[mclouts91]

NHS is focused on the appropriate allocation of resources to the problem. It strikes an excellent balance of doing the right work when necessary and based on probabilities. If you have evidence that the process recommended by the nhs is failing patients in statistically significant numbers I would agree with you on them not doing enough tests but frankly, I think NHS would perform very well if it was adequately resourced (it’s currently starved of necessary funding).

The NHS follows a strict set of guidelines for the identification and treatment of illnesses. They do not act like medical businesses such as hospitals whose goal is to do as much testing as they can justify to get more money from insurers.

[lupire]

That's nice, but when I'm sick, I want to get well, and I might be willing to pay for it with my money, time, or labor.

I don't want to die just because it's more cost efficient for the government to save two others.

[DanBC]

That's not the argument being made.

If you're not sick you should not be subjected to too much testing, because the risk is that you are diagnosed with a thing that will not harm you. And once you're diagnosed with it the tendency is to treat you for it. Treatment is not a neutral option, it carries risk.

Over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment all contribute to patient harm.

[switch007]

The argument was that the NHS does the exact correct amount of testing, diagnosis and treatment. That’s patently false.

The NHS regularly fails me, my friends, my family by refusing to do diagnostics while clearly sick. My GP refused to test me for Lyme disease even though I had lots of classic symptoms and had been in close contact with a deer (because he believed they’re not an issue in the area.)

I feel we’ve strayed quite far from my original point but that’s to be expected in any religious discussion.