Oakvillian

I echo Iain's point about the difference between public high schools and elite universities. While I see that there's a large underclass bringing down the averages, I'm sure I've read somewhere (though I can't cite the source offhand) that Harvard, for example, takes more undergraduates proportionately from private schools than does the supposedly elite Oxford.

As to cost - in the absence of scholarship or bursary funding, is a US undergraduate degree really less expensive than the equivalent Canadian institution would be, for a Canadian? I find that difficult to believe, and would love to see evidence to that effect.

Yogi-Bear

Hi Ray,

That poor lady, debt collectors calling, that really is disgraceful! But the Uk is not excluded from this sort of treatment.

There was a case last month where a 72yr old man had been diagnosed with cancer. But despite the drug being available for years in Europe, and just because it had not been approved for use in the UK, the poor guy had to pay some £3,000.00 pr month to stay alive!!

Three months of this, and his savings had depleted. He was then left with no alternative but to place his house up for sale to basically stay alive!

Another case here in the UK was the post code lottery, one lady had treatment for breast cancer basically because she lived in the right post code.

Another lady in a similar position was uunableto get treatment because the local trust that covered her post code was unable to fund the drugs. Yet the two ladies lived less 3 miles apart.

It was later highlighted that the trust that claimed they had no funds for this poor lady, were then seen to be wasting £25,000. on some riridiculoustatue to be placed in front of the hospital, and to add further insult to this poor women, they then set up an health and sasafetyeeting for the week, attended by 50 staff on stupid things like "How to sharpen a pencil safely so you don't cut your finger once having sharpened it!!"

This course must have cost thousands on menial things, whilst this poor women is not sure whether she'll see Christmas or not!

To be fair, the NHS is brilliant and the staff work sooooooooo hard and get little appreciation for it. But sometimes, like these two examples whoever makes these heartless decissions should hang their heads in total shame!

Sorry for the rant But it really is shocking to have such little regard for someone's life - especially as it seems to be for money!

Yogi

iaink

But thats the flip side of socialised medicine. Medicine is EXPENSIVE, and we all pay for it. Someone has to make the hard decisions, we cant afford to all have the most expensive treatments.

Here in canada we have access to the medics, but are on our own or at the mercy of our insurers for our drug costs.

JonboyE

If he is living in the States with no intention of returning to Canada, why is he worried about Canadian taxes? Apart from a withholding tax on his pension (which I assume he can recalim in the States), why is he paying any taxes to Canada?

nooka

These things are indeed about cost. Some of the final stage cancer drugs are enormously expensive, for little real benefit, and when you consider that treatment is national 3,000 a month for several thousand people adds up very fast into hundreds of millions, even if it only six months or so before the person dies (many of the end stage drugs give a few months to a few people, and the months can be full of side effects, so it is not a straightforward decision). The way that the NHS tries to cope with this is to appraise all such drugs (through NICE), and until they go through this process they are not usually funded. Bearing in mind that if they get approval, then they have to be funded.

Before national approval (and for things that don't go through that process) there are local processes for considering individual cases. This is actually legally required (it is not legally possible for there to be a blanket ban on any treatment). That's where the "postcode lottery" comes in, as different PCTs will make different decisions. This should be just about the individual circumstances of the individual making the application, but will also be about the circumstances of the PCT (ie a PCT carrying a lot of debt may make a different decision from one that has a surplus).

Re the other things that money has been spent on, the art would almost certainly have come from seperate funding, probably a bequest, and would not have been available to spend on patient care. Health and Safety training is mandatory. All organisations have to provide this on a regular basis, it is a legal obligation to employees. a pity it was a bit rubbish! However when there are accidents, and it can be shown that staff were not trained then those affected can (and should) sue the organisation responsible for large sums.

In principle I agree with you thoufgh, there is no guarantee that this poor chap will have the same level of treatment he was paying for in the US in the UK. End of Life care is also very variable across the UK. Also if he didn't pay National Insurance whilst he was away, he may not be entitled to care.

dbd33

The absence of a scholarship is an unreasonable constraint. The sticker cost for US schools is high but the availability of myriad scholarships makes the cost more reasonable. For example, one of my kids got an offer from Dartmouth which, at the time would have cost about US$5,000/yr to take up (net of scholarships and whatnot). She went instead to King's, in NS, at an annual cost of C$15,000. Between those two was the option of Queen's which would have been reasonable because it's in-state. Of the people in her class of 25 two got 100% funding, one from Brown(ice hockey) and one from Brandeis(tennis), several others got partial scholarships from US schools and one was incentivised by the UofT.

It may be that there are 100% scholarships at Canadian schools but I haven't heard of any and I work directly with a man who, while not being our corporate lawyer, acts as agent representing students in negotiations with universities.

Rich_007

But that's exceptional and worthy of BBC News TV coverage.

In the US it's more a daily/regular occurence and part of the acceptance of the burden life for po' folks.

Whoi'd actually care that po' folks die when getting sick ? Hilary Clinton ?

R.

iaink

RMC


Damned good degrees, and guaranteed employment for a few years afterwards.

Yogi-Bear

I take your point Iaink. However, it works on the theory we all pay, but only a few claim, insurance companies operate using the same theory.

My point was this, people like this pensioner had paid all his life into a system that refused him drugs - but were prpared to let him use his savings, even sell his house to basically stay alive!

My other point was, despite this lady needing drugs and being told: "Sorry there's no funding" then to see how they waste thousands on silly things would surely make anyone see rage!

The trouble is you have many people making silly financial, and wasteful decissions with tax payers money.

Yet if the same people were to make similar decissions at home with their own money, I'm sure you'd find they'd be a little more prudent!

Y

dbd33

Damn that girl for being staight.

Yogi-Bear

Exceptional, BBC - ITV - who cares? It's fact!

As for it being the norm in the USA, well then I'd go back to the original question of the post, and think twice before living in the USA. If it's like you say - an everyday occurance.

Plus, the health system in the USA was in for a mighty shake up according to Mr Obama, so we'll see..........

Y

Rich_007

Well yes, that's what I mean. Such things are so rare they're going to be all over the UK media.

In the US, ho hum another po' folk has their life ruined. Too bad, so sad.

To be homeless is the US is to be one slip-up on the medical front or a critical illness. Or sued by some gormless asshat.

R.

iaink

If its not on the list, its not on the list. The fact that its on another countries list is irrelevant, they probably have similar situations where there is stuff on the UK list thats not on theirs. Its not like the NHS is obviously spending tons of money where it doesnt have to, budgets have been stretched for as long as I can recall.

There will always be waste, whether its taxpayers money or private funding...look at the office buildings of the US insurers if you need confirmation. Its human nature, we are not perfect. As for people spending there own money unwisely...there seem to be a lot of people blowing it on crap I dont see the need for...

Medical inflation is insanely high due to the cost of getting new drugs to market, so perhaps the NHS should just cut itself free from paying for drugs and contributing to drug companies profits. Make everyone underwrite there own drug plan or pay for themselves, and go down the canadian model of providing healthcare practitioners, but not paying for prescription drugs?

The post code lottery is just a side effect of having regional providers with different rules, the alternative seems to be to run everything centrally...there are probably as many reasons thats a bad idea as there are reasons why its a good idea.

iaink

??? ...My bosses kid (now Captain something, or is it Major, I forget) is also straight...

By the time shes 36? she will be able to retire on a full military pension.

She got to blow things up at Sandhurst for a couple of years too...

Yogi-Bear

I see your point. Although my wife has worked for the NHS for years, and I can assure there's waste and theft beyond your wildest dreams.

I really don't think there's an answer - it really is just a mess! Although I do agree with the point you make about perhaps adopting the Canadian way.

I say let's give it a go, we've tried everything else.

Y