Trouble in paradise (UK)

[SteveW]

Saw this today when web browsing for another article. I was under the impression that everyone in Great Britain liked the National Health Service. Apparently, though, I was wrong, and they appear to be having some difficulty recruiting enough MDs to run their medical services.

************************************************** ****************


Daily Mail (London), March 22, 2011

The level of English among some foreign doctors is ‘absolutely awful’, hospital bosses have said.

Some cannot even speak well enough to communicate with patients, they warned.

Bosses at Queen’s Hospital in Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, revealed the poor level of English in their doctors from overseas after complaints from both staff and patients.

Chief executive of the Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Helen Ashley said many of the problems centred on them being unable to understand English sufficiently.

The hospital is struggling to employ middle grade, registrar-level doctors, and has on occasion to employ a locum doctor to cover a shift, Ms Ashley said.

While the application process for consultants involved their English and communication skills being tested with simulation of a meeting with a patient, Ms Ashley said she could not account for the English skills of locums, who work at the hospital on a temporary basis.

Helen Ashley said the hospital has been forced to rely on locums whose English isn’t always up to standard

She added doctors from India and Pakistan had similar training to English doctors but due to changes to the NHS recruitment process and the drop in the value of the pound, many now prefer to go to work in countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

The chairman of the Burton Hospitals Trust, Jim Morrison, said: ‘I don’t want to sound racist, but some of the worst-speaking doctors that I have come across have been from Europe.

‘They are free to travel in Europe and occasionally their communication of English can be absolutely awful.’

Local people in the town have also complained about the issue.

Chairman of East Staffordshire Borough Council’s health sub-committee, Trevor Hathaway, told a meeting at Burton Town Hall: ‘A couple of weeks ago, a relative of mine met a consultant and he couldn’t understand a word he was saying.

‘Not only that, the nurse had to tell him what to write on the paperwork.’

Ms Ashley added: ‘That’s not the first time I have heard that, or seen it in a complaint letter.

‘We had one doctor there were two or three complaints about his language skills.

‘He was hard to understand.’

[Ian Gills]

American doctors are pretty hard to understand because they don't speak Queen's english either.

I am amazed at how many doctors and nurses you have here that were born abroad. Many of them trained in England and worked in English hospitals before coming to the US. There are many many nurses and doctors working in American hospitals who were born in Iran, China, India and elsewhere.

And virtually all think the British way is a better way.

The word on the street in American hospitals is that health care here has become all about the money and not about the patient.

And I would agree.

But that's your system. So live with it. Get ill and go to God. Because nobody here is going to help you.

That's called the American dream. Sink or swim. And dog eat dog. Unless you have God. In which case the congregation will help you.

So believe or die.

Just like other countries we know.

40 to kill one man. And only one person shot at them. Hardly an elite team. More like a field trip! The tea party should be up in arms at such a waste of taxpayers' money. But no. They'd rather target the poor American's healthcare than military waste.

[SteveW]

Ian, you are a hoot!

Never know what you're going to say next.

By the way, we actually test our incoming candidates for medical training for English proficiency. I understand in the British system the EU won't let you do this -

absolutely amazing!

Hope they can sleep at night.

[Cookie]

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada
Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 12:55 PM
Wesley J. Smith
One of the excellent aspects of the current American health care system is that most people can get immediate help if they become very ill. Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying.

I decided to do a little research on cancer survival rates, and it turns out USA is # 1. From the fact sheet put out in 07 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology :

•American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.] •American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
•Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
•For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

But what about Canada, Wesley? Canada is the ideal of single payer health care:

Canada’s system of national health insurance is often cited as a model for the United States. But an analysis of 2001 to 2003 data by June O’Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, and economist David O’Neill, found that overall cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Canada:

•For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
•For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

Early diagnosis is the key, which gets us to the crucial screening issue:

It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment. For example, a Commonwealth Fund report showed that women in the United States were more likely to get a PAP test for cervical cancer every two years than women in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Great Britain, where health insurance is guaranteed by the government.

* In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.
* The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.

[Cookie]

I don't understand why it took so much security to protect 2 people on their wedding day Ian, to the tune of a 33 million dollars? Instead of spending that kind of money, they could have had a quiet event just meant for the 2 of them, and put that kind of money to better use. That would had fed a lot of people.

[Jerome2877]

In January 2006, it was revealed that data had been fabricated in an article[11] by the Norwegian cancer researcher Jon Sudbø and 13 co-authors published in The Lancet in October 2005.[12][13] Several articles in other scientific journals were withdrawn following the withdrawal in The Lancet. Within a week, the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine published an expression of editorial concern regarding its published research papers by the same author and in November 2006, the journal withdrew two oral cancer studies led by the Norwegian researcher.[14]

[Cookie]

The Norwegian people have a lessor survivial rate than previously, thought.

[Jerome2877]

The problem like I have said before is your healthcare is for people who can afford the right to live in the U.S. We all have that right in Canada and I am proud of this!

[Cookie]

It never ceases to amaze me just how little people realize and know of my country. I am very proud of the USA! We are truly the best country to live in, to be born in, and to get sick in. God bless America.

[Ian Gills]

Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying.

This is just false.

The fact of the matter is you will live as long, if not longer, in Canada and the UK.

The only difference is we do not pay as much for our healthcare because the State (as the major buyer) can push down prices.

Why do Americans fail to realize that they are just suckers?

Save yourselves some money and change the system.

Or continue to believe big business who want you to pay more.

[Cookie]

Time is of the essence in treating most diseases, especially the big c. Now, Ian, you can believe what you care to believe, but, because of my fate, I am heavily involved in this realm, and, trust me on this, your health care system really does suck for one huge reason, Ian: Time. Time is NOT on the side of your patients. That is the truth. You do not like Americans, and I could care less, I have no reason to lie.

Besides, how would you know? You do not live there, and when you get cancer, make sure you move back there for your tx's as not to burden ours.

[Cookie]

Plus, the recent seminar I attended was discussing about Canada and the UK cutting back on their healthcare because they cannot afford it.

Plus, their was discussion on this, for your information, and this is with a country who sometimes, do not have bandages.

The Associated Press October 22, 2010, 10:55AM ET text size: TTCuba gives details on new tax system
By PAUL HAVEN


Cuba has laid out details of a sweeping tax system for the newly self-employed -- a crucial step in the socialist state's plan to convert hundreds of thousands of state workers into self-employed businesspeople.

The tax code described in a two-page spread in the Communist Party newspaper Granma will have many Cubans paying more than a third of their income to the state, while those who create businesses and hire their own employees will pay more.

Cuba announced last month that it was laying off half a million state workers -- nearly 10 percent of the island's work force -- while opening up more avenues for self employment.

At times, the article reads like a children's lesson for a population with little experience at entrepreneurship -- and almost none with the concept of taxes. It also offers a detailed peek at a mix of levies that would be complicated even for an accountant.

Throughout, there is an attempt to soften the blow by explaining that no government can provide services without revenue.

"Perhaps because Cubans are used to receiving medical care without taking a penny out of our pocket, or studying for free at any educational center we want, few stop to ask where the money the state uses for this comes from," the article reads.

Those selling goods and services will pay a 10 percent income tax monthly, as well as another 25 percent into a social security account, from which they will eventually draw a pension.

Those who hire employees also will also have to pay a 25 percent payroll tax. The article says taxes will rise for successful businesses with many employees, but does not give details.

"The tax has a regulatory character in order to avoid a concentration of wealth or the indiscriminate use of the labor force," the article says. "The more people hired, the higher the tax burden."

Anyone making more than 50,000 Cuban pesos ($2,400) a year will have to open a bank account and keep detailed books -- perhaps creating a market for the private accountants who will be allowed under the economic reforms. Those who earn less need only maintain a list of income and costs. Most Cuban state workers make about $20 a month.

The article says people in some forms of self-employment will be exempt from the 10 percent tax and instead will pay a fixed amount each month, regardless of what they make. It does not say which jobs will be eligible for this approach, however, nor say how much tax workers will pay. These workers will also be obligated to pay the social security tax.

The reforms are an effort to breathe life into a dormant socialist economy that can no longer afford to provide free or nearly free health care, education and basic food to its population. They are the most significant adopted by the communist government since at least the early 1990s.

The new system borrows many aspects of capitalism, while keeping in place Cuba's state-dominated control of the economy. Citizens will be allowed to apply for licenses to work for themselves in just 178 areas, from car maintenance to rabbit farming, accounting to circus clown.

[Cookie]

Ian, I suggest you go apply for one of those licenses, ie., clown.

[SteveW]

Cookie, you nailed it!

Got this from BBC News:

************************************************** **********************
There is a huge variation in cancer survival rates across the world, a global study shows.
The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported.
The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours - although the data is from the 1990s since when survival rates have risen.
Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.
Researchers said higher spending often meant quicker access to tests and treatment.
************************************************** ************

[Jerome2877]

Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.
Researchers said higher spending often meant quicker access to tests and treatment

Sure for people that are covered! What about those who can't afford it? They are certainly not part of these studies are they? Why? Because they don't have the right to live so no treatment for you and we won't count that death because we didn't treat them!