Private Health Care

[saint_stevo]

I am after some.

 

What's the monthly damage? Is BUPA the bestest?

[Franny's Tash]

Sorry if I'm barking up the wrong tree but this isn't about your knee is it? in which case insurers might have something to say about pre-existing conditions etc...

[Pancake]

Sorry if I'm barking up the wrong tree but this isn't about your knee is it? in which case insurers might have something to say about pre-existing conditions etc...

 

Just what I was thinking...

[nick1579]

Not necessarily, they may have "medical history disregarded" policies. Much cheaper to get it through a company group scheme, but I suspect this isn't an option for you (and if it was, I'm assuming you didn't elect it and can only renew an anniversaries). It's pretty pricey otherwise unfortunately - when I was between jobs a few years ago it cost me about £40 a month to retain my BUPA cover as an individual.

 

Assuming this is around the knee, best to wait and see what the doctor says - a consultation with a specialist may be a much shorter waiting list than any potential surgery (sorry if I misled you here)

[saint_stevo]

The Knee has just made me think how much easier it would have been if i had some private healthcare. Have an appt on Saturday morning with my G.P where i shall demand a specialist takes a look......or ask very nicely

[nick1579]

Go on, demand, you know you want to. Hee hee.

 

Hate to say it, but the continued instability you're describing sounds like an ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) rupture. Let's hope not, but this is the thing I'd be asking the GP to consider if I were you.

[bridge too far]

What makes you think you'll get it treated any better or quicker by going privately?

 

When I did my ACL and median ligaments in (abroad, skiing) I had private treatment (against my principles I might add but I wasn't really in a position to argue).

 

The 'private' consultant was the same one who did an NHS arthroscopy of my (other) knee a couple of years before and who knew me.

 

My 'private' physio ran out before the physio treatment was complete. I had to go back on a waiting list for NHS physio treatment and I'm sure this delayed my recovery. In those days (early 90s) NHS orthopaedic lists were horrendously long. They're not these days.

 

And remember if your private op goes wrong, the NHS will mend the mistake anyway.

[JohnnyFartPants]

What makes you think you'll get it treated any better or quicker by going privately?

 

When I did my ACL and median ligaments in (abroad, skiing) I had private treatment (against my principles I might add but I wasn't really in a position to argue).

 

The 'private' consultant was the same one who did an NHS arthroscopy of my (other) knee a couple of years before and who knew me.

 

My 'private' physio ran out before the physio treatment was complete. I had to go back on a waiting list for NHS physio treatment and I'm sure this delayed my recovery. In those days (early 90s) NHS orthopaedic lists were horrendously long. They're not these days.

 

And remember if your private op goes wrong, the NHS will mend the mistake anyway.

 

They sound like silly principles to me. Socialist, perhaps?

[bridge too far]

They sound like silly principles to me. Socialist, perhaps?

 

Yes, against my socialist principles. Principles that my (then) husband didn't aspire to. He was the one who arranged my hospital treatment upon my return from Austria. The NHS couldn't treat me as an emergency as my accident had happened more than 48 hours beforehand.

 

Therefore, as I said, I had no control over my treatment. It was the only time in my life that I have ever used private healthcare and I will never use it again.

[trousers]

What makes you think you'll get it treated any better or quicker by going privately?

 

When I did my ACL and median ligaments in (abroad, skiing) I had private treatment (against my principles I might add but I wasn't really in a position to argue).

 

The 'private' consultant was the same one who did an NHS arthroscopy of my (other) knee a couple of years before and who knew me.

 

My 'private' physio ran out before the physio treatment was complete. I had to go back on a waiting list for NHS physio treatment and I'm sure this delayed my recovery. In those days (early 90s) NHS orthopaedic lists were horrendously long. They're not these days.

 

And remember if your private op goes wrong, the NHS will mend the mistake anyway.

 

Going private helps take the burden off the tax payer though. Even more relevant these days seeing that bottler Brown has given all tax revenues (and more) to the banks.

 

HTH

[trousers]

What makes you think you'll get it treated any better or quicker by going privately?

 

When I did my ACL and median ligaments in (abroad, skiing) I had private treatment (against my principles I might add but I wasn't really in a position to argue).

 

The 'private' consultant was the same one who did an NHS arthroscopy of my (other) knee a couple of years before and who knew me.

 

My 'private' physio ran out before the physio treatment was complete. I had to go back on a waiting list for NHS physio treatment and I'm sure this delayed my recovery. In those days (early 90s) NHS orthopaedic lists were horrendously long. They're not these days.

 

And remember if your private op goes wrong, the NHS will mend the mistake anyway.

 

Going private helps take the burden off the tax payer though. Even more relevant these days seeing that bottler Brown has given all tax revenues (and more) to the banks.

 

HTH

[JohnnyFartPants]

Yes, against my socialist principles. Principles that my (then) husband didn't aspire to. He was the one who arranged my hospital treatment upon my return from Austria. The NHS couldn't treat me as an emergency as my accident had happened more than 48 hours beforehand.

 

Therefore, as I said, I had no control over my treatment. It was the only time in my life that I have ever used private healthcare and I will never use it again.

 

It depends on how you view things. I would argue that your (then) husband was being very socialist in his actions. People tend to pick which parts of socialism is for them and which bits they will leave and decide doesn't affect them.

 

I would say, and it is just my opinion, that the three biggest influences of political opinion that we decide we belong to is with our views on housing, education and health. Not many socialists seem hell bent on a life of living on council estates yet many still think that despite earning a decent wage the health service and education system is there for them, and I suppose it is. Where I think it falls down slightly is when socialist voting people refuse to see the benefit they are doing to the system if they "opt out" and pay for some things themselves.

 

Your ex hubby was being very socially responsible in A/Getting you treated sooner, and B/Removing you from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting. I feel his actions are far more inkeeping with the original aims of the NHS way back in 1948 when it was introduced. People with money were seeing doctors before the NHS came about and they were expected to way after it was introduced too.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Yes, against my socialist principles. Principles that my (then) husband didn't aspire to. He was the one who arranged my hospital treatment upon my return from Austria. The NHS couldn't treat me as an emergency as my accident had happened more than 48 hours beforehand.

 

Therefore, as I said, I had no control over my treatment. It was the only time in my life that I have ever used private healthcare and I will never use it again.

 

It depends on how you view things. I would argue that your (then) husband was being very socialist in his actions. People tend to pick which parts of socialism is for them and which bits they will leave and decide doesn't affect them.

 

I would say, and it is just my opinion, that the three biggest influences of political opinion that we decide we belong to is with our views on housing, education and health. Not many socialists seem hell bent on a life of living on council estates yet many still think that despite earning a decent wage the health service and education system is there for them, and I suppose it is. Where I think it falls down slightly is when socialist voting people refuse to see the benefit they are doing to the system if they "opt out" and pay for some things themselves.

 

Your ex hubby was being very socially responsible in A/Getting you treated sooner, and B/Removing you from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting. I feel his actions are far more inkeeping with the original aims of the NHS way back in 1948 when it was introduced. People with money were seeing doctors before the NHS came about and they were expected to way after it was introduced too.

[Mole]

I pay for private health care, but still pay for the bloody NHS with taxes.

[Mole]

I pay for private health care, but still pay for the bloody NHS with taxes.

[bridge too far]

Going private helps take the burden off the tax payer though. Even more relevant these days seeing that bottler Brown has given all tax revenues (and more) to the banks.

 

HTH

 

However, the poor unfortunate taxpayer is sometimes unwittingly contributing to the profits of the private healthcare provider by, for example,

 

a) allowing consultants to use NHS staff / facilities where the private healthcare is in a wing of an NHS establishment. It DOES happen - I've seen many such instances in my 20 odd years' working for the NHS.

 

b) having to pay for mending the errors of the private healthcare provider when procedures go wrong.

 

Unfortunately, this government seems intent on backing the private providers by allowing NHS procedures to take place in private hospitals. It has failed to take cognisance of the fact that there is a finite number of consultants, nurses, support staff (e.g. radiographers) to be spread across the private and NHS service.

 

It has also entered into bizarre contracts with private providers to run Independent Treatment Centres where the provider is paid a fixed sum rather than an amount per procedure, leading to that provider getting money for work that hasn't been carried out.

 

These ITCs also cherry-pick the procedures they are prepared to carry out. Leading Ophthalmologists in Oxford are complaining because comprehensive training for would-be Eye surgeons is compromised by splitting the service into easy-peasy procedures (in ITCs) and rare and complicated ones that the NHS has to deal with.

 

For these reasons, I'm disappointed with the way this government has managed healthcare provision. However it is so so much better than it was before 1997.

[bridge too far]

Going private helps take the burden off the tax payer though. Even more relevant these days seeing that bottler Brown has given all tax revenues (and more) to the banks.

 

HTH

 

However, the poor unfortunate taxpayer is sometimes unwittingly contributing to the profits of the private healthcare provider by, for example,

 

a) allowing consultants to use NHS staff / facilities where the private healthcare is in a wing of an NHS establishment. It DOES happen - I've seen many such instances in my 20 odd years' working for the NHS.

 

b) having to pay for mending the errors of the private healthcare provider when procedures go wrong.

 

Unfortunately, this government seems intent on backing the private providers by allowing NHS procedures to take place in private hospitals. It has failed to take cognisance of the fact that there is a finite number of consultants, nurses, support staff (e.g. radiographers) to be spread across the private and NHS service.

 

It has also entered into bizarre contracts with private providers to run Independent Treatment Centres where the provider is paid a fixed sum rather than an amount per procedure, leading to that provider getting money for work that hasn't been carried out.

 

These ITCs also cherry-pick the procedures they are prepared to carry out. Leading Ophthalmologists in Oxford are complaining because comprehensive training for would-be Eye surgeons is compromised by splitting the service into easy-peasy procedures (in ITCs) and rare and complicated ones that the NHS has to deal with.

 

For these reasons, I'm disappointed with the way this government has managed healthcare provision. However it is so so much better than it was before 1997.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I pay for private health care, but still pay for the bloody NHS with taxes.

 

Exactly, which is very fair given that it is a tax and not a service you are directly paying for. My partner pays tax but has no kids so she is missing out on the education provided to our offspring. I dare say we could all pick a few things that we are not utilising yet paying for through taxes.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I pay for private health care, but still pay for the bloody NHS with taxes.

 

Exactly, which is very fair given that it is a tax and not a service you are directly paying for. My partner pays tax but has no kids so she is missing out on the education provided to our offspring. I dare say we could all pick a few things that we are not utilising yet paying for through taxes.

[JohnnyFartPants]

However, the poor unfortunate taxpayer is sometimes unwittingly contributing to the profits of the private healthcare provider by, for example,

 

a) allowing consultants to use NHS staff / facilities where the private healthcare is in a wing of an NHS establishment. It DOES happen - I've seen many such instances in my 20 odd years' working for the NHS.

 

b) having to pay for mending the errors of the private healthcare provider when procedures go wrong.

 

Unfortunately, this government seems intent on backing the private providers by allowing NHS procedures to take place in private hospitals. It has failed to take cognisance of the fact that there is a finite number of consultants, nurses, support staff (e.g. radiographers) to be spread across the private and NHS service.

 

It has also entered into bizarre contracts with private providers to run Independent Treatment Centres where the provider is paid a fixed sum rather than an amount per procedure, leading to that provider getting money for work that hasn't been carried out.

 

These ITCs also cherry-pick the procedures they are prepared to carry out. Leading Ophthalmologists in Oxford are complaining because comprehensive training for would-be Eye surgeons is compromised by splitting the service into easy-peasy procedures (in ITCs) and rare and complicated ones that the NHS has to deal with.

 

For these reasons, I'm disappointed with the way this government has managed healthcare provision. However it is so so much better than it was before 1997.

 

I think it is very easy to pick examples of any system in the whole world at any level in any business or walk of life and "prove" that it doesn't work. The basic principle, however, was to provide a health service for everyone, but not a health service that everyone should have to use.

[JohnnyFartPants]

However, the poor unfortunate taxpayer is sometimes unwittingly contributing to the profits of the private healthcare provider by, for example,

 

a) allowing consultants to use NHS staff / facilities where the private healthcare is in a wing of an NHS establishment. It DOES happen - I've seen many such instances in my 20 odd years' working for the NHS.

 

b) having to pay for mending the errors of the private healthcare provider when procedures go wrong.

 

Unfortunately, this government seems intent on backing the private providers by allowing NHS procedures to take place in private hospitals. It has failed to take cognisance of the fact that there is a finite number of consultants, nurses, support staff (e.g. radiographers) to be spread across the private and NHS service.

 

It has also entered into bizarre contracts with private providers to run Independent Treatment Centres where the provider is paid a fixed sum rather than an amount per procedure, leading to that provider getting money for work that hasn't been carried out.

 

These ITCs also cherry-pick the procedures they are prepared to carry out. Leading Ophthalmologists in Oxford are complaining because comprehensive training for would-be Eye surgeons is compromised by splitting the service into easy-peasy procedures (in ITCs) and rare and complicated ones that the NHS has to deal with.

 

For these reasons, I'm disappointed with the way this government has managed healthcare provision. However it is so so much better than it was before 1997.

 

I think it is very easy to pick examples of any system in the whole world at any level in any business or walk of life and "prove" that it doesn't work. The basic principle, however, was to provide a health service for everyone, but not a health service that everyone should have to use.

[bridge too far]

It depends on how you view things. I would argue that your (then) husband was being very socialist in his actions. People tend to pick which parts of socialism is for them and which bits they will leave and decide doesn't affect them.

 

I would say, and it is just my opinion, that the three biggest influences of political opinion that we decide we belong to is with our views on housing, education and health. Not many socialists seem hell bent on a life of living on council estates yet many still think that despite earning a decent wage the health service and education system is there for them, and I suppose it is. Where I think it falls down slightly is when socialist voting people refuse to see the benefit they are doing to the system if they "opt out" and pay for some things themselves.

 

Your ex hubby was being very socially responsible in A/Getting you treated sooner, and B/Removing you from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting. I feel his actions are far more inkeeping with the original aims of the NHS way back in 1948 when it was introduced. People with money were seeing doctors before the NHS came about and they were expected to way after it was introduced too.

 

Your supply of ******-speak is inexhaustable, isn't it

 

Having 'money' or private healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you can get the treatment you need. My mother has to have leukaemia tablets that cost £30,000 a year - there aren't many people that could afford that and they certainly wouldn't get that covered with private healthcare plans.

 

Why should I have been grateful for 'being removed from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting'? I was no better than they were or more in need than they were?

 

My socialist principles lead me to believe that we all come into this world equal and should therefore have equal chances in life backed up by free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and education. It's a principle I'm proud of because I've never been a 'me first sod the rest of you' person.

 

Apart from this one instance that I had no control over, I have never paid for private healthcare that could be provided by the NHS, and I never, for one moment, considered sending my children into private education even though I probably could have managed to do so.

 

But hey - that's my view. I don't care if you see it differently. That's your perogative.

[bridge too far]

It depends on how you view things. I would argue that your (then) husband was being very socialist in his actions. People tend to pick which parts of socialism is for them and which bits they will leave and decide doesn't affect them.

 

I would say, and it is just my opinion, that the three biggest influences of political opinion that we decide we belong to is with our views on housing, education and health. Not many socialists seem hell bent on a life of living on council estates yet many still think that despite earning a decent wage the health service and education system is there for them, and I suppose it is. Where I think it falls down slightly is when socialist voting people refuse to see the benefit they are doing to the system if they "opt out" and pay for some things themselves.

 

Your ex hubby was being very socially responsible in A/Getting you treated sooner, and B/Removing you from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting. I feel his actions are far more inkeeping with the original aims of the NHS way back in 1948 when it was introduced. People with money were seeing doctors before the NHS came about and they were expected to way after it was introduced too.

 

Your supply of ******-speak is inexhaustable, isn't it

 

Having 'money' or private healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you can get the treatment you need. My mother has to have leukaemia tablets that cost £30,000 a year - there aren't many people that could afford that and they certainly wouldn't get that covered with private healthcare plans.

 

Why should I have been grateful for 'being removed from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting'? I was no better than they were or more in need than they were?

 

My socialist principles lead me to believe that we all come into this world equal and should therefore have equal chances in life backed up by free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and education. It's a principle I'm proud of because I've never been a 'me first sod the rest of you' person.

 

Apart from this one instance that I had no control over, I have never paid for private healthcare that could be provided by the NHS, and I never, for one moment, considered sending my children into private education even though I probably could have managed to do so.

 

But hey - that's my view. I don't care if you see it differently. That's your perogative.

[saintsdan]

Your supply of ******-speak is inexhaustable, isn't it

 

Having 'money' or private healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you can get the treatment you need. My mother has to have leukaemia tablets that cost £30,000 a year - there aren't many people that could afford that and they certainly wouldn't get that covered with private healthcare plans.

 

Why should I have been grateful for 'being removed from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting'? I was no better than they were or more in need than they were?

 

My socialist principles lead me to believe that we all come into this world equal and should therefore have equal chances in life backed up by free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and education. It's a principle I'm proud of because I've never been a 'me first sod the rest of you' person.

 

Apart from this one instance that I had no control over, I have never paid for private healthcare that could be provided by the NHS, and I never, for one moment, considered sending my children into private education even though I probably could have managed to do so.

 

But hey - that's my view. I don't care if you see it differently. That's your perogative.

 

Totally agree BTF, and not only does private healthcare (and education) provide for the few to the exclusion of the majority but in effect it is detremental to the majority.

 

The existence of private facilities means that there are large numbers of highly skilled and trained (probably through state education) people whose services are denied to the average taxpayer because they are employed in private hospitals and clinics. Without those private facilities these people would be working in the NHS, and spreading the workload on NHS staff, which would lead to reduced waiting lists and a better standard of care.

[saintsdan]

Your supply of ******-speak is inexhaustable, isn't it

 

Having 'money' or private healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you can get the treatment you need. My mother has to have leukaemia tablets that cost £30,000 a year - there aren't many people that could afford that and they certainly wouldn't get that covered with private healthcare plans.

 

Why should I have been grateful for 'being removed from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting'? I was no better than they were or more in need than they were?

 

My socialist principles lead me to believe that we all come into this world equal and should therefore have equal chances in life backed up by free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and education. It's a principle I'm proud of because I've never been a 'me first sod the rest of you' person.

 

Apart from this one instance that I had no control over, I have never paid for private healthcare that could be provided by the NHS, and I never, for one moment, considered sending my children into private education even though I probably could have managed to do so.

 

But hey - that's my view. I don't care if you see it differently. That's your perogative.

 

Totally agree BTF, and not only does private healthcare (and education) provide for the few to the exclusion of the majority but in effect it is detremental to the majority.

 

The existence of private facilities means that there are large numbers of highly skilled and trained (probably through state education) people whose services are denied to the average taxpayer because they are employed in private hospitals and clinics. Without those private facilities these people would be working in the NHS, and spreading the workload on NHS staff, which would lead to reduced waiting lists and a better standard of care.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Your supply of ******-speak is inexhaustable, isn't it

 

Having 'money' or private healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you can get the treatment you need. My mother has to have leukaemia tablets that cost £30,000 a year - there aren't many people that could afford that and they certainly wouldn't get that covered with private healthcare plans.

 

Why should I have been grateful for 'being removed from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting'? I was no better than they were or more in need than they were?

 

My socialist principles lead me to believe that we all come into this world equal and should therefore have equal chances in life backed up by free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and education. It's a principle I'm proud of because I've never been a 'me first sod the rest of you' person.

 

Apart from this one instance that I had no control over, I have never paid for private healthcare that could be provided by the NHS, and I never, for one moment, considered sending my children into private education even though I probably could have managed to do so.

 

But hey - that's my view. I don't care if you see it differently. That's your perogative.

 

I take your point about your mother and her treatment but yet again you are taking an extreme stance. Luckily for your mother, many people before you and since you have paid for their own treatment on much more minor surgeries, thus enabling the NHS to fund more deserving cases like your mother. Really, you should be thanking those people that not only put into the system through taxation, but often then throw more money at the same Doctors you get to see in order to see them slightly sooner. They are contributing towards everyone that needs very expensive drugs at some point.

 

We should honour these selfless people in some way for helping the likes of your mother get her treatment.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Your supply of ******-speak is inexhaustable, isn't it

 

Having 'money' or private healthcare doesn't necessarily mean you can get the treatment you need. My mother has to have leukaemia tablets that cost £30,000 a year - there aren't many people that could afford that and they certainly wouldn't get that covered with private healthcare plans.

 

Why should I have been grateful for 'being removed from the list where poorer and less fortunate people were waiting'? I was no better than they were or more in need than they were?

 

My socialist principles lead me to believe that we all come into this world equal and should therefore have equal chances in life backed up by free (at the point of delivery) healthcare and education. It's a principle I'm proud of because I've never been a 'me first sod the rest of you' person.

 

Apart from this one instance that I had no control over, I have never paid for private healthcare that could be provided by the NHS, and I never, for one moment, considered sending my children into private education even though I probably could have managed to do so.

 

But hey - that's my view. I don't care if you see it differently. That's your perogative.

 

I take your point about your mother and her treatment but yet again you are taking an extreme stance. Luckily for your mother, many people before you and since you have paid for their own treatment on much more minor surgeries, thus enabling the NHS to fund more deserving cases like your mother. Really, you should be thanking those people that not only put into the system through taxation, but often then throw more money at the same Doctors you get to see in order to see them slightly sooner. They are contributing towards everyone that needs very expensive drugs at some point.

 

We should honour these selfless people in some way for helping the likes of your mother get her treatment.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Totally agree BTF, and not only does private healthcare (and education) provide for the few to the exclusion of the majority but in effect it is detremental to the majority.

 

The existence of private facilities means that there are large numbers of highly skilled and trained (probably through state education) people whose services are denied to the average taxpayer because they are employed in private hospitals and clinics. Without those private facilities these people would be working in the NHS, and spreading the workload on NHS staff, which would lead to reduced waiting lists and a better standard of care.

 

The biggest problem with socialism is that the followers of it tend to always expect money to be there yet seldom have a way of getting it there, ergo, it never really works.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Totally agree BTF, and not only does private healthcare (and education) provide for the few to the exclusion of the majority but in effect it is detremental to the majority.

 

The existence of private facilities means that there are large numbers of highly skilled and trained (probably through state education) people whose services are denied to the average taxpayer because they are employed in private hospitals and clinics. Without those private facilities these people would be working in the NHS, and spreading the workload on NHS staff, which would lead to reduced waiting lists and a better standard of care.

 

The biggest problem with socialism is that the followers of it tend to always expect money to be there yet seldom have a way of getting it there, ergo, it never really works.

[bridge too far]

I'll give you a nailed-on example of the injustice of private healthcare. Many years ago, when I had two children under 6, I needed an orthopaedic operation. I waited months and months for this, in a great deal of pain mainly because in those days the waiting lists were horrendous.

 

Eventually the great day dawned and I had my op. When I came round from the GA, I got chatting to the woman in the next bed to me. She'd had exactly the same procedure as me. When I said how long I'd had to wait for the op and how difficult it had been to cope with two small children when in pain she told me she'd seen the consultant privately THE WEEK BEFORE and had the op the next week!!!!!

 

JFP and his ilk will say 'and why not, she could afford it'. But healthcare shouldn't be about affordability for the individual, it should be about need. I don't know that my NEED was greater than hers or vice versa but my need was not so worthless that it could be shunted onto an 18 month waiting list whilst her need could be addressed with cash within days.

 

What was even more galling was that her consultation was private but her consultant 'bumped' her up the NHS queue, and she didn't have to pay for the operation. She readily admitted this without an iota of conscience.

[bridge too far]

I'll give you a nailed-on example of the injustice of private healthcare. Many years ago, when I had two children under 6, I needed an orthopaedic operation. I waited months and months for this, in a great deal of pain mainly because in those days the waiting lists were horrendous.

 

Eventually the great day dawned and I had my op. When I came round from the GA, I got chatting to the woman in the next bed to me. She'd had exactly the same procedure as me. When I said how long I'd had to wait for the op and how difficult it had been to cope with two small children when in pain she told me she'd seen the consultant privately THE WEEK BEFORE and had the op the next week!!!!!

 

JFP and his ilk will say 'and why not, she could afford it'. But healthcare shouldn't be about affordability for the individual, it should be about need. I don't know that my NEED was greater than hers or vice versa but my need was not so worthless that it could be shunted onto an 18 month waiting list whilst her need could be addressed with cash within days.

 

What was even more galling was that her consultation was private but her consultant 'bumped' her up the NHS queue, and she didn't have to pay for the operation. She readily admitted this without an iota of conscience.

[bridge too far]

I take your point about your mother and her treatment but yet again you are taking an extreme stance. Luckily for your mother, many people before you and since you have paid for their own treatment on much more minor surgeries, thus enabling the NHS to fund more deserving cases like your mother. Really, you should be thanking those people that not only put into the system through taxation, but often then throw more money at the same Doctors you get to see in order to see them slightly sooner. They are contributing towards everyone that needs very expensive drugs at some point.

 

We should honour these selfless people in some way for helping the likes of your mother get her treatment.

 

I really do hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

 

Otherwise I feel desperately sorry for you......

[bridge too far]

I take your point about your mother and her treatment but yet again you are taking an extreme stance. Luckily for your mother, many people before you and since you have paid for their own treatment on much more minor surgeries, thus enabling the NHS to fund more deserving cases like your mother. Really, you should be thanking those people that not only put into the system through taxation, but often then throw more money at the same Doctors you get to see in order to see them slightly sooner. They are contributing towards everyone that needs very expensive drugs at some point.

 

We should honour these selfless people in some way for helping the likes of your mother get her treatment.

 

I really do hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

 

Otherwise I feel desperately sorry for you......

[JohnnyFartPants]

I'll give you a nailed-on example of the injustice of private healthcare. Many years ago, when I had two children under 6, I needed an orthopaedic operation. I waited months and months for this, in a great deal of pain mainly because in those days the waiting lists were horrendous.

 

Eventually the great day dawned and I had my op. When I came round from the GA, I got chatting to the woman in the next bed to me. She'd had exactly the same procedure as me. When I said how long I'd had to wait for the op and how difficult it had been to cope with two small children when in pain she told me she'd seen the consultant privately THE WEEK BEFORE and had the op the next week!!!!!

 

JFP and his ilk will say 'and why not, she could afford it'. But healthcare shouldn't be about affordability for the individual, it should be about need. I don't know that my NEED was greater than hers or vice versa but my need was not so worthless that it could be shunted onto an 18 month waiting list whilst her need could be addressed with cash within days.

 

What was even more galling was that her consultation was private but her consultant 'bumped' her up the NHS queue, and she didn't have to pay for the operation. She readily admitted this without an iota of conscience.

 

And why not, she could afford it?

 

Seriously though, I think you are missing the point somewhat. Private health care makes up a very small percentage of those in the system, and I wager that back in the dark ages, such as when you are talking about, it was even smaller. Therefore you might have waited perhaps a couple of weeks less and she would have had to wait God knows how much longer. I think you half answered your own point to be honest. Healthcare shouldn't be about affordibility, it should be about need. You had your treatment, so did she. You had your treatment after her because she paid in more.

 

As far as not paying for the operation is concerned, well that just isn't true. Many operations are fully covered within the monthly private health plans that people subscribe to, meaning she was paying for it every month.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I'll give you a nailed-on example of the injustice of private healthcare. Many years ago, when I had two children under 6, I needed an orthopaedic operation. I waited months and months for this, in a great deal of pain mainly because in those days the waiting lists were horrendous.

 

Eventually the great day dawned and I had my op. When I came round from the GA, I got chatting to the woman in the next bed to me. She'd had exactly the same procedure as me. When I said how long I'd had to wait for the op and how difficult it had been to cope with two small children when in pain she told me she'd seen the consultant privately THE WEEK BEFORE and had the op the next week!!!!!

 

JFP and his ilk will say 'and why not, she could afford it'. But healthcare shouldn't be about affordability for the individual, it should be about need. I don't know that my NEED was greater than hers or vice versa but my need was not so worthless that it could be shunted onto an 18 month waiting list whilst her need could be addressed with cash within days.

 

What was even more galling was that her consultation was private but her consultant 'bumped' her up the NHS queue, and she didn't have to pay for the operation. She readily admitted this without an iota of conscience.

 

And why not, she could afford it?

 

Seriously though, I think you are missing the point somewhat. Private health care makes up a very small percentage of those in the system, and I wager that back in the dark ages, such as when you are talking about, it was even smaller. Therefore you might have waited perhaps a couple of weeks less and she would have had to wait God knows how much longer. I think you half answered your own point to be honest. Healthcare shouldn't be about affordibility, it should be about need. You had your treatment, so did she. You had your treatment after her because she paid in more.

 

As far as not paying for the operation is concerned, well that just isn't true. Many operations are fully covered within the monthly private health plans that people subscribe to, meaning she was paying for it every month.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I really do hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

 

Otherwise I feel desperately sorry for you......

 

Seriously, try to remove the emotional side of the argument and see it this way. A system is there that allows for everyone to be treated. It further allows for people to pay extra in to often the same people and get seen to sooner. This is the only advantage.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I really do hope your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek.

 

Otherwise I feel desperately sorry for you......

 

Seriously, try to remove the emotional side of the argument and see it this way. A system is there that allows for everyone to be treated. It further allows for people to pay extra in to often the same people and get seen to sooner. This is the only advantage.

[bridge too far]

And why not, she could afford it?

 

.

 

As far as not paying for the operation is concerned, well that just isn't true. Many operations are fully covered within the monthly private health plans that people subscribe to, meaning she was paying for it every month.

 

In the dark ages that I was talking about, there weren't the large number of private hospitals there are these days. There certainly weren't private wards in NHS hospitals like there are now.

 

And private healthcare was not the sophisticated big business it is these days either. She quite simply paid the consultant for her consultation and then got treated in an NHS hospital on an NHS ward for free.

 

However, as with the number of people taking their children out of private education rising fast, I reckon the number of people dropping their private healthcare plans will rise fast too.

 

Did you know that private hospitals are not subject to the same hygiene inspections that NHS hospitals are? For example, their instrument sterilisation procedures are not to CE Mark standards as is required by the NHS.

[bridge too far]

And why not, she could afford it?

 

.

 

As far as not paying for the operation is concerned, well that just isn't true. Many operations are fully covered within the monthly private health plans that people subscribe to, meaning she was paying for it every month.

 

In the dark ages that I was talking about, there weren't the large number of private hospitals there are these days. There certainly weren't private wards in NHS hospitals like there are now.

 

And private healthcare was not the sophisticated big business it is these days either. She quite simply paid the consultant for her consultation and then got treated in an NHS hospital on an NHS ward for free.

 

However, as with the number of people taking their children out of private education rising fast, I reckon the number of people dropping their private healthcare plans will rise fast too.

 

Did you know that private hospitals are not subject to the same hygiene inspections that NHS hospitals are? For example, their instrument sterilisation procedures are not to CE Mark standards as is required by the NHS.

[JohnnyFartPants]

In the dark ages that I was talking about, there weren't the large number of private hospitals there are these days. There certainly weren't private wards in NHS hospitals like there are now.

 

And private healthcare was not the sophisticated big business it is these days either. She quite simply paid the consultant for her consultation and then got treated in an NHS hospital on an NHS ward for free.

 

However, as with the number of people taking their children out of private education rising fast, I reckon the number of people dropping their private healthcare plans will rise fast too.

 

Did you know that private hospitals are not subject to the same hygiene inspections that NHS hospitals are? For example, their instrument sterilisation procedures are not to CE Mark standards as is required by the NHS.

 

Right, you are talking rubbish. Sorry, simple as. Just because you did not see an exchange of cash between her and the hospital does not mean it was not paid for. She may not have even considered she paid for it, but at some point Mr NHS would have received some moolah from Mr Private health plan.

 

I agree, the numbers in private health and private schooling will drop and then the socialists can learn something. Taxing all and then some not using the service provided is a lot better than taxing all and then everyone using it.

 

As for private hospitals not being to the same hygiene standards as NHS ones, than **** for that!! Whatever CE Mark Standard is, I suggest they work on improving it and stop spreading MRSA about like it is smarties.

[JohnnyFartPants]

In the dark ages that I was talking about, there weren't the large number of private hospitals there are these days. There certainly weren't private wards in NHS hospitals like there are now.

 

And private healthcare was not the sophisticated big business it is these days either. She quite simply paid the consultant for her consultation and then got treated in an NHS hospital on an NHS ward for free.

 

However, as with the number of people taking their children out of private education rising fast, I reckon the number of people dropping their private healthcare plans will rise fast too.

 

Did you know that private hospitals are not subject to the same hygiene inspections that NHS hospitals are? For example, their instrument sterilisation procedures are not to CE Mark standards as is required by the NHS.

 

Right, you are talking rubbish. Sorry, simple as. Just because you did not see an exchange of cash between her and the hospital does not mean it was not paid for. She may not have even considered she paid for it, but at some point Mr NHS would have received some moolah from Mr Private health plan.

 

I agree, the numbers in private health and private schooling will drop and then the socialists can learn something. Taxing all and then some not using the service provided is a lot better than taxing all and then everyone using it.

 

As for private hospitals not being to the same hygiene standards as NHS ones, than **** for that!! Whatever CE Mark Standard is, I suggest they work on improving it and stop spreading MRSA about like it is smarties.

[bridge too far]

Right, you are talking rubbish. Sorry, simple as. Just because you did not see an exchange of cash between her and the hospital does not mean it was not paid for. She may not have even considered she paid for it, but at some point Mr NHS would have received some moolah from Mr Private health plan.

 

I agree, the numbers in private health and private schooling will drop and then the socialists can learn something. Taxing all and then some not using the service provided is a lot better than taxing all and then everyone using it.

 

As for private hospitals not being to the same hygiene standards as NHS ones, than **** for that!! Whatever CE Mark Standard is, I suggest they work on improving it and stop spreading MRSA about like it is smarties.

 

Now YOU are talking rubbish! Were you privy to the conversation I had with her all those years ago?

 

CE Marks are European Standards. These can apply to a number of things - here's the Wiki explanation because I can't be arsed to type it all out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark

 

The CE mark in question is applicable to the processes to sterilise operating equipment (scalpels etc.) This mark has to be achieved by NHS establishments and the mark itself doesn't CAUSE MRSA, silly man However, I think I'd be quite worried if the hospital carrying out a procedure on me didn't achieve (or have to achieve) that mark.

 

MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The clue is in the word 'resistant'. Staphs are common infections in all walks of life. Because of our over dependance on anti-biotics in the past, this particular staph has become RESISTANT to most common anti-biotics.

 

Most of us carry MRSA on our skin or in our noses. The problems are caused when this super-bug enters open wounds (bed sores, incisions etc.). Many super-bugs thrive, not just in hospitals, but in places where lots of people live together e.g. colleges, boarding schools, nursing homes, cruise ships. However, these establishments rarely have residents that have had recent operations with open surgery.

 

Another super-bug is the norovirus and that often breaks out on cruise ships as an example. There is now a strain of MRSA which is community acquired rather than hospital acquired. So I guess cruise ships, halls of residence etc will succumb to that strain eventually.

 

It's nothing to do with cleanliness or otherwise of wards. It IS to do with washing hands (with alcohol rub). When I visited my daughter and new grandson in hospital last week, I was surprised to see how many doctors particularly but also nurses / midwives DIDN'T use the alcohol gel between patients. That is human nature and is nothing to do with whether the hospital is a private one or an NHS one.

 

I suggest you read up on the subject - here's a simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

 

I know quite a bit about it because it caused my father's death in 1996.

[bridge too far]

Right, you are talking rubbish. Sorry, simple as. Just because you did not see an exchange of cash between her and the hospital does not mean it was not paid for. She may not have even considered she paid for it, but at some point Mr NHS would have received some moolah from Mr Private health plan.

 

I agree, the numbers in private health and private schooling will drop and then the socialists can learn something. Taxing all and then some not using the service provided is a lot better than taxing all and then everyone using it.

 

As for private hospitals not being to the same hygiene standards as NHS ones, than **** for that!! Whatever CE Mark Standard is, I suggest they work on improving it and stop spreading MRSA about like it is smarties.

 

Now YOU are talking rubbish! Were you privy to the conversation I had with her all those years ago?

 

CE Marks are European Standards. These can apply to a number of things - here's the Wiki explanation because I can't be arsed to type it all out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark

 

The CE mark in question is applicable to the processes to sterilise operating equipment (scalpels etc.) This mark has to be achieved by NHS establishments and the mark itself doesn't CAUSE MRSA, silly man However, I think I'd be quite worried if the hospital carrying out a procedure on me didn't achieve (or have to achieve) that mark.

 

MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The clue is in the word 'resistant'. Staphs are common infections in all walks of life. Because of our over dependance on anti-biotics in the past, this particular staph has become RESISTANT to most common anti-biotics.

 

Most of us carry MRSA on our skin or in our noses. The problems are caused when this super-bug enters open wounds (bed sores, incisions etc.). Many super-bugs thrive, not just in hospitals, but in places where lots of people live together e.g. colleges, boarding schools, nursing homes, cruise ships. However, these establishments rarely have residents that have had recent operations with open surgery.

 

Another super-bug is the norovirus and that often breaks out on cruise ships as an example. There is now a strain of MRSA which is community acquired rather than hospital acquired. So I guess cruise ships, halls of residence etc will succumb to that strain eventually.

 

It's nothing to do with cleanliness or otherwise of wards. It IS to do with washing hands (with alcohol rub). When I visited my daughter and new grandson in hospital last week, I was surprised to see how many doctors particularly but also nurses / midwives DIDN'T use the alcohol gel between patients. That is human nature and is nothing to do with whether the hospital is a private one or an NHS one.

 

I suggest you read up on the subject - here's a simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

 

I know quite a bit about it because it caused my father's death in 1996.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Now YOU are talking rubbish! Were you privy to the conversation I had with her all those years ago?

 

CE Marks are European Standards. These can apply to a number of things - here's the Wiki explanation because I can't be arsed to type it all out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark

 

The CE mark in question is applicable to the processes to sterilise operating equipment (scalpels etc.) This mark has to be achieved by NHS establishments and the mark itself doesn't CAUSE MRSA, silly man However, I think I'd be quite worried if the hospital carrying out a procedure on me didn't achieve (or have to achieve) that mark.

 

MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The clue is in the word 'resistant'. Staphs are common infections in all walks of life. Because of our over dependance on anti-biotics in the past, this particular staph has become RESISTANT to most common anti-biotics.

 

Most of us carry MRSA on our skin or in our noses. The problems are caused when this super-bug enters open wounds (bed sores, incisions etc.). Many super-bugs thrive, not just in hospitals, but in places where lots of people live together e.g. colleges, boarding schools, nursing homes, cruise ships. However, these establishments rarely have residents that have had recent operations with open surgery.

 

Another super-bug is the norovirus and that often breaks out on cruise ships as an example. There is now a strain of MRSA which is community acquired rather than hospital acquired. So I guess cruise ships, halls of residence etc will succumb to that strain eventually.

 

It's nothing to do with cleanliness or otherwise of wards. It IS to do with washing hands (with alcohol rub). When I visited my daughter and new grandson in hospital last week, I was surprised to see how many doctors particularly but also nurses / midwives DIDN'T use the alcohol gel between patients. That is human nature and is nothing to do with whether the hospital is a private one or an NHS one.

 

I suggest you read up on the subject - here's a simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

 

I know quite a bit about it because it caused my father's death in 1996.

 

Sorry about your dad. It is still a hygeine issue though and if the basic levels of handwashing are not being met then I will conclude from this other levels of hygiene within the establishment.

 

I might not have been present at the conversation all those years back but it doesn't take much working out.

[JohnnyFartPants]

Now YOU are talking rubbish! Were you privy to the conversation I had with her all those years ago?

 

CE Marks are European Standards. These can apply to a number of things - here's the Wiki explanation because I can't be arsed to type it all out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark

 

The CE mark in question is applicable to the processes to sterilise operating equipment (scalpels etc.) This mark has to be achieved by NHS establishments and the mark itself doesn't CAUSE MRSA, silly man However, I think I'd be quite worried if the hospital carrying out a procedure on me didn't achieve (or have to achieve) that mark.

 

MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The clue is in the word 'resistant'. Staphs are common infections in all walks of life. Because of our over dependance on anti-biotics in the past, this particular staph has become RESISTANT to most common anti-biotics.

 

Most of us carry MRSA on our skin or in our noses. The problems are caused when this super-bug enters open wounds (bed sores, incisions etc.). Many super-bugs thrive, not just in hospitals, but in places where lots of people live together e.g. colleges, boarding schools, nursing homes, cruise ships. However, these establishments rarely have residents that have had recent operations with open surgery.

 

Another super-bug is the norovirus and that often breaks out on cruise ships as an example. There is now a strain of MRSA which is community acquired rather than hospital acquired. So I guess cruise ships, halls of residence etc will succumb to that strain eventually.

 

It's nothing to do with cleanliness or otherwise of wards. It IS to do with washing hands (with alcohol rub). When I visited my daughter and new grandson in hospital last week, I was surprised to see how many doctors particularly but also nurses / midwives DIDN'T use the alcohol gel between patients. That is human nature and is nothing to do with whether the hospital is a private one or an NHS one.

 

I suggest you read up on the subject - here's a simple explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

 

I know quite a bit about it because it caused my father's death in 1996.

 

Sorry about your dad. It is still a hygeine issue though and if the basic levels of handwashing are not being met then I will conclude from this other levels of hygiene within the establishment.

 

I might not have been present at the conversation all those years back but it doesn't take much working out.

[Johnny Bognor]

Now YOU are talking rubbish! Were you privy to the conversation I had with her all those years ago?

 

CE Marks are European Standards. These can apply to a number of things - here's the Wiki explanation because I can't be arsed to type it all out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark

.

 

Ahh, and this is where the debate moves to Private vs Public.

 

In the public sector these standards are needed, because the NHS doesn't treat patients like customers. You have to use your local health facilities as you have no choice. Therefore there is no incentive for the NHS to improve as the 'customers' get what they are given.

 

In the private sector, they have to get things right or customers will go elsewhere. If they don't get things right, they will lose custom and could go bust. Therefore it is in their commercial interests to provide clean hospitals.

 

So you could argue that it is better to go to a private hospital where the staff jobs depend on it, rather than the public sector dinosaur that does not give two ****s* and has to be forced to meet a certain standard.

 

*Incidentally I am aiming this more at the NHS Management / Administration rather than those at the coal face who generally try to do their best.

** Also, sorry about your father

[Johnny Bognor]

Now YOU are talking rubbish! Were you privy to the conversation I had with her all those years ago?

 

CE Marks are European Standards. These can apply to a number of things - here's the Wiki explanation because I can't be arsed to type it all out

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_mark

.

 

Ahh, and this is where the debate moves to Private vs Public.

 

In the public sector these standards are needed, because the NHS doesn't treat patients like customers. You have to use your local health facilities as you have no choice. Therefore there is no incentive for the NHS to improve as the 'customers' get what they are given.

 

In the private sector, they have to get things right or customers will go elsewhere. If they don't get things right, they will lose custom and could go bust. Therefore it is in their commercial interests to provide clean hospitals.

 

So you could argue that it is better to go to a private hospital where the staff jobs depend on it, rather than the public sector dinosaur that does not give two ****s* and has to be forced to meet a certain standard.

 

*Incidentally I am aiming this more at the NHS Management / Administration rather than those at the coal face who generally try to do their best.

** Also, sorry about your father

[bridge too far]

The salient difference between NHS and private hospitals with regard to MRSA infection rates is due to the fact that private hospitals screen admittances and will not accept patients who are colonised. Those colonised patients have to wait until they are clear of the bug before they are admitted (for elective surgery).

 

The NHS doesn't have that luxury particularly with regard to patients presenting at Accident & Emergency. Private hospitals don't 'do' emergency surgery, remember.

 

So given that 40% of the population is likely to be carrying MRSA, don't be surprised if a private hospital refuses you admission ('you' meaning anyone)

[bridge too far]

The salient difference between NHS and private hospitals with regard to MRSA infection rates is due to the fact that private hospitals screen admittances and will not accept patients who are colonised. Those colonised patients have to wait until they are clear of the bug before they are admitted (for elective surgery).

 

The NHS doesn't have that luxury particularly with regard to patients presenting at Accident & Emergency. Private hospitals don't 'do' emergency surgery, remember.

 

So given that 40% of the population is likely to be carrying MRSA, don't be surprised if a private hospital refuses you admission ('you' meaning anyone)

[Scudamore]

So in short nobody knows what the monthly damage is?