• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sorry, your appointment isn't until June 2025

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Not true. Because of shortages in personnel and the resulting delays, it is very common to not be able to get in to see a specialist within 3 months. My allergist is now booking 6 months ahead and my general care is at about 3 months.

You can get into see emergency care, that is true. But a cancer diagnosis doesn't count as an emergency. And expect a LONG wait before you see anyone unless you are likely to die within the hour. Also, you will get into serious financial problems if you rely on emergency services for your care (and it is not covered by insurance).
Plus, the pandemic really did a number on this as well, creating even more of a backlog. And as you point out, medical personnel are completely burned out at this point and are experiencing all kinds of shortages.

My sister is a forensic nurse, and I've been hearing from her for a while now about how short-staffed they are, how spread thin they are, how they're lacking in resources, and how that is negatively effecting theirs and their patients lives.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You are misinterpreting what you read. Getting an initial consultation is not the same as getting needed treatment.
The British Medical Association reports that over 7 million patients are experiencing a wait for procedures. And that target wait times for cancer treatments have dropped to 60%. 2.87 million patients, and growing, have waited over 18 weeks for treatments.

NHS backlog data analysis

Yes and???. That still does not provide a credible source for the express/star claim.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes and???. That still does not provide a credible source for the express/star claim.
Actually it does by extension. The BMA, a quite credible source, evinces that such delays occur. Even if it doesn't validate this specific occurence.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Do you know of any US patients reporting needing 30 months for cancer treatment like the man in the article is facing?

No, but it is not something I keep up with.

I *do* know of people with cancer who are simply denied treatment because of lack of insurance coverage. THAT is pretty common.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Actually it does by extension. The BMA, a quite credible source, evinces that such delays occur. Even if it doesn't validate this specific occurence.

Ill accept the BMA but they are not quoting 3 years, no one except the express is quoting 3 years.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The BMA are not quoting 3 years, no one except the express is quoting 3 years.
Wrong. It is found in other sources too. Do you care that the man needs to wait almost three years for his cancer treatment?
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Some have been kvetching that the source for the OP article didn't meet their standards. Well, here are other sources.

Cancer survivor told to wait until 2025 for hospital appointment | ITV News

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cancer-survivor-grandad-given-june-28563478

Grandfather is latest patient given three-year wait for hospital appointment

Too bad some are less upset about a man being put off for his cancer treatment instead of the particular source of a story they don't like.


The mirror is no better than the express. It is roughly equivalent to the national enquirer but more left wing

I don't know anything about the Shropshire star.

Itv is ok.

Thanks, i did not find any of these on a google news search.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Wrong. It is found in other sources too. Do you care that the man needs to wait almost three years for his cancer treatment?

Please point out where the BMA is quoting 3 years

Of course i care, why try the guilt trip to make your point

but i find using untrustworthy almost news sources to be dubious.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Wrong. It is found in other sources too. Do you care that the man needs to wait almost three years for his cancer treatment?
It's not cancer treatment he's waiting for. As per your source:

"A man from Shropshire will have to wait more than two-and-a-half years for a hospital appointment.

Andrew Jones was successfully treated for cancer five years ago and says his NHS treatments and the staff then were "brilliant".

But the operation left him with a bit of nerve damage to his bladder, meaning he needs to go to the toilet more than usual.

When the problem didn't get any better, he went to his GP who said they'd get him an appointment with a consultant."
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not cancer treatment he's waiting for. As per your source:

"A man from Shropshire will have to wait more than two-and-a-half years for a hospital appointment.

Andrew Jones was successfully treated for cancer five years ago and says his NHS treatments and the staff then were "brilliant".

But the operation left him with a bit of nerve damage to his bladder, meaning he needs to go to the toilet more than usual.

When the problem didn't get any better, he went to his GP who said they'd get him an appointment with a consultant."
That…makes a lot more sense. Not great that the man has to wait of course. But assuming the NHS works like other universal care models, cancer treatment usually lets one jump the queue, so to speak. Since it’s usually considered time sensitive and fairly urgent.
Unfortunately ailments that aren’t serious at all can find one waiting a long time for hospital care.
Prioritising serious ailments is the reason. And apparently shortages in staff, in the UK at least
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Obama had nothing to do with the NHS. It was the conservatives and bojo that devastated the national health service
Oh I'm sure others just sat by all nice and innocent and the like by your account.

But it is what it is.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
The NHS has been chronically underfunded for decades and cut to the bone to improve efficiency. Which is the opposite of what you would do if you actually wanted to improve efficiency but hey-ho that's neoliberal politics or you. Everything should be run like a private equity firm, apparently.

The lesson here is, if you want functioning health care don't vote for the type of people who would sacrifice your grandmother for a campaign donation, a trip on a yacht, free tickets to the Champions League final, or a directorship with a private healthcare provider. I've no idea why the UK refuses to learn this lesson. I guess sometimes people have to hit themselves in the face with a brick repeatedly before they work out why their face hurts.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That would be against the law.

"Can I be denied cancer treatment without insurance?
You cannot. However, without insurance, you will be charged 100% of the cost of treatment unless you take action."

What If I Am Diagnosed With Cancer Without Insurance? - GoodRx

Did you read what it said? "You will be charged 100% of the cost of treatment."

So, they cannot deny you treatment *if* you can pay,

Unless you are rich, that means you will have significant financial troubles because of your treatment. Usually, that means declaring bankruptcy with all the consequences of that.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Please point out where the BMA is quoting 3 years

Of course i care, why try the guilt trip to make your point

but i find using untrustworthy almost news sources to be dubious.
The particulars of the story are stated and independently verifiable. Your approval of the source is not required.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Did you read what it said? "You will be charged 100% of the cost of treatment."

So, they cannot deny you treatment *if* you can pay,

Unless you are rich, that means you will have significant financial troubles because of your treatment. Usually, that means declaring bankruptcy with all the consequences of that.
Did you read it? It says you will be charged 100% "unless you take action". The action is dependent on the individual circumstances. Those without the resources to pay 100% have options.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The particulars of the story are stated and independently verifiable. Your approval of the source is not required.

I think you should read post #31 for the particulars of the story. The express in its typical bull**** manner has bastardised the story to sensationalise it and dish crap out to the NHS.
 
Top