|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The health care system is ill.
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
For me, the cost of eye tests in not a big deal (~£15-20). I've worn glasses since I was 6. It's the cost of the glasses that is ridiculously expensive.
That is because the cost that you or the government (via the NHS) pay for a sight test does not reflect the cost of providing it when you take into account professional and practice overhead costs. Therefore when you buy glasses you are not only subsidising your own sight test but also the sight tests of all the other people who didn't need glasses or took their prescription elsewhere to get their glasses made. Neither the government nor the public are prepared to pay the true cost of a sight test so I'm afraid those who purchase glasses have to make up the difference.
Believe me this has been being bemoaned for years in optometry professional circles in the UK!
That's a fair point. And I wasn't trying to say that I'm being ripped off. It's a professional and technical service and hence costs to get it right. My point is that my glasses and sun glasses which I find vital for driving in bright sun (2 days a year in the UK...) with my combination of relatively strong short-sightedness / astigmatism is fairly expensive and hence the cost of the test is generally less than 10% of my outlay. So free eye tests don't make a lot of difference to me.
AFZ
And I'm afraid the stronger your prescription is the more difference it makes to the optical and aesthetic properties of your glasses when you pay out for good optical design/thinner/coated lenses. If you've got a low prescription you can probably get away with basic, cheap lenses if that is what you want. The optical difference, although still there, is less. Like many things in life, to a large extent you get what you pay for!
When it comes to companies offering "free" sight tests to those who are not entitled to an NHS funded eye examination I think you have to be realistic and realise that this is not out of altruism. These companies are out to make a profit and those that work for them are under considerable pressure to meet 'conversion rates'. That is they have to produce enough sales of glasses out of the tests they perform. So who do you think is more likely to recommend you need new glasses if there is only a small change in your prescription? The "free" sight test or the one where you actually paid for service being given?
Absolutely. Which is why the fact that I cannot get free sight-tests on the NHS (no qualifying conditions, don't use a computer monitor enough etc. etc.) doesn't make a difference to me. My point is that free sight-tests are not the key to good eye care.
I don't think it high priority - there are plenty of other things the NHS needs to focus on first but in an ideal world some sort of funding for glasses as well as tests would be on the list of services available from the NHS.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
My Saturday night experience.... Motel, visiting another state.
I developed intense pain on the left side of my body. I phone reception. Reception sends security. Security calls for an ambulance.
Ambulance arrives at 9pm. The paramedics inside determine I am not having a heart attack. I have pleurisy they think.
Problem..... I am driving home, apparently, the next day, including the 10 hour car ferry. Pain bad.
Paramedic calls the after-hours doctor. They leave. I doze.
Doc arrives at midnight. Yes, pleurisy. She gives me appropriate pain relief. Not much, but she provides several scripts. And medical certificate for work, as my vacation is almost finished. She goes.
Hotel staff come in, remake bed, provide tea and other comfort. Tell me they don't take tips.
Finally I sleep.
So now, home again, in jammies and in bed, I reflect upon this.
I paid for the scripts to be filled. $60 approx.
And that was all.
Australia has problems with its health systems, but there is a lot right too.
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
While I couldn't support assisted dying I think the case for assisted conception is very shaky.
I'll pass those sentiments onto my 11 year old daughter, very much wanted after three sub-fertile and soul destroying years, conceived following investigations and medication on the NHS (not IVF, so not mega-expensive, but still at public expense). I'm sure her contribution to society over her lifetime, and the immense joy she has brought to her family, will more than compensate for the public cost of helping her to exist.
Lovely for you and for her. But the brutal question is why should the NHS have helped her to come into existence in this not exactly underpopulated island- rather than, say, helping you to come to terms with not being able to conceive? I'm not saying it shouldn't have, mind- just that 'it has made me very happy' is not a self-evidently sufficient reason for doing so.
Well, for a start, my wife and I both pay tax, probably more than the treatment we received on the NHS. Second, the issue was a medical one for my wife which the health service (which is there to resolve medical issues) helped us to overcome. Third, our island is not overpopulated, certainly not here in Somerset where we live, there's oodles of space. Fourth, this was for conceiving our first child, making the difference of having a family or not, we weren't a case of seeking subfertility treatment when we already had plenty of children. Fifth, our ageing population needs future generations to support them - either that or much increased immigration, which would you prefer? Sixth - children are actually quite nice. I know some grumpy curmudgeons don't like them, but on the whole society is better and life is richer for having them around. My daughter was the first child born to a family in our church for some years, and her first few years brought joy to many in church, from across the age spectrum.
Finally, I believe the drive in some people (not all) to want to have children is something quite profound and goes much deeper to who we are as human beings than just "I want a baby to make me happy". It's something (again, for some people, not all feel this way) that is existential about what it is to be human. The psychological pain that can occur when your wish for a child is thwarted, including having to cope with loss through miscarriage (as was the case for us) should not be underestimated. A "come to terms with it" approach may not be the most helpful, particularly when there is a medical solution to resolve matters.
That the NHS was able, quite inexpensively (as I said, we didn't get to the point of IVF) to remedy our subfertility is something I will be eternally grateful for. As, I hope, you will be when you are old and grey and my daughter is paying taxes to ensure you are comfortable.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
