Page 5 of 5
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:30 am
by Devil
geoffreys wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:33 am
I think, therefore, that the Nigerian Govt should be billed for her NHS costs - assuming Nigeria was where she started her journey.
If she started it in another country that country should be billed; because she should NOT have been allowed to fly so close
to giving birth. It must have been obvious she was pregnant with 4 babies!
Geoff.
Ah! So now you're a medical practitioner who can foresee when a lady can go into labour. My congrats. There was no question of her being ready to go into labour. I'm not sure whether she was actually on the plane to Nigeria or waiting to board. I've little doubt that the stress of the flight would have some effect. Doctor, how do you know 'she should NOT have been allowed to fly so close
to giving birth' when she was still 3 months from term?
May I respectfully suggest you read the facts before spouting forth?
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:38 am
by Jim B
Jacs
You are correct. Prior to getting married I took my wife on holiday to the UK three times and part of the process was health insurance and a return ticket which had to be submitted with the application.
Jim
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:44 am
by geoffreys
Devil wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:30 am
geoffreys wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:33 am
I think, therefore, that the Nigerian Govt should be billed for her NHS costs - assuming Nigeria was where she started her journey.
If she started it in another country that country should be billed; because she should NOT have been allowed to fly so close
to giving birth. It must have been obvious she was pregnant with 4 babies!
Geoff.
Ah! So now you're a medical practitioner who can foresee when a lady can go into labour. My congrats. There was no question of her being ready to go into labour. I'm not sure whether she was actually on the plane to Nigeria or waiting to board. I've little doubt that the stress of the flight would have some effect. Doctor, how do you know 'she should NOT have been allowed to fly so close
to giving birth' when she was still 3 months from term?
May I respectfully suggest you read the facts before spouting forth?
I would have thought if she was so close to actually giving birth to quadruplets it would be pretty obvious she should not be flying
jut by her physical size.
I would suggest it is quite probable the trip was deliberately designed so her offsprings would have a US birth cert/passport.
There MIGHT have been collusion at the airport of departure.
Medical tourists, with or without adequate funds, not only are a cost to the NHS but cause bed/capacity shortages.
Do you agree with me the Nigerian Govt should be billed for her costs to the NHS of £250K or whatever it was?
Do we know why she was refused entry into the US?
Geoff.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:13 pm
by smudger
Thanks for that clarification Jim, so now I'm puzzled. How come there are all these people without travel insurance??
I've just checked on gov.uk and whilst they don't list all the categories of people who do need visas to enter the UK, the group of people who don't need them looks pretty restrictive, so what am I missing??
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:03 pm
by outasite
All "health tourists" and the NHS must know who is and who isn't surely, should have the approximate cost of whatever procedure they are having advised to them and 50% paid up front before any procedure begins. This includes those with insurance as it would be interesting to see how many policies allow for a procedure rather than an emergency. Of course, emergencies should be attended to immediately.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 2:19 pm
by Jim B
Hi Jacs
The UK Embassy in Kazakhstan used to issue Visas for both the UK and Cyprus and used the same criteria for both countries; In fact it was easier to get a Visa for Cyprus from the Cypriot Embassy in Moscow than it was to get one from the British Embassy in Almaty.
I can only put it down to collusion and bribery in certain countries because I know going down the legal route is very strict.
Jim
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:00 pm
by Devil
In 1990, I had a sudden cardiac condition while in the USA and was rushed into a small hospital in NH. They called a cardiologist from a nearby city. He took one look at me and connected an external pacemaker within 30 minutes of arriving. He then asked how I would pay, and I replied that I wasn't sure whether or how much my insurance would cover it. He replied,
'It doesn't matter, let's get you well again and then we can discuss money.' After 3 days in Intensive Care, the ticker had settled down a bit and he inserted an internal pacemaker. 1 more day in IC and one in a general room. The bill came to $32,000. I paid it back over a year, as my insurance covered only the hospital hotellery costs, prescriptions, about 10% of the total. And this after hearing all the (exaggerated) horror stories that US hospitals always require the cash up-front before starting treatment.
If you want a horror story, fast track to 2004 when the second pacemaker needed replacement. Done at Nicosia General, complete with an implanted infection. After a few weeks, back to NGH as the skin round the pacemaker started to necrose. During the treatment, the pacemaker literally fell out through the necrosed skin. The alarms on the monitor rang and the crash cart arrived within a matter of seconds. In the meanwhile, I had pushed the gizmo back into my chest and got it working again, as the return circuit was completed. I was back in OR within an hour and another pacemaker was implanted on the other side after the infected area was sealed off. After the new implant was sewn up and dressed and sealed off, they then started to ablate and clean up the necrosis. 5 days in NGH intensive care - Ugh!
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/infect ... ic-devices
And that cost me nothing!
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:13 pm
by geoffreys
Devil wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:00 pm
In 1990, I had a sudden cardiac condition while in the USA and was rushed into a small hospital in NH. They called a cardiologist from a nearby city. He took one look at me and connected an external pacemaker within 30 minutes of arriving. He then asked how I would pay, and I replied that I wasn't sure whether or how much my insurance would cover it. He replied,
'It doesn't matter, let's get you well again and then we can discuss money.' After 3 days in Intensive Care, the ticker had settled down a bit and he inserted an internal pacemaker. 1 more day in IC and one in a general room. The bill came to $32,000. I paid it back over a year, as my insurance covered only the hospital hotellery costs, prescriptions, about 10% of the total. And this after hearing all the (exaggerated) horror stories that US hospitals always require the cash up-front before starting treatment.
If you want a horror story, fast track to 2004 when the second pacemaker needed replacement. Done at Nicosia General, complete with an implanted infection. After a few weeks, back to NGH as the skin round the pacemaker started to necrose. During the treatment, the pacemaker literally fell out through the necrosed skin. The alarms on the monitor rang and the crash cart arrived within a matter of seconds. In the meanwhile, I had pushed the gizmo back into my chest and got it working again, as the return circuit was completed. I was back in OR within an hour and another pacemaker was implanted on the other side after the infected area was sealed off. After the new implant was sewn up and dressed and sealed off, they then started to ablate and clean up the necrosis. 5 days in NGH intensive care - Ugh!
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/infect ... ic-devices
And that cost me nothing!
But I assume you had an entry visa for the USA (??)
Geoff.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:57 pm
by smudger
Wow Devil, you really believe in living life in the fast lane!! Wish you continued health, wealth and happiness! And postings here!
Jacs
Re: Brexit
Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:00 am
by Dominic
Here being the Moderate forum. If you want to be less than moderate there is now a new thread in the pit.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:19 pm
by Dominic
Would anybody object if I split this thread, and moved the posts about medical matters to their own thread in the Health section? It's just that there may be information of use to some people in those comments, and people are less likely to see them if they have to wade through five pages of Brexit banter first.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:27 pm
by Dominic
The useful stuff can now be found here:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=579&p=6156#p6156
Brexit guff continues right here.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:49 pm
by Rita Sherry
Dominic
Thank you very much and I am sorry to have hijacked this topic but as I am sure you will understand I was interested in what Devil had had to say re his experience as I am so close to having to have my pacemaker replaced. See there is a reply from Devil and information from Lloyd (HIC) so will now remove myself to the appropriate place for my matter and leave this place for those wishing to debate the relevant merits of Brexit. Thank you again.
Rita
Re: Brexit
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:04 pm
by Dominic
Really no need to apologise Rita.

Re: Brexit
Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:40 am
by outasite
I agree with Dominic, Rita. This is how conversations go. And having got that info from Devil, aren't you glad you read yet another Brexit thread. Go welll, stay well.


Re: Brexit
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 6:51 am
by geoffreys
Many thanks for that Happy in Cyprus.
I hope UK will just tell them to "F.." off.
Geoff.
Re: Brexit
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:15 am
by Ramone
Geoff,
I think a bit more diplomacy would more convincing.
I.E. " Va te faire foutre "
Re: Brexit
Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 10:04 am
by geoffreys
Ramone wrote: ↑Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:15 am
Geoff,
I think a bit more diplomacy would more convincing.
I.E. " Va te faire foutre "
Mais oui mon ami! Merci bien.
Geoff.