General Chat

Of course, Kense. Acceptance appears to be set, no challenge having materialised - although one never knows what's around the corner.

I'd be surprised - but delighted - if we have a soft Brexit.

In my opinion, May 'has her work cut out'. I can't see anyone making it easy for her and, therefore, us.

I agree with Det. 40m would fund ops, more nurses and equipment so for the cost of administering the claims there should be some benefit to the NHS.

As far as deducting the sums involved from the FA budget is concerned if, as we have been led to believe, the monies are given through NGOs rather than to governments, it could be easier than we think as there ought to be no 'quid pro quo' involving governments and trade in that scenario.

I believe the big problem with FA budget is that the percentage has become set in stone (legalised) so perhaps that ought to be changed first but we need someone with gumption to bring that matter to the fore again.

You're right. It wouldn't make any difference to spending; it would redirect a small proportion of the FAB to the point of need. That is, to fund the foreign nationals health costs within the U.K.

Ask the health tourist why they want to enter the UK & they'd say to visit family. They won't add 'while I have a heart bi-pass' or what ever. Ideally they should have a health insurance, but can you see that happening? Any pre-existing declared condition could be excluded or result in massive premiums. Even if they were forced to buy a policy at Border Control as an entry requirement they probably wouldn't declare those conditions. That policy would be worthless when they present themselves to the NHS.

It comes back to 'pre-existing' conditions.

Our annual European travel insurance has an additional £55 premium because of the medication one of us has to take. Can you imagine what it would be if one of us had a serious medical condition that might require emergency treatment?

You'll find in America for instance if a woman turns up at the border and is expecting she has to show she has enough insurance to cover any expenses should she go into labour. There's been many examples where someone has come to the UK because they're expecting twins etc and the NHS has to look after them for months in some cases for free.
Again I question any figures anyone is saying as how can you get the whole picture when you don't ask someone if they're entitled or not.
In the US and Canada for instance you have to prove your entitlement to the triage nurse...no entitlement then bring out your credit card.

The case for insurance is so obvious .when someone lives here they can have a relative visit & say elderly .oh dear they are not well & need a GP & then hospital .they get love care & treatment .then home to their own country .I don't mean they shouldn't get help but at least pay something .All the parties involved promise us so much but do they really care .I cant myself comprehend so much money but 40 million is a heck of a lot of money towards our nurses GP Consultants .a drop in the ocean but a saving none the less .,I am off out now so will drop in later re any more thoughts from you all Barbra

Does any one actually know how many have had a heart bypass on the NHS?

Incidentally, £40m works out at 60p or so per person. Two packs of paracetamols for each of us.

We need to be talking in Billions, not Millions if it is to have the slightest effect.

Maybe they should also be looking at what they fund even for UK citizens....as much as everyone wants this and that can the NHS afford it all if it's not life-threatening illnesses?

No idea IGP. The heart bypass was just an off the cuff example.

If you recall, there was either a Channel 4 or 5 programme earlier this year following one hospital's attempts to get the foreign patients to pay for their treatment. There was one lady from, I think, Indonesia or Thailand. She had a pre-existing condition that she couldn't afford to have treated 'at home'. She was taken seriously ill while visiting her sister in the UK. Low and behold, she gets a totally free operation and treatment. There was no mention of medical insurance. Her sister was of the opinion that as she had paid into the NHS, the cover should be extended to her relative. Although there was no suggestion that she deliberately chose to travel to the UK as a Health Tourist, you do wonder why someone so ill would choose to make the journey.
The British sister wasn't in a position to contribute to the cost. That would have been one case where the funds could have been syphoned off from the FA budget.

I had been told that the original aim of the NHS was to provide emergency medical care only. Perhaps someone can prove or disprove that?

I remember that programme and the woman whose sister was seriously ill shouldn't have travelled in the first place IMO.

I agree with Rollo (for once) entry should not only be conditional on Visa requirements but also adequate health insurance.

The States can stop people disembarking if unwell and uninsured - not ethical but driven by their pay or die system.

BIL pays between £800-£900 for each 30 day trip to the USA because without that if he was taken unwell his son would be liable for possibly $1m in medical costs for a serious op and inpatient costs followed by rehab. That sum sounds unbelievable but it's sadly pretty accurate.

I paid 4 times more than my hubby for medical insurance to Guatemala, not worth the risk in not declaring all pre-existing conditions. Why shouldn't all non EU citizens do the same when travelling to the UK?

"July 5 1948 – The NHS is born

When health secretary Aneurin Bevan (image right) launched the NHS at Park Hospital in Manchester (today known as Trafford General Hospital), it is the climax of a hugely ambitious plan to bring good healthcare to all. For the first time, hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, opticians and dentists are brought together under one umbrella organisation to provide services that are free for all at the point of delivery.
The central principles are clear: the health service will be available to all and financed entirely from taxation, which means that people pay into it according to their means. "

Didn't I read somewhere though that; maybe it was naive; they honestly thought after a while people wouldn't get so sick so the cost wouldn't sky rocket?

I'm sure they never envisaged paying for sex change operations; helping people stop smoking; have babies etc etc

That was probably the hope yes, as diagnosis became available free of charge they could also catch things earlier to save long term treatment. ( of the 'no it's not just a cough it's TB we can treat it before long term damage is done' type ) Given the advances in medicine that would have seemed probable.

I certainly wouldn't want to go back to my grandmother's day when you couldn't call a Dr or go to see him even for a serious condition because you couldn't afford to.

Doctors smoked in the surgery along with their patients up until the late 70s

Craven 'A' - good for the throat :-D :-D

.......and some more :-D

http://www.healthcare-administration-degree.net/10-evil-vintage-cigarette-ads-promising-better-health/

"1954 – smoking and cancer link established

In the 1940s, the British scientist Sir Richard Doll begins research into lung cancer after incidences of the disease rise alarmingly. He studies lung cancer patients in 20 London hospitals and expects to reveal that the cause was fumes from coal fires, car fumes or tarmac. His findings surprise him and he publishes a study in the British Medical Journal, co-written with Sir Austin Bradford Hill, warning that smokers are far more likely than non-smokers to die of lung cancer. Doll gives up smoking two-thirds of the way through his study and lives to be 92. "

Whats being forgotten is when the NHS was set up the head count was by far lower than later years and almost every workable man had a job and many many women for that matter who was paying into the system and people were less inclined to visit doctors unless at near deaths door for fear of wasting a doctors time for something trivial such as a boil. :-D.

By the same token, Kay, not so many things could be cured, and, actually, fewer women worked.

The advancement in medicine has been amazing - but it costs money - not helped by drug companies over charging for drugs.

It's like saying the advancement in medicine and medical equipment has outstripped Government funding, therefore, as the NHS costs more we should go back to only 'certain people' deserving medical treatment. :-S

Not sure anyone said the NHS was ever funded solely from contributions.
But I'm sure if anyone thought that, they've been corrected.
Thanks (yawn) for the history lesson.

As for your correcting people on their grammar/typos - pot/kettle/black.
Quote:
"The doctors were at first v much against" - variably? vocally?

"are very lax with birder controls" ? ...so birds are using the NHS are they?

Well this a good talking point but our government ?needs to get a majority & A stable economy to cover all issues Policing .immigration. NHS. Housing .. defence.overseas aid *Still in talks with DUP * at the moment wouldn't be PM for a £million a week .I don't now about your area were you live but we get ten minutes with the GP .our surgery amalgamated .with another village & the service has gone down the pan .reception staff not as friendly ,GP show you the door before you even sit down properly Oh well think I have said my bit now .Sun has come out so try & get my gardening done .not doing much Bye Folks Barbra :-)