formula

She will have too much income for PC. Althought we don't know when she will reach UK retirement age; and it is all change for benefits, even those of pension age.

Editha

Formula, you are writing absolute nonsense for which you have absolutely no evidence. It simply isn't true that hospital departments stop treating people because they have exceeded their budget.

The OP and anyone else reading this thread should ignore formula's comments.

formula

They could either find that out for sure; or they could believe you and find out the hard way. The choice is theirs to make.

I didn't say that they "stop treating people". I clearly said that departments have budgets and they prioritise people for that budget.

The NHS is not the same NHS you left years ago and have just returned to. They have budgets to keep to. Life saving treatment is always given, but not perhaps always the treatment people want. Many lives are saved by the NHS. The NHS will cover most things, but not all things. As I said, in this day and age of the www there is no excuse for believing that the NHS pays for everything.

Editha

No, my experience is that it is better. I've had to attend the A&E in Barstaple twice since I got back, once with a retina that was threatening to detach, and once with a broken foot. On both occasions I was seen within a few minutes, a big change from every occasion that I've attended A&E in the past. I attended the fracture clinic today and was seen within five minutes of my appointment time, which was also a first!

Nor have I been without experience of the NHS over the last eight years, as you suggest. For one thing, my brother is a senior NHS manager with whom I've had frequent discussions about the state of the service, and a friend of mine (a joint author, in fact) is a retired surgeon who is still involved with the Royal College of Surgeons and keeps in touch with what is going on.

Secondly, I've spent more than a month each year staying with my elderly mother, and in 2010 nursed her through a five month illness. I have had issues with the quality of care she has had from her GP and pharmacy, but these have had nothing to do with funding or refusal of treatment.

There is a postcode lottery in the UK for some NHS services. Fertility treatment, for example, varies from region to region. But that is very different to someone being told they cannot be treated because 'the budget has run out', which is what you have claimed.
Nevertheless, there is still more fertility treatment provided now than there used to be. There has always been a postcode lottery for this kind of thing. When I wanted fertility treatment thirty years ago, I had no choice but to pay privately. I believe there is less of a postcode lottery now than there used to be.

spouse of scouse

Great to hear that your Mum was not only able to have her surgeries quicker, she had great in-patient and home care as well. What a great option, to be able to have needed treatment at a less busy hospital.

I hope your Mum recovered well from her knee replacements, I know a couple of people who've had them done and they don't sound pleasant.

formula

Was it worse than this?

23 October 2014 NICE calls for an end to postcode lottery of IVF treatment
https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article...-ivf-treatment

nun

The way we rate a service is often anecdotal and relative to our previous experiences. Here is a recent study from a US think tank where the NHS comes out on top when compared with other Western health systems, I'm sure people can come out with surveys where the NHS does poorly...eg in cancer screening and IVF. So maybe we can get beyond the pantomine "he said, she said" stuff.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...irror_2014.pdf

Editha

Yes.

Thirty years ago the waiting list for fertility treatment where I lived was several years, which meant that if you were already in your thirties you had no option but to pay privately. That was just for fertility treatment. Even if a woman got as far as fertility treatment, IVF was not offered to everyone and in those days it was mostly a private treatment.

NICE currently recommends that three courses of IVF treatment should be offered. Some areas offer less and one does not offer IVF at all. Nevertheless this is a huge improvement on the past.

However, formula, I am used to your method of arguing, which is to continuously move the goalposts, so I will remind you of your original statements:
Name one and provide some evidence of that. The NHS does not charge for operations.

This suggests that someone might be refused urgent treatment for an illness because a budget has run out. Give an example of this happening.

This is your one accurate statement. But waiting lists are still not as long as they were in the Thatcher years.

Sally Redux

Agreed.

She appears to have appointed herself guardian of the UK's resources, and hung a big 'Here be dragons' sign out to discourage anyone from using them.

not2old

is this another thread that has drifted away from the OP's two posts?

Sheila, from post 27 - good luck with whatever it is you find or decide.

dunroving

Presumably if the OP worked in the UK for a while and paid some NI, she would then be eligible to use her SS credits to obtain a UK pension?

Must admit I don't fully understand the calculations (despite several attempts!), although I do recall reading what Nun says (bolded above).

What is "minimal" pension under the new rules - is it (a) what you would get for 10 years' NI contributions (the new "minimum years to qualify"), or (b) the new flate rate £145, or whatever it is?

If, say, someone had 30 years' NIC's (35 years now needed to obtain the new flat rate pension), but had some US SS contributions, can they use the SS to "top up" to the 35 years needed for a flat rate pension?

And if you have partial records in both, which would you choose to do (use NICs to qualify for US SS "pension", or use US SS contributions to qualify for UK state pension)?

Editha

I've found this page on it:
International Programs - Totalization Agreement with the United Kingdom

What the reciprocal agreement seems to do (if I'm interpreting it correctly), is allow US and UK contributions to be aggregated to allow someone to claim a pension or other benefits; but only if they haven't paid enough contributions in either country to get any benefits at all.

What is more it only seems to apply to people in particular circumstances, for example someone sent by their American company to work in the UK.

So, I don't think it is likely to have any application to the OP. From what she wrote, she has had a full working life in the US and so will have already qualified for benefits.

not2old

post #41 & 42 ...The OP said that she lived in the UK for a couple of years.

Did she work ever or have an NI number - if so, then just maybe she has an opportunity to top up some or make voluntary NIC's?

theOAP

IF, the OP worked in the UK for two years, she would have paid two years worth of class 1 NICs towards a pension. Under the Totalisation Agreement, she can use her US SSA contributions of eight years in order to obtain the mandatory ten years of contributions to qualify for the UK state pension. BUT, she would only be paid a sum equal to two years worth of contributions as a UK state pension and not ten. She may also have made voluntarily contributions for additional NICs, or use a top-up contribution to increase the amount. Of course, the two years of working contributions to the now obtainable UK state pension will bring about WEP for the US SSA payout.

That's assuming the rules for a UK pension remain at the current minimum qualifying period under the Totalisation Agreement, and isn't altered due to the new UK pension rules, and the Totalisation Agreement remains unchanged in respect to UK pension amounts payable.

theOAP

You would do both, if you had enough years of contributions in both systems to allow it. For example, 8 years in the UK plus 3 in the US.

edit: an annoying itch at the back of my brain says the above statement may be wrong.

EDIT 2: Stand down, the original statement is correct. From the agreement:
"IT HELPS MANY PEOPLE WHO, WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT, WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR MONTHLY RETIREMENT, DISABILITY OR SURVIVORS BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM OF ONE OR BOTH COUNTRIES. You do not need to be qualified in either country, but you do need a minimum amount of weeks or quarters worth of contributions to either (see agreement, usually equal to 18 months).