Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

Depends...

Well there's the thing, we know absolutely that we are covered and that it will not cause us any stress either financially, or with worrying about whether insurance will cover it. Or even if insurance will cover us, if you have a long term condition quite young, then you are going to face problems getting insurance later in life. The absolute cover is very nice to have for psychological conditions as it means that those who need help can get it far easier which makes things safer for everyone.

so I am told, one of the primary reasons you guys have such a high cost is that people leave minor issues until they become much more difficult and expensive to treat.

You are VERY right about that. But, that's even true for those who has insurance... you still need to get those peoples into the doctor's office.

Which would be far easier if people didn't have to worry whether the condition they are diagnosed with will be covered by their insurance.

Bankruptcies doesn't seem such an issue in terms of scale, but it still can't be nice for those who are faced with such a situation.

I've just found out my mum has had a fall, hurt her wrist, and is in hospital now having an x-ray, I'm just thankful that her only worry is her wrist.

 dæl wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Depends...

Well there's the thing, we know absolutely that we are covered and that it will not cause us any stress either financially, or with worrying about whether insurance will cover it. Or even if insurance will cover us, if you have a long term condition quite young, then you are going to face problems getting insurance later in life. The absolute cover is very nice to have for psychological conditions as it means that those who need help can get it far easier which makes things safer for everyone.

so I am told, one of the primary reasons you guys have such a high cost is that people leave minor issues until they become much more difficult and expensive to treat.

You are VERY right about that. But, that's even true for those who has insurance... you still need to get those peoples into the doctor's office.

Which would be far easier if people didn't have to worry whether the condition they are diagnosed with will be covered by their insurance.

Bankruptcies doesn't seem such an issue in terms of scale, but it still can't be nice for those who are faced with such a situation.

I've just found out my mum has had a fall, hurt her wrist, and is in hospital now having an x-ray, I'm just thankful that her only worry is her wrist.

I hope your mum is okay!

There are worts in both system. If I were you, if you want an opinion on both system... ask some of the ex-pats about it.

 whembly wrote:

I hope your mum is okay!

Thank you, she seems ok.

There are worts in both system.

Absolutely, the NHS is a long way from perfect, but it's founding principles of being free at the point of use and of covering everyone are really quite wonderful and I would rather build a system from such a foundation rather than having people apply capitalistic principles like the maximisation of profit ahead of care.

If I were you, if you want an opinion on both system... ask some of the ex-pats about it.

That's a valid point regarding expats, if any want to chime in on their experiences that would be most useful

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Moving into serious mode I dunno.... it seems kind of premature to have a double massectomy on a possibility.

I don't think that it's that uncommon for some women to have that procedure if they have a high risk of breast cancer, or a significant family history.

Yeah, but it seems a little strange to have it done before you absolutely need it done.

Getting tested for a high probability seems like you'd just go in for very regular check ups. And in the event of cancer appearing you can then have the surgery before it gets rampant. Especially if its not predicted to happen for a long while yet.

Its more an early warning system than something you'd make the decision on. At least that's how I'd feel about it.

Simple reason. If you wait to get breast cancer there is a good chance by that tie the cancer has spread to other areas and you are going to die. This avoids that, plus chemo/rad.