Originally posted by northernladuk
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: NHS fees - right or wrong?
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "NHS fees - right or wrong?"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by woohoo View PostWell, thanks to a couple of people on here, Mumsnet is no longer a safe place for CUK members.
The things they say about us, one even dared to say our forum is boring.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by woohoo View PostActually, that is a good point. They can't afford to pay the bill and I'm guessing perhaps they could not afford to pay for travel insurance. How would they get the body back.
Now I'm thinking of dead bodies. Ok I need to find a more cheery thread to read.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by original PM View PostUmm unless they had a fridge to put that body in within a few days it would have looked like melted cheese and stunk to high heaven.
trust me I know.
Now I'm thinking of dead bodies. Ok I need to find a more cheery thread to read.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by woohoo View PostShould have handed back the babies body, it would be the decent thing to do.
They then should have gone after them for the fees after a few weeks.
trust me I know.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostI do know of case here where a tourist fell ill without their EHIC. They were able to claim retrospectively - but the authorities are not obliged to allow that.
In any case - if you travel outside your own country, even in Europe with an EHIC, make sure you've got proper travel insurance to cover any accident or sickness that, crucially, covers you to the same standard as at home. The EHIC is effectively a safety net, but it will only give you the same cover as locals. It won't get you home, repatriate your body etc.
Still, pretty callous of the hospital.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostThey don’t, they should have an EHIC from Spain for travelling, and be charged for Private if they’ve booked treatment that they’r
Okay, the couple were probably traumatised at the loss of their baby. So why didn’t the NHS just help them out?
If you are entitled to help but fail to fill in paperwork, the bureaucrats can do it retrospectively. But they don't have to.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by SimonMac View Postand all the ex-pats living in Spain who come back to the UK for treatment to be told they no longer qualify for free treatment
Originally posted by woohoo View PostShould have handed back the babies body, it would be the decent thing to do.
They then should have gone after them for the fees after a few weeks.
Wonder why the couple (or the NHS themselves) didn’t just do this?
Okay, the couple were probably traumatised at the loss of their baby. So why didn’t the NHS just help them out?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostEXACTLY. Try this in the USA - she wouldn't have got through the front door without a credit card or means to pay the bill.Originally posted by psychocandy View PostEXACTLY. Always remember the story of the young lady who broke her back in Egypt. She was giving horse riding lessons apparently.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by woohoo View PostShould have handed back the babies body, it would be the decent thing to do.
They then should have gone after them for the fees after a few weeks.
Leave a comment:
-
Should have handed back the babies body, it would be the decent thing to do.
They then should have gone after them for the fees after a few weeks.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by psychocandy View PostAgreed - withholding the body is well harsh....
About the USA. OK fair enough. Lots of "some will", "some won't" etc. Personally, I think its wise not to have to argue about whether its an emergency, whether insurer will pay etc.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by NotAllThere View PostDoesn't say where they were from - just Western Europe. For all we know, they might have popped across the channel on a day trip. So travelling 8 months pregnant isn't of itself irresponsible as you imply. If you read the article, you'll see that the person who reported this was a doctor - not the couple. We have no idea whether they cried over the £10K of emergency treatment - if you haven't got the money, you haven't got the money - most likely they were crying over the loss of their baby, which grief was compounded by not being able to take the body for a burial. And this was an emergency - not health tourism.
Being unable to bury your baby seems a bit of a harsh punishment for forgetting a bit of paperwork. (Though they would almost certainly have been out of pocket for the repatriation of the body).
Withholding the baby's corpse due to lack of immediate payment is sick.
Not true. In an emergency you will receive emergency treatment. Furthermore, even though some hospitals and medical centres may require payment up front for non-emergency care, not all do. Some will take a deposit on your credit card, some will be quite happy with an insurers guarantee of payment. Plenty of Swiss residents visit the USA every year. Some fall ill. But for some reason they don't have any difficulty getting treatment, even though a typical credit card limit is a few thousand, even for high earners.
Also not true. You obviously lump for the cheapest insurance you can get.
In answer to the original question posted by BP - yes, NHS fees are right and should be charged.
About the USA. OK fair enough. Lots of "some will", "some won't" etc. Personally, I think its wise not to have to argue about whether its an emergency, whether insurer will pay etc. I'd rather bung a credit card to get things rolling without worrying about it.
e.g. if you're child is ill, upset but not dying, I'd like to get them seen asap rather than wait.
Leave a comment:
-
So at the same time as being outraged about foreigners using the NHS, people are outraged at foreigners being charged for using the NHS?
OK a glib comment, primary care is and always will be free. However the OVM process is a nightmare, and I should know as I was tasked with overseeing the design of the new process when I was working at NHS Digital.
Poor data comes from the Home Office on eligibility status, no centralised system so people can bounce from one trust to another without any cross checking and each trust interprets the guidelines in different ways often tracked on excel spreadsheets. Lets not get into the situation where once an invoice is raised the actual chasing of the payment, of and all the ex-pats living in Spain who come back to the UK for treatment to be told they no longer qualify for free treatment
The new system is with Department of Health and Social Care to approve funding, but fixing the system is not cheap
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: