Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Coming to U.K. Sounds like Something we should try to prevent from happening here

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by 1loserel2
 


Yes indeed, thanks also goes to the reporter and even to the news paper for actually covering it rather than covering it up, which is what news papers usually do.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
It’s just a new means of gathering epidemiological data and all of the information is going to be anonymous. Such information is needed and it makes sense for example if we know exactly how many smokers there are in the UK we can better direct services.


I don't think those who are not from the UK understand how this type of information is a necessity for any organization such as the NHS. I think its one of things that you have to live with, to understand.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 


That is a very astute observation and something I have also noticed particularly on this forum the conspiracies of Big pharma and to a lesser extent Big Brother and the NWO are portrayed from a American perspective. In the UK we have very different systems, the Big Pharma thing doesn’t really apply as much as it does in America.

This thread is a perfect example, the NHS does require this type of epidemiological date to direct services. Many form the UK can recognise this and understand it all be it with some caution. Yet to a American this is a example of Big Brother working in cahoots with Big Pharma.

I wish at times this site was less Americanised and had a more global view.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by spacedog1973
Yet to a American this is a example of Big Brother working in cahoots with Big Pharma.

To my US friends, if it seems that scary to you, don't worry, it's only NHS patient details being taken.

If anyone from the US moved here and became a UK citizen they would always have the right to purchase their own healthcare and totally avoid any records going on the NHS systems.
Pay for a private GP/personal doctor, pay for all treatment at private hospitals, arrange your own private emergency service and wear an SOS bracelet saying "Do not call a tax funded NHS ambulance in the case of emergency" etc.

It is perfectly possible to avoid the NHS if you want, and enjoy a similar situation as in the US, relying solely on healthcare purchased privately. Most people prefer the tax funded system and get the idea that if 'The Government!' wanted details about particular citizens they could obtain it quite easily anyway.
If the stat's help the NHS plan for future trends then I don't really care what info they have, it's all on their database anyway.

Oh, and don't be worrying about 'The Insurance Firms!" having your information, they won't from this new NHS plan if you purchase your own private medical services. But if you make an insurance claim you can rest assured that they won't be paying out until they've checked for no pre-existing medical conditions etc from your private practise doctors records...again, just as it is in the US
edit on 2-2-2013 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedog1973

Originally posted by kozmo

Originally posted by spacedog1973



Everyone Counts: Planning for Patients 2013/14 outlines the incentives and levers that will be used to improve services from April 2013, the first year of the new NHS, where improvement is driven by clinical commissioners.

Everyone counts

Because of the nature of how the NHS works, statistical information about its users helps it to prioritize services and plan its budget more effectively.

Its not sinister.



Oh, and there it is... just like I said. This was posted while I was typing my post and didn't see it. My prediction has become instantly fulfilled.


Not all of us wear tin foil hats.


Apparently, as you're too busy guzzling the Kool Aid to do so.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CthulhuMythos
 


Too bad we don't have more newspapers and reporters like them. Seems as though most are thinking this is a good thing. Oh, well to each his own, i just don't like it being made into my own either, ass I'm sure you don't as well.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


There's an saying (no I don't take it literally) but the old saying goes the devil is in the details)Not necessarily Big pharma, the other Big thing if you know what i mean.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1loserel2
reply to post by grainofsand
 


There's an saying (no I don't take it literally) but the old saying goes the devil is in the details)Not necessarily Big pharma, the other Big thing if you know what i mean.
Again though, this is about NHS patients records only.
No-one is forced to use the NHS in the UK, we can all pay through the nose for private health insurance plans covering doctors to dentists and everything in between - just like the US.
We can all mortgage our homes/choose debt if we have no health insurance, to be able to pay any private medical facility for treatment - just like the US.
We can all miss meals or bills to pay privately for medication - just like the US.

No-one is forced to use the NHS, it is a choice everytime.
If someone cannot afford private healthcare (as many millions of people in the US can not) they are not forced to use the NHS, it is a choice.

If anyone becomes a UK citizen they can avoid this state sponsored intrusion into their privacy by using private healthcare insurance and private medical facilities - just like the US



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Given i visit my docs so rarely they barely have any notes on me and given if they want to use 5-10 year old data then i don't really care



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Who actually tells their doctor about their drinking habits, anyway?

I would never confess to any of that. My doctor has no need to know that, at all. Ever.

It's none of the doctor's business if I'm binge drinking every night and smoking like a freight train. That's my private life, and the only thing that is going to happen is that the doc will scold me about it and it may be used against me at some point later in life.

When it comes to your health, telling things like that to your doctor can only count against you, never help you out.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
After a little reading it appears that this proposed change will undermine some important historical safeguards for patient confidentiality, certainly regarding NHS General Practice doctors (GP's, local family doctors)

Most people have an NHS local doctor. Their records are kept and administered in the local practice and access to them is restricted under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988
At present, the patient confidentiality issue is decided mainly by the doctor personally, but governed by specific laws such as The Infectious Disease (Notification) Act 1889, and regulated by The General Medical Council Confidentiality Guidance.

The new changes will require family doctors to routinely upload patient details quoted by The London Evening Standard to include: Drinking habits, NHS numbers, every illness from diagnosis of cancer to mental illness, reasons for treatment, dates of birth and postcodes.

The information transfer of doctors identifiable patients to other parts of the NHS are so far mainly instigated due to clinical need, but this new proposal will obligate them to provide the information for storage outside of their own records - hence the removal of a large amount of control of confidentiality by the individual doctor.

Yes, this is a big change in the sense that it is assumed that most of the confidentiality for NHS doctor records at present is under the responsibility of the individual doctor. In future, a large bulk of factual patient information, or pretty much everything except the actual conversation with the doctor, will soon be on a central database.

It will of course be easier to access illegally than targeting individual practises, and as long as the identifying NHS number is included in the information it is open to abuse.
For that reason alone I am against the change.

Would a letter to my MP change it?
Will many people care in the UK?
Probably not, but knowing all this will I still choose to use NHS services rather than avoid them? Yes.

I choose the tax funded healthcare option as my paranoia does not outweigh my enjoyment of having plenty of money to fund the various non-conspiracy clouded pastimes in my life..
And again, as stated in my two previous posts here, I can choose an all private healthcare option in the UK, as any US citizen can, no-one is forcing me to use the tax funded NHS.

A big brother tax funded healthcare system is still better than people losing their homes to pay for medical bills, although again, that is still an option for citizens in the UK to choose - as in the US.
edit on 2-2-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I am often one of the first to to counter these sort of reports and label them as sensationalism etc - but I'm not too sure in this case and I for one am not comfortable with the idea of my personal health details being readily available in some sort of database.

Let's face it, there is a massive potential for abuse and it's very existence will attract hackers etc.

I can imagine bankers, employers, security services, insurance companies etc being very interested in the information stored.

And it seems like yet another election promise being broken by The Tories.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Let's face it, there is a massive potential for abuse and it's very existence will attract hackers etc.

I can imagine bankers, employers, security services, insurance companies etc being very interested in the information stored.
Always has been a risk regarding addresses, especially for debt collection agencies as since the 90's everyone who paid tax or claimed benefits was on the then Departmental Central Index.
When I was in the civil service I had access to this closed system and with only a 2% national automatic check popping up needing explanation it was fairly simple to search names/part names/DOB's/areas etc with little fear of being caught. If less than 1% of people with access are criminal minded that's still a lot of people, and I imagine greater than the recorded numbers convicted for data breaches.
I don't imagine the check rates have increased that much, even with new data systems, due to the time/resources involved for managers to record the check, sign it off etc.


And it seems like yet another election promise being broken by The Tories.
No surprise there then, regardless of the political party.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Maybe I am missing the point but.....

It appear's that this new database will be run by the NHS,s Health and Social Care Information Centre....so patient's identifiable information is still being managed by and kept within the NHS system. In which case I couldn't care less to be honest.....
The only reference I saw that suggested there may be a loophole was in this statement....‘The patient identifiable components will not be released outside the safe haven except as permitted by the Data Protection Act.'

I don't think this mean's there is intent to give this information to third party organisation's as this is the same disclaimer you get with any organisation that has you personal information on it's database's....but if this is indeed a loophole to misuse your information then I am more concerned about the Data Protection Act in general which to me is a wider issue.

I haven't really looked into it much with regard's to this whole NHS thing but I will be doing more research....



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Logos23
 
You can request details of your own information held under the data protection act. This would be classed as a release of information from the NHS 'safe haven' for example.
The biggest change is the national database and the obligation on doctors to upload it automatically.
At present the individual practice hold the information and it's release is mainly the personal responsibility of your doctor either for clinical reasons, or with your permission.

edit on 2-2-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
i]reply to post by grainofsand
 


Well if that's the case....as I stated earlier I couldn't really give a stuff about my patient record's and details being held on a central database within the NHS ...I'm failing to see the individual significance for me and how it will impact me on a personal level... perhaps I'm being naive??

Being the mother of a child who as had access to life saving and VERY expensive treatment funded by the NHS ( which incidentally, I couldn't have found better if I had paid for it privately) ....I care more about level's of service and accessibility than where my families data is stored within the NHS....just a matter of traffic to me

If I lived in a country where I relied on private medical insurance I'm assuming that each time I had to use medical service's where the insurance company was paying out, that they would insist on access to my medical history and private detail's from my doctor.....and thus the insurance company would have those same detail's about me on it's own database..... I don't see the difference?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Logos23
 
Totally agree with you Logos, I've been stitched together enough times and watched the birth of my son in an NHS hospital with no-one asking me for payment details at any time, I support the institution strongly.

Corporate Insurance company database? NHS database? Much difference between how a patient controls it?
You're right, I don't see any myself either.

Either way, as I reminded my US friends if only to avoid the usual descent into socialist healthcare arguments, none of us are forced to use the service, we can pay for equal private healthcare if we can afford it.
Of course if we can't afford it, we can also choose to avoid the tax funded NHS with it's evil database and suffer in silence...as many millions do in the US, but not through choice.

edit on 2-2-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


I like you am a huge supporter of the NHS and have got involved on a community level......I read a report that studied seven industrialised countries and the NHS healthcare came out on top for efficiency...compared to the US for example that came bottom for both quality and access to care for those even who were able to pay for good medical insurance. Considering that the US is the most costly healthcare system in the world! I find that rather shocking!

So despite what the UK tabloid's with their agenda's have to say .....I am quite happy sticking with my internationally respected quality of healthcare which is the NHS!



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 


Good i'm glad you have it figured out at least for your country.

However, sadly.we are no longer given too much of a choice as of 2014 thanks in part to a decision by our SCOTUS and final decision went to Chief justice Roberts decided with the majority, they decided we'll have to have mandatory health insurance or be taxed for not having it.
H & R. Block is already advertising about how the Affordable Health Care Act affects this years taxes all 900 pages of that section.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


Your probably more regular than I am. I have to be in real pain too go to one.
edit on 2-2-2013 by 1loserel2 because: add





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join