Have our GPs stopped caring? BEL MOONEY tells of her fury at trying to get a local doctor to see her 97-year-old mother - and shares the stories of others betrayed by the service they trusted

Like countless others, I can simultaneously state that I have considerable experience of the NHS at its very best — and its worst.

I have been a supporter of the NHS all my life, with more knowledge of it than most people, particularly since giving birth in 1980 to a daughter with chronic health problems.

I have had cause to be grateful — and I am. But let it never be said that we have to take the knee in reverence to a system with many, many flaws.

Over the years, I have met good doctors and thoroughly dislikeable, arrogant ones; warm caring nurses and ones who'd be better suited to life as a concentration camp guard.

It is for that reason that I reject the cultish, sentimental semi-religion commonly known (with an accompaniment of clapping) as 'Our NHS,' which can make it feel like treason to complain.

Yet, after the fear and grief of the pandemic, this country has never been more conscious of our healthcare system.

We have perhaps never before realised how much we have taken for granted — like being able to make an appointment with a familiar family doctor.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9653903/BEL-MOONEY-GPs-stopped-caring.html

I am hearing lots of people complaining about surgeries and how they are throbbing people off on the phone. Where the hospitals and NHS staff there have been amazing it seems local GP's have been very poor in regards to seeing patients

Yep, this has happened to me recently. I rarely visit my GP luckily enough, but I’ve been fobbed off regarding my severe ear blockage recently. Apparently, if I want my ear syringed I have to pay privately as no hospitals are seeing anyone regarding ear problems.

Local GPs seem only to exist to make referrals now. It's a part of what medicine has become now, I suppose, but they are starting to look more and more like a middle man we should be able to skip.

I have never been treated by a phone call.

That just seems weird.

Maddog wrote:I have never been treated by a phone call.

That just seems weird.  

Sadly that is the state of affairs these days mate


Before this, calling the sugary, would have doctors call you back an invite you to the surgery. Now they throb you off

I seldom go to the Drs, and in any case in this area, since 3 GP surgeries joined together, it's almost impossible to see a Dr, diagnosis over the phone is the norm...and that's if you are lucky.

A month ago I needed some pain killers, I have arthritis and apart from a knee replacement I just put up with the pain, but I needed something as my hands and ankles were really painful.

I phoned Dr's...waited 25 minutes to be answered. Asked if it was possible to make an appointment, (forever the optimist) no chance.
Asked if I could have a phone consultation ...no chance.
I said I was in pain and needed some pain killers....was told to either go to A&E ...or alternatively go online and follow the links .
I went online...filled in a long form, then at the end it stated that tablets could only be issued if they were on a repeat prescription. I don't have anything on repeat because I rarely take any medication.

I submitted the form anyway.
Two days later OH got a text (I STILL can't be bothered to get my own mobile) tablets could be picked up.

So....I have been given strong medication (which incidentally makes me feel sick so I dont bother)  without a Dr seeing, examining, or even bothering to speak to me.

I actually think some GP's have had a bloody easy time of it over the last year or so.

Syl wrote:I seldom go to the Drs, and in any case in this area, since 3 GP surgeries joined together, it's almost impossible to see a Dr, diagnosis over the phone is the norm...and that's if you are lucky.

A month ago I needed some pain killers, I have arthritis and apart from a knee replacement I just put up with the pain, but I needed something as my hands and ankles were really painful.

I phoned Dr's...waited 25 minutes to be answered. Asked if it was possible to make an appointment, (forever the optimist) no chance.
Asked if I could have a phone consultation ...no chance.
I said I was in pain and needed some pain killers....was told to either go to A&E   ...or alternatively go online and follow the links .
I went online...filled in a long form, then at the end it stated that tablets could only be issued if they were on a repeat prescription. I don't have anything on repeat because I rarely take any medication.

I submitted the form anyway.
Two days later OH got a text (I STILL can't be bothered to get my own mobile) tablets could be picked up.

So....I have been given strong medication (which incidentally makes me feel sick so I dont bother)  without a Dr seeing, examining, or even bothering to speak to me.

I actually think some GP's have had a bloody easy time of it over the last year or so.

That is appalling Syl, how you were throbbed off

I at least always get a GP to give a call back, if I ring up, but the fact you were not even offered this is appalling

We have Aviva insurance paid by my company at work , which now offers free online consultations with private doctors online through a video call, the same day. I have used twice now and they have been wonderful

Its a sad reality I get better health care through the works free health scheme, than I do through the NHS

Throbbed off!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:



Throbbed off!!!



;lol!:

I think Didge meant Fobbed off.

Didgee wrote:

Syl wrote:I seldom go to the Drs, and in any case in this area, since 3 GP surgeries joined together, it's almost impossible to see a Dr, diagnosis over the phone is the norm...and that's if you are lucky.

A month ago I needed some pain killers, I have arthritis and apart from a knee replacement I just put up with the pain, but I needed something as my hands and ankles were really painful.

I phoned Dr's...waited 25 minutes to be answered. Asked if it was possible to make an appointment, (forever the optimist) no chance.
Asked if I could have a phone consultation ...no chance.
I said I was in pain and needed some pain killers....was told to either go to A&E   ...or alternatively go online and follow the links .
I went online...filled in a long form, then at the end it stated that tablets could only be issued if they were on a repeat prescription. I don't have anything on repeat because I rarely take any medication.

I submitted the form anyway.
Two days later OH got a text (I STILL can't be bothered to get my own mobile) tablets could be picked up.

So....I have been given strong medication (which incidentally makes me feel sick so I dont bother)  without a Dr seeing, examining, or even bothering to speak to me.

I actually think some GP's have had a bloody easy time of it over the last year or so.

That is appalling Syl, how you were throbbed off

I at least always get a GP to give a call back, if I ring up, but the fact you were not even offered this is appalling

We have Aviva insurance paid by my company at work , which now offers free online consultations with private doctors online through a video call, the same day. I have used twice now and they have been wonderful

Its a sad reality I get better health care through the works free health scheme, than I do through the NHS

I hate talking badly about the NHS Didge, because it's obviously a huge help to millions and has been for generations, but in my area, the GP service has been going down for years....and like I said, since 3 GP practices amalgamated, getting an actual physical appointment is extremely hard.
I also think some GP's have used the pandemic to their advantage.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



Throbbed off!!!



;lol!:

I think Didge meant Fobbed off.

Well if Syl’s experience of attempting to talk to an actual doctor is anything like mine I can well imagine that her head is,indeed, throbbing...with utter frustration.

It took me eight weeks to get a face-to-face appointment with a GP (a locum, naturally; my usual GP is never available) last year; another six weeks to get the CT scan that he said was needed; three weeks to get the results which concluded that I needed to see a neurologist. That was last October. After several cancelled telephone consultations with a consultant I was eventually granted a video consultation for next Wednesday. On Friday last week I was informed that it has again been postponed for another fortnight.

I will not be holding my breath...

I keep hearing that I should embrace socialized medicine. And when someone like me says it leads to rationing I'm told it doesn't.

Sounds like it does.

Maddog wrote:I keep hearing that I should embrace socialized medicine. And when someone like me says it leads to rationing I'm told it doesn't.

Sounds like it does.

The NHS is a brilliant service WHEN it works well. For eg, I had a full knee replacement, brilliant hospital and after care, including physio for as long as I needed it, millions of other people get the same service....how much would that cost you?

We also have the option of paying privately, none of us need use the NHS if we don't want to.

Covid has definitely put a huge strain on the service, add government cuts and open door policy to all EU members it's not surprising the nhs has suffered.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:I keep hearing that I should embrace socialized medicine. And when someone like me says it leads to rationing I'm told it doesn't.

Sounds like it does.

The NHS is a brilliant service WHEN it works well. For eg, I had a full knee replacement, brilliant hospital and after care, including physio for as long as I needed it, millions of other people get the same service....how much would that cost you?

We also have the option of paying privately, none of us need use the NHS if we don't want to.

Covid has definitely put a huge strain on the service, add government cuts and open door policy to all EU members it's not surprising the nhs has suffered.

That's the way I see it, too. I have an equally hard time getting to my primary physician, and have dealt with him by phone going on two years. It works...especially as I am always well prepared beforehand. We go down my checklist, discussing matters and making decisions, getting prescriptions filled, and making referrals, etc. Most people are not result-oriented, and just can't organize according to a new format.

Although the US is among the wealthiest, most modern nations on earth, we have no form of socialized medicine. We waste all our money on unneeded military hardware, and fabricated wars, and then cry poverty when it comes to real needs like medical care. Y'all have it good with the NHS.

I would certainly prefer the method we have, to one where the rich get treated and the poor suffer.

Yes we have the option of private health care, but in all my years I have never felt the need to use it, OH has only used it a couple of times, and that's when he wanted to be seen quickly rather than go on a waiting list.....oddly it was the same consultant who treated him privately, and then again at an NHS later appointment.

My bug bare lately has been the GP services, the people I know who have needed urgent hospital care have had it without delay.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:I keep hearing that I should embrace socialized medicine. And when someone like me says it leads to rationing I'm told it doesn't.

Sounds like it does.

The NHS is a brilliant service WHEN it works well. For eg, I had a full knee replacement, brilliant hospital and after care, including physio for as long as I needed it, millions of other people get the same service....how much would that cost you?

We also have the option of paying privately, none of us need use the NHS if we don't want to.

Covid has definitely put a huge strain on the service, add government cuts and  open door policy to all EU members it's not surprising the nhs has suffered.

My insurance costs me about 500 per month. I could put my phone down right now and be seeing a doctor in 30 minutes. I wouldn't even have to tell them why I wanted to see them.

I don't know what a surgery would cost me. Most would be covered by insurance. But more importantly, because money isn't everything, I would have the procedure done in a day or two. We don't wait for procedures or care. No doubt it costs us. Although in my case, I would probably be paying as much or more for my NHS bill in the UK.

Fred is in the same age group as my mother was before she passed. I personally took her to the doctors probably 3-4 times every 8 weeks. I remember one day she just needed blood drawn. She was in a wheelchair then. They came out to my truck, masked her and the nurse and took the blood right there in the parking lot, simply because I asked. Maybe it's a Texas thing. Too bad Quill seems to be having problems in California, but I'm not surprised. Or he's lying.

To make a senior citizen wait 8 weeks for a face to face appointment is third world shit.

Maddog wrote:Fred is in the same age group as my mother was before she passed. I personally took her to the doctors probably 3-4 times every 8 weeks.  I remember one day she just needed blood drawn.  She was in a wheelchair then. They came out to my truck, masked her and the nurse and took the blood right there in the parking lot, simply because I asked. Maybe it's a Texas thing. Too bad Quill seems to be having problems in California, but I'm not surprised. Or he's lying.

To make a senior citizen wait 8 weeks for a face to face appointment is third world shit.  

I agree that when someone needs to see a dr, if they are already old or vulnerable, waiting 8 weeks for a face to face appointment is unforgivable.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:Fred is in the same age group as my mother was before she passed. I personally took her to the doctors probably 3-4 times every 8 weeks.  I remember one day she just needed blood drawn.  She was in a wheelchair then. They came out to my truck, masked her and the nurse and took the blood right there in the parking lot, simply because I asked. Maybe it's a Texas thing. Too bad Quill seems to be having problems in California, but I'm not surprised. Or he's lying.

To make a senior citizen wait 8 weeks for a face to face appointment is third world shit.  

I agree that when someone needs to see a dr, if they are already old or vulnerable, waiting 8 weeks for a face to face  appointment is unforgivable.

Our system may have problems, but if you are over 65 (or poor) the government takes damn good care of you. It's expensive as hell for the rest of us, but maybe it's worth it?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I agree that when someone needs to see a dr, if they are already old or vulnerable, waiting 8 weeks for a face to face  appointment is unforgivable.

Our system may have problems, but if you are over 65 (or poor) the government takes damn good care of you. It's expensive as hell for the rest of us, but maybe it's worth it?

I was always under the impression (and I could be wrong) that if you couldn't afford to pay for treatment or insurance in the US you didn't get taken 'damn good care of'. I saw a film of Michelle Obama campaigning for better medical treatment for the poor....the conditions looked horrendous.

Here, we have the option of using the NHS, paying privately if and when you need it, or paying continuous health insurance just in case.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Our system may have problems, but if you are over 65 (or poor) the government takes damn good care of you. It's expensive as hell for the rest of us, but maybe it's worth it?

I was always under the impression (and I could be wrong) that if you couldn't afford to pay for treatment or insurance in the US you didn't get taken 'damn good care of'. I saw a film of Michelle Obama campaigning for better medical treatment for the poor....the conditions looked horrendous.

Here, we have the option of using the NHS, paying privately if and when you need it, or paying continuous  health insurance just in case.

"Medicaid in the United States is a federal and state program that helps with healthcare costs for some people with limited income and resources. Medicaid also offers benefits not normally covered by Medicare, including nursing home care and personal care services. The main difference between the two programs is that Medicaid covers healthcare costs for people with low incomes while Medicare provides health coverage for the elderly."

And we have county hospitals that will treat anyone, even the indigent.

The people who have problems are lower income folks who can't or don't buy insurance, and make too much to be considered poor.

Maddog wrote:Fred is in the same age group as my mother was before she passed. I personally took her to the doctors probably 3-4 times every 8 weeks. I remember one day she just needed blood drawn. She was in a wheelchair then. They came out to my truck, masked her and the nurse and took the blood right there in the parking lot, simply because I asked. Maybe it's a Texas thing. Too bad Quill seems to be having problems in California, but I'm not surprised. Or he's lying.

The reason why things were so lax in Texas was because Gov. Abbot was on-board with Trump, and willing to simply ignore the pandemic in favor of the health of the economy for the wealthy. Just as Texas suffered from laxity in their electric grid, states like Texas, Florida and Louisiana will likely suffer from laxity in their public health concerns.

California is a state that cares less about Trump, and more about the health of its citizens. For the past year-and-a-half the medical rules require as much as possible be done over the phone...saving in-person as well as hospital visits for occasions when it's necessary. We Californians had all of our shots, and received all of our medicines, but with adequate precautions. As I said above, the only one’s who have problems are those who didn’t plan for the visit and anticipate changes in the manner in which healthcare is provided.

As far as costs are concerned, sure you are blind to the costs and that is because you would rather have reality hidden from you. If you receive health insurance through your employer, you are receiving reduced wages and other benefits as a consequence. If you are paying for your own medical insurance, as I have done, you are probably receiving less than if you paid out-of-pocket over your lifetime (insurance companies, after all, are not in business to lose money). As with most things, you pay insurance premiums because you don’t bother to set aside…and rarely because of unanticipated risk.

In many cases, insureds are finding out too late that their insurance didn't cover this and that, and/or are cancelled altogether...what we in law call 'sub-standard coverage'. There is a whole market out there for standards and poor’s in insurance. The first, and most important page to be reviewed in any kind of insurance policy, should always be the page titled 'Exclusions' at the top. It defines what's not covered.
https://www.lemonade.com/insuropedia/dictionary/insurance-exclusion/

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Fred is in the same age group as my mother was before she passed. I personally took her to the doctors probably 3-4 times every 8 weeks.  I remember one day she just needed blood drawn.  She was in a wheelchair then. They came out to my truck, masked her and the nurse and took the blood right there in the parking lot, simply because I asked. Maybe it's a Texas thing. Too bad Quill seems to be having problems in California, but I'm not surprised. Or he's lying.

The reason why things were so lax in Texas was because Gov. Abbot was on-board with Trump, and willing to simply ignore the pandemic in favor of the health of the economy for the wealthy.  Just as Texas suffered from laxity in their electric grid, states like Texas, Florida and Louisiana will likely suffer from laxity in their public health concerns.

California is a state that cares less about Trump, and more about the health of its citizens.  For the past year-and-a-half the medical rules require as much as possible be done over the phone...saving in-person as well as hospital visits for occasions when it's necessary.  We Californians had all of our shots, and received all of our medicines, but with adequate precautions.  As I said above, the only one’s who have problems are those who didn’t plan for the visit and anticipate changes in the manner in which healthcare is provided.

As far as costs are concerned, sure you are blind to the costs and that is because you would rather have reality hidden from you.  If you receive health insurance through your employer, you are receiving reduced wages and other benefits as a consequence.  If you are paying for your own medical insurance, as I have done, you are probably receiving less than if you paid out-of-pocket over your lifetime (insurance companies, after all, are not in business to lose money).  As with most things, you pay insurance premiums because you don’t bother to set aside…and rarely because of unanticipated risk.

In many cases, insureds are finding out too late that their insurance didn't cover this and that, and/or are cancelled altogether...what we in law call 'sub-standard coverage'.  There is a whole market out there for standards and poor’s in insurance.  The first, and most important page to be reviewed in any kind of insurance policy, should always be the page titled 'Exclusions' at the top.  It defines what's not covered.
https://www.lemonade.com/insuropedia/dictionary/insurance-exclusion/

I pay for my own insurance. I don't have an employer.

And I don't have any issues seeing a doctor.

Maddog wrote:And we have county hospitals that will treat anyone, even the indigent.

The people who have problems are lower income folks who can't or don't buy insurance,  and make too much to be considered poor.

But surely that's millions of people who have problems getting medical care.

Here, anyone can turn up at any hospital and if they need urgent treatment they will be treated, there is no charge, no need to have any medical insurance, the NHS takes care of people, the pledge was, when it was first founded, 'From the cradle to the grave'.

It's suffering at the moment, and a lot of people are not being treated as they should be, the pandemic has put a lot of treatments on the back burner.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:And we have county hospitals that will treat anyone, even the indigent.

The people who have problems are lower income folks who can't or don't buy insurance,  and make too much to be considered poor.

But surely that's millions of people who have problems getting medical care.

Here, anyone can turn up at any hospital and if they need urgent treatment they will be treated, there is no charge, no need to have any medical insurance, the NHS takes care of people, the pledge was, when it was first founded, 'From the cradle to the grave'.

It's suffering at the moment, and a lot of people are not being treated as they should be, the pandemic has put a lot of treatments on the back burner.

Care isn't a problem. Cost is. We provide the care first and worry about who pays for afterwards.

Because we spend so much on healthcare, access isn't a problem. People aren't waiting for care, but may be saddled with a lot of debt if they aren't on Medicare, don't go to the county hospital or don't have insurance.

There's a lot of propaganda about our system by those who want to change it.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.  Anyone can have urgent medical care in the US, however they have to be mindful to enter at the Emergency Entrance, and not the front door.

Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

But look: with EMTALA, MediCare, Medi-Aid and county hospitals we are dealing with a hodge-podge of services and coverages, probably more expensive as a result, and certainly less comprehensive.  Moreover, what is completely missed is preventive care.  Everything that is done after-the-fact, and without anticipation, is bound to be less comprehensive, and more expensive.  Often, it’s too little, too late.

The only sure way is the NHS/Canada Health Act/Australian Health Care way…i.e., socialized medicine.  We have socialized military defense, socialized police, and socialized fire protection, etc...there is no excuse not to have socialized medicine.

Original Quill wrote:In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay.  Anyone can have urgent medical care in the US, however they have to be mindful to enter at the Emergency Entrance, and not the front door.

Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

But look: with EMTALA, MediCare, Medi-Aid and county hospitals we are dealing with a hodge-podge of services and coverages, probably more expensive as a result, and certainly less comprehensive.  Moreover, what is completely missed is preventive care.  Everything that is done after-the-fact, and without anticipation, is bound to be less comprehensive, and more expensive.  Often, it’s too little, too late.

The only sure way is the NHS/Canada Health Act/Australian Health Care way…i.e., socialized medicine.  We have socialized military defense, socialized police, and socialized fire protection, etc...there is no excuse not to have socialized medicine.

The first few posts on this thread don't make it sound very appealing.

And Australia has something like Medicare for all, not government ran healthcare, like the Brits and Canadians. In fact most countries don't have nationalized healthcare but a mandatory private system partially funded by the government.

Maddog wrote:The first few posts on this thread don't make it sound very appealing.

And Australia has something like Medicare for all, not government ran healthcare, like the Brits and Canadians. In fact most countries don't have nationalized healthcare but a mandatory private system partially funded by the government.

And, haven't I singled out the NHS as being the best? As Syl says, they may have some flaws, particularly in times like this—crisis-times—but it's still working, still true to its aims…so far from nothing, which is what the US has.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:The first few posts on this thread don't make it sound very appealing.

And Australia has something like Medicare for all, not government ran healthcare, like the Brits and Canadians. In fact most countries don't have nationalized healthcare but a mandatory private system partially funded by the government.  

And, haven't I singled out the NHS as being the best?  As Syl says, they may have some flaws, particularly in times like this—crisis-times—but it's still working, still true to its aims…so far from nothing, which is what the US has.

It's working so well, there's a thread about how it's not.

I seldom go to the Drs, and in any case in this area, since 3 GP surgeries joined together, it's almost impossible to see a Dr, diagnosis over the phone is the norm...and that's if you are lucky.

A month ago I needed some pain killers, I have arthritis and apart from a knee replacement I just put up with the pain, but I needed something as my hands and ankles were really painful.

I phoned Dr's...waited 25 minutes to be answered. Asked if it was possible to make an appointment, (forever the optimist) no chance.
Asked if I could have a phone consultation ...no chance.
I said I was in pain and needed some pain killers....was told to either go to A&E Rolling Eyes ...or alternatively go online and follow the links .
I went online...filled in a long form, then at the end it stated that tablets could only be issued if they were on a repeat prescription. I don't have anything on repeat because I rarely take any medication.

I submitted the form anyway.
Two days later OH got a text (I STILL can't be bothered to get my own mobile) tablets could be picked up.

So....I have been given strong medication (which incidentally makes me feel sick so I dont bother) without a Dr seeing, examining, or even bothering to speak to me.

I actually think some GP's have had a bloody easy time of it over the last year or so.


Under no circumstances can this be called working, unless you compare it to our third world system called the VA.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And, haven't I singled out the NHS as being the best?  As Syl says, they may have some flaws, particularly in times like this—crisis-times—but it's still working, still true to its aims…so far from nothing, which is what the US has.

It's working so well, there's a thread about how it's not.

It's a thread about how the NHS can be improved, that's all.

But you are avoiding the real argument: healthcare is a right, and governments should provide for it. A government has an obligation to protect citizens from enemies, both domestic and foreign. Technically, any ailment or injury is such an enemy.

This is why I feel the departments of defense and health should be merged. Not only is the DOD best equipped, but it has the mission of protecting citizens...and it is legally and constitutionally mandated.

But realistically, it is a duty of any humane government to protect its citizens from harm. Whether it's the DOD or HHS, health is a right.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's working so well, there's a thread about how it's not.

It's a thread about how the NHS can be improved, that's all.

But you are avoiding the real argument: healthcare is a right, and governments should provide for it.  A government has an obligation to protect citizens from enemies, both domestic and foreign.  Technically, any ailment or injury is such an enemy.

This is why I feel the departments of defense and health should be merged.  Not only is the DOD best equipped, but it has the mission of protecting citizens...and it is legally and constitutionally mandated.

But realistically, it is a duty of any humane government to protect its citizens from harm.  Whether it's the DOD or HHS, health is a right.

I know what the thread is about.

Not much of a right, if you can't access it in a timely manner.

The existence of a system, doesn't mean it actually serves the people it should.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a thread about how the NHS can be improved, that's all.

But you are avoiding the real argument: healthcare is a right, and governments should provide for it.  A government has an obligation to protect citizens from enemies, both domestic and foreign.  Technically, any ailment or injury is such an enemy.

This is why I feel the departments of defense and health should be merged.  Not only is the DOD best equipped, but it has the mission of protecting citizens...and it is legally and constitutionally mandated.

But realistically, it is a duty of any humane government to protect its citizens from harm.  Whether it's the DOD or HHS, health is a right.

I know what the thread is about.

Not much of a right, if you can't access it in a timely manner.

The existence of a system, doesn't mean it actually serves the people it should.

Well, we should go about correcting that, should we not? It seems a step backwards to go for non-socialized medicine, and leave everything to the whims of the free market...unsteady as it is.

I believe, as Syl suggests, it's a manifestation of the pandemic crisis. Calm will return.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And, haven't I singled out the NHS as being the best?  As Syl says, they may have some flaws, particularly in times like this—crisis-times—but it's still working, still true to its aims…so far from nothing, which is what the US has.

It's working so well, there's a thread about how it's not.

Parts of it are letting us down, in my opinion, in my area, GP's are not doing the job like they should.
I know other people in other areas dont have the same problems.

Hospital care is different. Generally, people who need it are happy with the Dedication NHS workers give.
Unlike the states, we are treated, hopefully made well, sent on our way, with medication, and aftercare......and no one comes after us for money.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know what the thread is about.

Not much of a right, if you can't access it in a timely manner.

The existence of a system, doesn't mean it actually serves the people it should.

Well, we should go about correcting that, should we not?  It seems a step backwards to go for non-socialized medicine, and leave everything to the whims of the free market...unsteady as it is.

I believe, as Syl suggests, it's a manifestation of the pandemic crisis.  Calm will return.

The pandemic, the backlog it's caused, too little funding, and too many people, many of them none Brits trying to access it's services, have all put huge pressure on the NHS in recent years.

It also seems to me, that the first port of call to access many NHS services, is the GP.
Today many of them dont realise their job is to actually SEE patients, that's one of the NHS's biggest failings now.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's working so well, there's a thread about how it's not.

Parts of it are letting us down, in my opinion, in my area, GP's are not doing the job like they should.
I know other people in other areas dont have the same problems.

Hospital care is different. Generally, people who need it are happy with the Dedication  NHS workers give.
Unlike the states, we are treated, hopefully made well, sent on our way, with medication, and aftercare......and no one comes after us for money.

You prepay for your services, the same as I. Mine might cost more than yours, but I don't have your access issues.

Mine is simply voluntary (my share, for my care, not my share of government provided healthcare for others), and roughly based on my likelihood of how much I will cost the system, not on how much I make, although that has changed somewhat during the years (Thanks Obama ).

And, if you can't get to a doctor when things are minor and still early, they can turn into serious problems or death.

You don't think American hospital workers give great care or dedication?

I know way too many nurses that would disprove that theory in a heartbeat.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, we should go about correcting that, should we not?  It seems a step backwards to go for non-socialized medicine, and leave everything to the whims of the free market...unsteady as it is.

I believe, as Syl suggests, it's a manifestation of the pandemic crisis.  Calm will return.

The pandemic, the backlog it's caused, too little funding, and too many people, many of them none Brits trying to access it's services, have all put huge pressure on the NHS in recent years.

Funding requires taxes. It's really that simple. Healthcare costs the person receiving it money. Or it costs their neighbor money. The better it's funded, the more access you will have. I don't have access issues, but I pay not to have them.

As for non Brits, do you think non Americans that are here illegally go without healthcare?

I'm sure the majority of your nurses are as dedicated as ours....or anyones. I didn't suggest they were not.

The NHS is funded mainly from taxes and NI contributions.
Many Brits have paid in their full working lives.
Too many people expect to use the service without contributing, the open door policy stretched the NHS beyond their capacity, which has added to the problems in recent years.

Everyone gets the same NHS service here, whether they paid in for 55 years or 3 months....do they in the states?

I added this to my post before, and I really think this is one of the main problems many people are experiencing now.


"It also seems to me, that the first port of call to access many NHS services, is the GP.
Today many of them dont realise their job is to actually SEE patients, that's one of the NHS's biggest failings now."

Syl wrote:I'm sure the majority of your nurses are as dedicated as ours....or anyones. I didn't suggest they were not.

The NHS is funded mainly from taxes and NI contributions.
Many Brits have paid in their full working lives.
Too many people expect to use the service without contributing, the open door policy stretched the NHS beyond their capacity, which has added to the problems in recent years.

Everyone gets the same NHS service here, whether they paid in for 55 years or 3 months....do they in the states?

There are varying levels of service based on how much you pay, but not how long you have been paying. If you bought insurance yesterday, your coverage is the same as someone who has been paying for 40 years.

And if you become indigent, your service will be the same as someone who has been indigent for years.

Basically, we have something like BUPA for most of us, and something like NHS (government run) for some of the poor including a millions of illegal residents or former military. Then we have BUPA like care for many, who are treated in private hospitals with tax payer funds.

Suffice it say, Americans with insurance are not envious of the NHS. Those without, might be.

One of my older friends warned me: 'Don't get old on the NHS; they just don't care about you.' I do not want that be true. But, sadly, I've heard too many stories about neglect and indifference to delude myself into wishful thinking.

The last line of the article.

I can't read that article and consider the NHS a functioning healthcare system.

Doctors in unions bitching about patients expecting them to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB?

Nah, don't try to tell me I should support that bullshit.

Maddog wrote:One of my older friends warned me: 'Don't get old on the NHS; they just don't care about you.' I do not want that be true. But, sadly, I've heard too many stories about neglect and indifference to delude myself into wishful thinking.

The last line of the article.

I can't read that article and consider the NHS a functioning healthcare system.

Doctors in unions bitching about patients expecting them to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB?

Nah, don't try to tell me I should support that bullshit.

Yes I read that, and for some there is some truth to it, for others not.
When articles like that are written, the people who have complaints queue up to speak out, the people who have had good services obviously don't.

I have had both bad and brilliant treatment from the NHS throughout life....mostly good, and once more I will add, my (and many other peoples) experience of good service falls short when GP's are involved.....they need to get back to what they have been trained for, and that is actually SEEING patients.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:One of my older friends warned me: 'Don't get old on the NHS; they just don't care about you.' I do not want that be true. But, sadly, I've heard too many stories about neglect and indifference to delude myself into wishful thinking.

The last line of the article.

I can't read that article and consider the NHS a functioning healthcare system.

Doctors in unions bitching about patients expecting them to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB?

Nah, don't try to tell me I should support that bullshit.

Yes I read that, and for some there is some truth to it, for others not.
When articles like that are written, the people who have complaints queue up to speak out, the people who have had good services obviously don't.

I have had both bad and brilliant treatment from the NHS throughout life....mostly good, and once more I will add, my (and many other peoples) experience of good service falls short when GP's are involved.....they need to get back to what they have been trained for, and that is actually SEEING patients.

Yes they do. But if a system makes them government workers then allows them to unionize to be organized against the needs of patients, you're going to have a hard time.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes I read that, and for some there is some truth to it, for others not.
When articles like that are written, the people who have complaints queue up to speak out, the people who have had good services obviously don't.

I have had both bad and brilliant treatment from the NHS throughout life....mostly good, and once more I will add, my (and many other peoples) experience of good service falls short when GP's are involved.....they need to get back to what they have been trained for, and that is actually SEEING patients.

Yes they do. But if a system makes them government workers then allows them to unionize to be organized against the needs of patients, you're going to have a hard time.

Harder than the cavalier attitude of capitalists? I doubt it. Nothing can be more demoralizing than, you have to die because you didn't earn enough during your lifetime to warrant a hospital bed!

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes I read that, and for some there is some truth to it, for others not.
When articles like that are written, the people who have complaints queue up to speak out, the people who have had good services obviously don't.

I have had both bad and brilliant treatment from the NHS throughout life....mostly good, and once more I will add, my (and many other peoples) experience of good service falls short when GP's are involved.....they need to get back to what they have been trained for, and that is actually SEEING patients.

Yes they do. But if a system makes them government workers then allows them to unionize to be organized against the needs of patients, you're going to have a hard time.

Well it's worked for almost 3/4 of a century, and till everyone here earns enough to be able to afford private health care....and they obviously don't, as they don't in your country either, the NHS offers care for all, from cradle to grave.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes they do. But if a system makes them government workers then allows them to unionize to be organized against the needs of patients, you're going to have a hard time.

Well it's worked for almost 3/4 of a century, and till everyone here earns enough to be able to afford private health care....and they obviously don't, as they don't in your country either,  the NHS offers care for all, from cradle to grave.

All government programs work at first. Many eventually become obsolete or collapse under the weight of their own incompetence or indifference. But they become entrenched and supported by the public in a weird sort of Stockholm Syndrome. I think this article touches on that unhealthy relationship.

And the only comparison between our system would be our VA and private care because it's not means tested.

Anyone that can afford private care avoids the VA like the plague.

If you think about it, the Soviet Union worked and was quite the competor for the free markets from West.

Until it didn't. It rotted from a top heavy structure that created malaise and indifference in the workers.

And it required keeping the benefits of capitalism from the masses. When Kruschev visited Texas amd saw a grocery store he remarked that the people back home would revolt of they saw the selection and service that we took for granted.

The Department of Defense has Stockholm Syndrome? Glad we found out in time...disband the Army and sink the Navy! Hope we're not too late...