen by one fifth in a year.
…and what about the delays for people with no money in your system?
Its 2018. Why are you posting a cite from 2015 that uses figure from 2014/2015? You are aware that there will be 2016 figures and 2017 figures? Why aren’t you posting those?
And why do you think they are complaining? Do you think that maybe it has something to do with the UK austerity programme? The Royal Society of Medicine suggest that it is likely the austerity cuts have caused up to 30,000 deaths in England and Wales in 2015. I would suggest to you that massively underfunding a previously successful healthcare system is likely to cause a few complaints. The system still works. But if you don’t fund it properly it isn’t going to work as well. That’s an issue that people in the UK are dealing with now. But that doesn’t point to a failure in the system, but to a failure of the people who oversee the system.
So maybe don’t rely on “quick searches on the net.” You’ve got no experience with universal healthcare systems. You have no real basis for comparison. You are welcome to express your view: but the OP explicitly asked for no comparisons to the US, you should really make an effort to comply with their wishes.
You seem to purposefully refuse to understand this.
You may be labouring under the misapprehension that you, as a USA taxpayer, are not paying into the government healthcare system. You are, and you already pay more per capita than we in the UK and your government systems don’t even cover everyone.
So you are already paying twice and paying much more than a similar UK privately-insured citizen so the comparison is valid.
But more important is the comparison of the experience of a non-tax paying, non-insured person in the states v the same person in the UK. What is the relative experience of each of them?
I think that’s what I meant by ‘throwing’ money at it. Similarly to you, I work in the NHS, and have seen how money is squandered, unnecessarily. More money is needed, but it’s needed to help adapt the NHS into a more efficient place.
Agreed, and there are pockets of dedicated NHS people who see this and know this but are hamstrung by the collective culture.
That culture being equal parts brilliant (hard-working, empathetic, dedicated) and obstructive (unwilling to change, ideologically fixed). It is a very difficult nut to crack.
Much of UK industry was hampered by the anti-management attitudes of the 1970/80s. Some, like the Rail companies, still are. In the NHS, the divide is not so much workers vs management but medical vs bureaucracy. Speak to a nurse or a doctor and they will tell you that the problems of the NHS are that there are too many bureaucrats. Speak to a manager and they will tell you that the Consultants and the unions frustrate any reforms that they try to implement. The ancillary staff like radiologists, dental, ophthalmic fall somewhere in between, but I know very well that running, even a medium-sized hospital (budget £160m in 2010) is a very difficult trick to pull off well.
I was just reading through all of these posts and I’ve got to say that those of you from the U.K. are so very eloquent when debating, it is very admirable and fascinates me when I see your input and perspective on issues.