Waiting times for tests and treatment after cancer diagnosis

[ReverendHellh0und]

Waiting times for tests and treatment after cancer diagnosis: Cancer Research UK: CancerHelp UK


Waiting times for tests and treatment after cancer diagnosis

Read the link and get in line, we are next for this sort of crap......

 

[Morality Games]

I don't think you are making your point very well. people have to wait for weeks and months in the United States as well. Partially because weeks and to a lesser extent months don't generally -- generally -- make much of a difference when it comes to treatment.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't think you are making your point very well. people have to wait for weeks and months in the United States as well.

They do? Because of government rationing? Please show me where.

 

[Morality Games]

I have to go, but I will find some numbers later. Anyway, the reason is because it usually takes years for cancer to kill you, and the symptoms are usually apparent (and therefore you go in to get diagnosed) long before those years are up. Because of that, doctors will often perform a number of tests weeks apart before even discussing what sort of treatment to engage in.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I have to go, but I will find some numbers later. Anyway, the reason is because it usually takes years for cancer to kill you, and the symptoms are usually apparent (and therefore you go in to get diagnosed) long before those years are up. Because of that, doctors will often perform a number of tests weeks apart before even discussing what sort of treatment to engage in.

Really so no one in the UK is waiting on the Government to approve treatment?

 

[Goshin]

I have to go, but I will find some numbers later. Anyway, the reason is because it usually takes years for cancer to kill you, and the symptoms are usually apparent (and therefore you go in to get diagnosed) long before those years are up. Because of that, doctors will often perform a number of tests weeks apart before even discussing what sort of treatment to engage in.

What a load of crap.

I've lost friends and family to cancers that were aggressive and fast-acting. In some cases a few weeks or months can indeed make the difference between life and death.

I was diagnosed as a possible, but unlikely, risk for colon cancer. A couple weeks later I had a colonoscopy and pre-cancerous polyps were removed, possibly saving me from colon cancer. Think I'd get that kind of prompt service under gov't socialized medicine? Doubt it.

I was 42. Normally you don't get a colonscopy before you're 50. Under government run healthcare, I might have been disallowed. If I'd had to wait until I was 50, I would have been LUCKY if major surgery and chemo would have saved me... wait too long and cancers become inoperable.

I have friends in the UK and Canada who have told me about people dying while waiting for cancer treatment. I don't want that kind of gov't rationing and waiting lists in the USA.

 

[Laila]

Read the link and get in line, we are next for this sort of crap......

I'm sure there are problems with the NHS, no health service is perfect but i would never wish to replace NHS for a US model in which only the rich can afford it or have my Govt. at the mercy of drug companies. I support the principal behind it
From my own experiences with the NHS, it has been wonderful everytime i have used it to go see my GP or hospital (albeit rarely) There are one or two complaints i have but who can't find something wrong in anything? Nurses pay should be raised and politicans lowered imo. My doctor has been with me since childhood so its comforting to know
My friend Rachel, her mom has cancer and her treatment is on time. Saying that, NHS needs to be remanaged, after 12 years of Labour and hundreds of billions having been pumped in to it. I'm sure there is alot of wasted cash which can be used for those on waiting lists.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm sure there are problems with the NHS, no health service is perfect but i would never wish to replace NHS for a US model in which only the rich can afford it or have my Govt. at the mercy of drug companies. I support the principal behind it
From my own experiences with the NHS, it has been wonderful everytime i have used it to go see my GP or hospital (albeit rarely) There are one or two complaints i have but who can't find something wrong in anything? Nurses pay should be raised and politicans lowered imo. My doctor has been with me since childhood so its comforting to know
My friend Rachel, her mom has cancer and her treatment is on time. Saying that, NHS needs to be remanaged, after 12 years of Labour and hundreds of billions having been pumped in to it. I'm sure there is alot of wasted cash which can be used for those on waiting lists.

In the US no one is refused treatment.

 

[Goshin]

I'm sure there are problems with the NHS, no health service is perfect but i would never wish to replace NHS for a US model in which only the rich can afford it or have my Govt. at the mercy of drug companies. I support the principal behind it
From my own experiences with the NHS, it has been wonderful everytime i have used it to go see my GP or hospital (albeit rarely) There are one or two complaints i have but who can't find something wrong in anything? Nurses pay should be raised and politicans lowered imo. My doctor has been with me since childhood so its comforting to know
My friend Rachel, her mom has cancer and her treatment is on time. Saying that, NHS needs to be remanaged, after 12 years of Labour and hundreds of billions having been pumped in to it. I'm sure there is alot of wasted cash which can be used for those on waiting lists.

I am not rich, I am a blue-collar working man whose income is probably a bit below the national average. I have healthcare insurance, and got the treatment I needed promptly.

Granted, I'll be awhile getting the co-pay on those paid off, but how much is your life worth?

 

[Morality Games]

What a load of crap.

I've lost friends and family to cancers that were aggressive and fast-acting. In some cases a few weeks or months can indeed make the difference between life and death.

I was diagnosed as a possible, but unlikely, risk for colon cancer. A couple weeks later I had a colonoscopy and pre-cancerous polyps were removed, possibly saving me from colon cancer. Think I'd get that kind of prompt service under gov't socialized medicine? Doubt it.

I was 42. Normally you don't get a colonscopy before you're 50. Under government run healthcare, I might have been disallowed. If I'd had to wait until I was 50, I would have been LUCKY if major surgery and chemo would have saved me... wait too long and cancers become inoperable.

I have friends in the UK and Canada who have told me about people dying while waiting for cancer treatment. I don't want that kind of gov't rationing and waiting lists in the USA.

Oh, there can be fast developing cancers, but they aren't norm -- most cases of cancer and tumors take years to kill you, and symptoms appear long before hand. People with fast developing cancers tend to be in big trouble no matter what their category of medical service. Indeed, in all cases possible, doctors prefer that their patients make certain lifestyle changes in preparation for chemo, which takes weeks if not months.

Nationalized health care systems are at a minor disadvantage when it comes to preventing and treating cancer, but they triumph in other aspects of care and the price is always much better. In terms of pure utility, they are superior.

What a load of crap.

So you say, but I noticed you qualified your weeks-month assertions with the adjective "some". That's some pretty reduced enthusiasm considering you deemed my claim a load of crap.

 

[Goshin]

Oh, there can be fast developing cancers, but they aren't norm -- most cases of cancer and tumors take years to kill you, and symptoms appear long before hand. .... So you say, but I noticed you qualified your weeks-month assertions with the adjective "some". That's some pretty reduced enthusiasm considering you deemed my claim a load of crap.

If it was you, or your parent or wife or child, who had the cancer, would you be comfortable with the idea of delayed treatment, decided not by you or your doctor, but by some board of bureaucrats?

I wouldn't.

 

[Morality Games]

If it was you, or your parent or wife or child, who had the cancer, would you be comfortable with the idea of delayed treatment, decided not by your or your doctor, but by some board of bureaucrats?

I wouldn't.

You get bureaucrats with private insurance as well. They are a fact of life. A privatized bureaucrat isn't any better than a state-employed one, with the exception state-employed bureaucrats are to some extent accountable to me; insurance companies are accountable to stockholders and investors, with the needs of customers coming in a distant third.

 

[OKgrannie]

Horror stories abound, but for the most part, they are only stories. Remember you can hear horror stories about capitalistic system health care as well. Here are some facts comparing Canadian and US systems:

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org


Mythbusting Canadian Health Care, Part II: Debunking the Free Marketeers | OurFuture.org

 

[Goshin]

You get bureaucrats with private insurance as well. They are a fact of life. A privatized bureaucrat isn't any better than a state-employed one, with the exception state-employed bureaucrats are to some extent accountable to me; insurance companies are accountable to stockholders and investors, with the needs of customers coming in a distant third.

And yet, despite being 8 years under the usual-minimum age for colonscopies, I was able to get one, covered under my insurance, within a couple weeks of my doctor saying "maybe you'd better get one".

I have grave doubts that a gov't bureaucracy would be so compassionate or so prompt.

Back when I was first married, we had no insurance and had to go to the gov't sponsored county free-clinic. It was a nightmare. The red tape was a mile deep, the service was slow and surley, the treatment was mediocre at best. The county free clinic is my vision of what gov't healthcare would be like, and I don't want any part of it.

 

[Morality Games]

And yet, despite being 8 years under the usual-minimum age for colonscopies, I was able to get one, covered under my insurance, within a couple weeks of my doctor saying "maybe you'd better get one".

I have grave doubts that a gov't bureaucracy would be so compassionate or so prompt.

Back when I was first married, we had no insurance and had to go to the gov't sponsored county free-clinic. It was a nightmare. The red tape was a mile deep, the service was slow and surley, the treatment was mediocre at best. The county free clinic is my vision of what gov't healthcare would be like, and I don't want any part of it.

I don't doubt the authenticity of your experience. However, that is because very little capital and resources are invested in such clinics. They mostly just exist as a token to ward off human rights complaints. Now, on the other hand, well-supported nationalized health care systems function at a much higher capacity.

Anyway, private insurance does not have a monopoly on compassion. Their end-all-be-all purpose is making money, not saving lives or easing suffering.

 

[Goshin]

I don't doubt the authenticity of your experience. However, that is because very little capital and resources are invested in such clinics. They mostly just exist as a token to ward off human rights complaints. Now, on the other hand, well-supported nationalized health care systems function at a much higher capacity.

Anyway, private insurance does not have a monopoly on compassion. Their end-all-be-all purpose is making money, not saving lives or easing suffering.

Enlightened self-intrest, O my brother.

If I produce a product that fails too often, people will not buy it.

If I produce a product people cannot afford, they will not buy it.

So it is with healthcare, or at least that portion of healthcare that still remotely resembles anything like free-market conditions. Laser eye surgery and liposuction are generally not covered under medical insurance, yet they are very popular. As a result, there are many firms offering this service, and competing with each other as to price and quality, since it is user-pays. The upshot is, you could get your eyes lasered AND your fat vaccuumed for LESS than my 2-hour colonoscopy cost in total (nearly $11,000 counting what the insurer paid!), since competition breeds quality and economy.

One-payer healthcare (gov't run) is monopoly, the antithesis of free-marketism.

Dont' get me wrong, I'm not saying that a certain amount of regulation and oversight to keep insurers honest isn't necessary; it is. But socialized medicine is not the way.

As for compassion, let's not forget that most Doctors and Nurses are in it at least partially because they wish to help people, and most good ones will try to get you the best care out of your insurer as they can.

 

[Laila]

I am not rich, I am a blue-collar working man whose income is probably a bit below the national average. I have healthcare insurance, and got the treatment I needed promptly.

Everyone in UK have access to NHS. Is everyone in US insured?
Is it true that your Govt. does not set prices or regulate drugs? A company can charge whatever it wants?

Granted, I'll be awhile getting the co-pay on those paid off, but how much is your life worth?

Alot.
Which is why i support NHS and high taxes if necessary to keep it going.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In the US no one is refused treatment.

That is an oversimplification. I have lost count of how many times insurance companies have denied treatment, even when the provider has deemed it medically necessary...so unless the client can afford out of pocket costs, the treatment doesn't happen. The thing that lots of folks miss is that with the expense of medical care, many people wait until problems get out of control. I see it all the time. Proactivity and attending to minor issues until they become major is one way for overall medical costs to be reduced.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

If it was you, or your parent or wife or child, who had the cancer, would you be comfortable with the idea of delayed treatment, decided not by you or your doctor, but by some board of bureaucrats?

I wouldn't.

This is what happens, currently. The only difference is that the board of bureaucrats are insurance company lackeys looking to save their company money...not provide health care. There is no difference.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Everyone in UK have access to NHS. Is everyone in US insured?
Is it true that your Govt. does not set prices or regulate drugs? A company can charge whatever it wants?

Everyone has access, politicians and supporters of a UHC system like to portray it as otherwise.

Government has no business setting prices, it costs money to research and make drugs and to develop new technologies to treat patients. They should be able to charge what the market will support.

The FDA regulates medical devices and drugs, however, the FDA is full of political hacks and industry insiders that all screw our system up.
If I had it my way they would be fired and possibly thrown in jail.

The FDA is one of the most corrupt institutions in our government.

Alot.
Which is why i support NHS and high taxes if necessary to keep it going.

The problem with NHS is that it doesn't offer an incentive to not use it.

If you have to flu you shouldn't go to the doctor, there is nothing s/he can do for you. It's a problem here, people run to the doc when they have a cold or flu and ask for antibiotics which don't work on virus'. They don't bother to learn that though.

For males the NHS system is a danger, particularly if you have a high risk of prostate cancer.

There is a 97% cure rate for prostate cancer in the U.S. in the U.K. it's like 57%+-.

 

[Goshin]

This is what happens, currently. The only difference is that the board of bureaucrats are insurance company lackeys looking to save their company money...not provide health care. There is no difference.

I don't want it in gov't hands, Cap. It's enough of a political football now, if they get their hands on it who knows what they'll decide to do? Private insurers are limited somewhat by the fact that they have to compete in a marketplace and people have choices. When the gov't runs it, choice goes out the window; Reason and Sense may well follow, as it usually does when the government takes over the private sector.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I don't want it in gov't hands, Cap. It's enough of a political football now, if they get their hands on it who knows what they'll decide to do? Private insurers are limited somewhat by the fact that they have to compete in a marketplace and people have choices. When the gov't runs it, choice goes out the window; Reason and Sense may well follow, as it usually does when the government takes over the private sector.

It's birds of the same feather, Goshin. I don't want it in the private insurers hands because they make decisions based on their profit margin and their stockholders...not my health. Greed rules. Reason and sense goes out the window.

 

[Shadow Serious]

It's birds of the same feather, Goshin. I don't want it in the private insurers hands because they make decisions based on their profit margin and their stockholders...not my health. Greed rules. Reason and sense goes out the window.

I personally would rather have my health providers have a profit motive than a political motive. With profit the motive i have some room for negotiation. It is likely that if the government takes over the health system you better be political correct if you don't want to be on the To Die list. I will refuse to be a slave or a sycophant.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I personally would rather have my health providers have a profit motive than a political motive. With profit the motive i have some room for negotiation. It is likely that if the government takes over the health system you better be political correct if you don't want to be on the To Die list. I will refuse to be a slave or a sycophant.

And I would prefer to NOT have my health care managed by a profit motive. Whether I get treatment or not being managed by whether it makes the company money or not places my care, not in my health providers hands, but in the insurance company's stockholders hands. I don't want a stockholder telling me whether I should have the prescription I need or not.

 

[rivrrat]

Back when I was first married, we had no insurance and had to go to the gov't sponsored county free-clinic. It was a nightmare. The red tape was a mile deep, the service was slow and surley, the treatment was mediocre at best. The county free clinic is my vision of what gov't healthcare would be like, and I don't want any part of it.

Indeed. Not to mention the fact that people who are on Medicaid/Medicare are treated distinctly different than people who have private insurance, or even no insurance. And they certainly aren't treated better.

AND, there is massive abuse by people who think they're getting it for free. They go to the ER for sore throats and stubbed toes and temperatures of 99. :roll: It's ****ing ridiculous. When people think it's free, they go for any reason under the sun.

This is coming from someone who worked in the healthcare industry.

Everyone in UK have access to NHS. Is everyone in US insured?

Insurance is not necessary for treatment.

Is it true that your Govt. does not set prices or regulate drugs? A company can charge whatever it wants?

Yes, and that's the way it should remain. The government has no right to regulate the prices of private businesses. And the FDA needs to be abolished.

Which is why i support NHS and high taxes if necessary to keep it going.

I'd rather pay for healthcare out of pocket than have crappy healthcare forced on me by my government and my money stolen to pay for said crappy healthcare.

Now, if they want to implement a system where people can choose to pay out the ass in taxes and use the govt healthcare, and the rest of us can choose NOT to pay out the ass in taxes and NOT use the ****ty healthcare, then that would be fine. Anything else is unacceptable.