The Old Age Penalty For Healthcare Services : Stop The ACLU

The Old Age Penalty For Healthcare Services : Stop The ACLU

When you hear how great medical care is in the UK point to this article for people to read for themselves!

Last week England’s Yorkshire Post featured a few stories on the failure that is British nationalized healthcare. Among others, it featured one 54-year-old woman that had to wait 18 months to get an abscess taken from her mouth and a 74-year-old man that found he could not get the care for his heart condition that he needed because he was deemed too old to be worth the effort.

Once again, we have a perfect example of the sort of nationalized healthcare administered by government bean counters and bureaucrats (and NOT doctors) that will result here if we institute Obamacare.



Worse than the long wait lists, however, is the “old age lottery” that plagues the elderly in England’s nationalized healthcare system. It seems that the elderly are the last to get treatment because they are deemed less worthy of the costs of care.

So, a new plan has been conceived. The “free” care for the elderly will be “guaranteed” by a £25,000 up-front payment by patients to the government to assure them that they will receive timely healthcare.

Yes, the national plan that is paid for by patient’s taxes, taxes paid during their entire lives, the national plan that is supposed to cover everyone, will now need a hefty fee paid by the elderly in order to assure them that they will be afforded the care they’ve paid all of their lives to access.

Such a deal, eh?

Folks, if you don’t think this is the sort of inequity that will befall America if we implement Obamacare… well, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


Resources used are here:
Yorkshire post

NHS case studies: Bureaucrats blamed for problems

Case study 1: Monika Close has twice benefited from surgery on the NHS in recent years – but only after long waits for care.
She was diagnosed with gall bladder problems but waited 15 months before an operation to remove it was carried out three years ago.

Eventually due to the length of her wait it was performed not at her local NHS hospital in Wakefield but at the Methley Park BUPA hospital, near Leeds, although it was paid for from the public purse.

In April, she underwent an operation at the Leeds Dental Institute to clear an abscess from her jaw – but again faced an 18-month wait.

Her telephone calls went unanswered and it was not until in desperation she wrote to her consultant that surgery was carried out.

Mrs Close, 54, of Horbury, said she had been happy with the care once she had received it – but the problem was access.

"The surgeon thanked me for taking the initiative and writing," she said. "I can't fault the treatment but it's the system to get to that point and having to thump tables and rattle cages."

She has also faced waits of eight-10 months for treatment for psoriasis.

"Once I see the specialist things move quickly. The problem is being seen - that's the bugbear," she added.


Case study 2: Cost of travelling means rural patients lose out

FORMER health service manager Ted Naisbitt regularly meets patients who could be hit hardest by any moves to further regionalise specialist care.

He is a volunteer driver for a car scheme in the Thirsk area which regularly takes patients for health appointments either locally or further afield to Northallerton or even the 50-mile round trip to the James Cook Hospital, Middlesbrough.

Most patients are either too infirm to drive or do not have a car and prefer not to use the NHS-run transport service which can take all day to get them to hospital and back again.

Using the scheme, drivers can be driven door to door and are charged at 50p a mile – a significant saving on taxi services – although still a large amount for an ordinary pensioner.

Not surprisingly, he is in favour of more localisation of NHS care.

Mr Naisbitt, of Sowerby, near Thirsk, said: "Everything seems to be going further and further away but rural deprivation and the extra mileage costs of people in rural areas never seems to be taken into account in funding.

"With the formula that they use, rural areas seem to be starved of money which seems to be diverted towards the cities."


Case study 3: Superb service but terrible administration

Retired headmaster Chris Turner was treated for cancer more than 20 years ago.

And when he was referred by his GP in October last year for an urgent check-up over suspected prostate problems, he expected to be seen quickly.

But he became concerned over bureaucratic delays which culminated when he received three letters from the same department at Seacroft Hospital in Leeds all posted on the same day. Two were offering him the same appointment more than three months after his urgent referral – and the other was written to cancel it.

Mr Turner, 78, of Cookridge, Leeds, said his GP was forced to get involved to sort out an early appointment with a specialist who he saw nearly two months after his initial referral.

He said he had been left frustrated over avoidable administrative failures.

"Not knowing what is wrong is often the worst part, particularly if the problem may be life- threatening.

"But by the same token, bad as the administration was, the service I have since received from the people I have have seen so far is very good indeed."


Case study 4: Money wasted on too many tests

DOROTHY Turner was diagnosed with bowel cancer three years ago.

She had been feeling tired for some time and barely had the energy to climb the stairs at home in Wath upon Dearne, near Rotherham.

Her GP carried out a blood test and immediately referred her for tests at her local hospital although there was a delay before these were carried out.

But she says it took three visits to the hospital for tests over a number of weeks before a colonoscopy was carried out which showed she had the illness which her mother had also contracted 40 years previously.

It was only then that her surgeon made a decision to operate within days.

Doctors have since kept a careful eye on her progress with regular checks to make sure the condition has not returned.

She has not needed follow-up treatment although she was aware others with the illness had been denied drugs which the NHS could not afford.

The 70-year-old grandmother said she was sure money could be used more effectively by the NHS and her diagnosis could have been made more quickly and more cheaply

"I had three investigations when one colonoscopy would have shown up a bowel tumour," she said.

"I had a feeling they were performing small procedures in order to tick more boxes."


Case study 5: Devastated by delays for heart condition

Gordon Holderness was diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat nearly a decade ago and his condition has since deteriorated.

Worsening angina prevents him walking far and leaves him unable to do anything in the evening.

Nearly three years ago, a leaky heart valve was diagnosed and he was told by specialists it needed repairing or he would suffer "irreparable" damage although so far he says nothing has been done to treat it.

In 2005 he was told he needed an angiogram – a test to check if his arteries are blocked – but he says this took 17 months to carry out and was eventually only performed following GP intervention.

He was told he needed either angioplasty, which clears blocked arteries, or bypass surgery.

But more than a year later he is yet to see the inside of an operating theatre despite complaints to hospital chiefs about his treatment which has so far been split between hospitals in Scarborough, York and Hull.

Mr Holderness, 74, a retired electrical engineer, of Filey, said he was fed up with the delays. He now appeared to be on a
waiting list for surgery although this will only follow more tests.

"Most people count how long they've waited in weeks or months but I've waited years," he said.

"It's been a shocking service. My health has deteriorated and to me it's neglect. Obviously they daren't admit it but I think it's ageism. It would seem that an old age lottery applies in this area."


and

Published Date: 14 July 2009
ELDERLY people could pay up to £25,000 to guarantee basic social care under proposals aimed at ending the "cruel lottery" of old age care.
Twelve years after Tony Blair promised an end to people having to sell their home to pay for their care, Health Secretary Andy Burnham today unveiled proposals for a radical shake-up of the system.

The Government will consider three options to end the current means-tested funding system, from the State paying a portion of care fees to a compulsory insurance scheme which anyone over retirement age is required to pay into.

The proposals will be consulted on until November and are unlikely to be put into legislation until after the next election, prompting condemnation from opposition parties at the pace of change.

Mr Burnham admitted the present care system was "flawed", with inconsistencies across the country and people penalised for prudence. He proposed common national standards and promised at least some state help for everyone.

"The way we look after our older people defines what we are as a country and I believe we can do better than we are today," he said.

"It is time to say clearly that it is unacceptable and unfair for people to be denied any help to find the right services simply because they're over the £23,000 threshold. Under a National Care Service, that practice will stop."

The options unveiled by Mr Burnham include a state guarantee to pay a third or a quarter of basic care fees which average £30,000, leaving people to meet the rest. It could mean people still have to use the value of their home, although they would not have to do so until after their death.

People could subscribe to a voluntary insurance scheme to cover them against the extra costs, or a compulsory insurance scheme could be introduced.
Full story in Wednesday's Yorkshire Post.