Health tourism ..
Discussion
williamp said:
Countdown said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Problem is, getting the Civil Service and NHS to introduce a system whereby they save money by excluding un-entitled patients would end up costing more than it saved.
It really wouldn't (I used to work in the NHS). The only problem is "where do you draw the line?". People are only going to be health tourists where the illness is significant and potentially life-threatening. I doubt even the most hard-hearted PHer would turn away a mother about to give birth, or a person who had just been involved in a car accident. And the people who work in the NHS aren't the type to be uncompassionate. Its compassionate, straightforward and fair. Whats not to like?
Johnnytheboy said:
Exactly.
It's a good thing they already do. https://www.gov.uk/healthcare-immigration-applicat...
As soon as she was told she needed chemo she should have returned for treatment.
There are flights to Jamaica every day, a one day delay would not have caused any further issue.
We don’t know what this letter regarding not to travel said, but she would have been home in Jamaica before they had even made an appointment for chemo.
You can buy travel insurance in Jamaica, it is not expensive.
“Because she is a black woman ... you treat her worse than a piece of nothing”
She wasn’t treated because the nhs is racist ?
There are flights to Jamaica every day, a one day delay would not have caused any further issue.
We don’t know what this letter regarding not to travel said, but she would have been home in Jamaica before they had even made an appointment for chemo.
You can buy travel insurance in Jamaica, it is not expensive.
“Because she is a black woman ... you treat her worse than a piece of nothing”
She wasn’t treated because the nhs is racist ?
esxste said:
Roofless Toothless said:
This may well be true but the availability of spaces for this kind of treatment are limited.
I have experience of turning up at hospital for what was described to me as 'life altering' cancer surgery and being turned away as another patient was put in front of me. It is not an easy thing to deal with.
For all my sympathy for this lady and her family, I don't think I would have been very happy to discover that the person I was bumped for had no right to treatment in this country and hadn't any insurance.
Compassion is one thing, but people die of awful things all over the world every moment and we never hear of them or give them much of a thought. After a lifetime of paying my tax in this country, is it too much to ask that when limited places on chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery programmes become vacant they should go to me in preference?
With every sympathy to your situation, you're introducing factors other than medical need to the decision on who gets priority for treatment, and that opens a huge can of worms. For example, what if you found that the person in front of you had committed some crime 30 years earlier, or perhaps had spent the last 20 years on benefits? What if they were a wealthy person who'd paid in more taxes to the system than you?I have experience of turning up at hospital for what was described to me as 'life altering' cancer surgery and being turned away as another patient was put in front of me. It is not an easy thing to deal with.
For all my sympathy for this lady and her family, I don't think I would have been very happy to discover that the person I was bumped for had no right to treatment in this country and hadn't any insurance.
Compassion is one thing, but people die of awful things all over the world every moment and we never hear of them or give them much of a thought. After a lifetime of paying my tax in this country, is it too much to ask that when limited places on chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery programmes become vacant they should go to me in preference?
If a person does has a right to treatment then it doesn't matter their personal crime sheet medical needs take priority.
If a person does not have the right to treatment but they are in a car accident needing an emergency operation they get treated.
If a person does not have the right to treatment but want chemo which is a long term treatment not emergency treatment they don't get it unless they pay or any other long term medical care/investigations.
Again its not hard? is it?
del mar said:
As soon as she was told she needed chemo she should have returned for treatment.
There are flights to Jamaica every day, a one day delay would not have caused any further issue.
We don’t know what this letter regarding not to travel said, but she would have been home in Jamaica before they had even made an appointment for chemo.
You can buy travel insurance in Jamaica, it is not expensive.
“Because she is a black woman ... you treat her worse than a piece of nothing”
She wasn’t treated because the nhs is racist ?
Notice the letter advises and it may cause... not that they absolutely must not fly.There are flights to Jamaica every day, a one day delay would not have caused any further issue.
We don’t know what this letter regarding not to travel said, but she would have been home in Jamaica before they had even made an appointment for chemo.
You can buy travel insurance in Jamaica, it is not expensive.
“Because she is a black woman ... you treat her worse than a piece of nothing”
She wasn’t treated because the nhs is racist ?
“Travelling and any further delay to initiating treatment may result to new disease symptoms and complications, including renal failure … life-threatening infections and bone fractures.”
She had been in the UK for 6 months already, plenty of time to get home... the family are engineering this situation to in the hope that they could have got treatment for free.
Have very good friends in Australia and when we were there, her parents decided to visit... mother got a nagging headache and was breathless, so she paid (claimed back later) to see a GP... got some tests asap... found out she had a brain tumour... They were on the next available flight home to get treatment.
She lasted 6 months longer.
So it is possible to fly after being diagnosed, I guess the situation in the paper, they were hoping it went another way.
Enricogto said:
FunkyNige said:
Genuine question - where else in the world would she have been treated without proof of insurance or payment upfront? We can't be the place this happens,, can we?
In many EU countries to start with, France or Italy for example. Their local NHS equivalent would have then tried to recover the cost from Jamaican authorities, in this case....€30 to be seen, got a prescription, took to pharmacy and paid for all the tablets issued. E11 was just ignored!
So I cannot see a Jamaican faring much better!
esxste said:
In which case then how did the story linked to in the original post happen? 2Btoo said:
esxste said:
In which case then how did the story linked to in the original post happen? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff