Why the quality of NHS care is so poor?

Criticising a service which quite frankly is absolutely amazing, simply because you might have to wait every so often or not get the exact service you were hoping for is just selfish.

When you weigh up the cost of healthcare vs the tiny amount of money that comes from your pocket and paid into the system, you are getting an absolute bargain!

The only thing I would say is they should cut some money from defence spending and put it into healthcare but I still stand by my statement and that is the NHS is fantastic, so you have to wait a little or you get a little bit of inconvenience, big woop.

I am very sorry to hear that. I strongly agree with your point that simple check ups should be done without hesitation as they could safe lives and money.Not waiting until things became very serious.Maybe perhaps my case is not that serious but it is still pretty scary I must say and i think the NHS should provide more preventive measures for things which can lead to serious illnesses.

NHS spending per capita is £2,000 a year. That takes into account the whole population. Minus those unemployed, over aged, under aged, economically inactive.. the employment to population ratio is 70:30 so it'd be more than that on average.

I'm not against the NHS and i think its great so yes i agree its money well spent but the quality is dimishing. I have no issue waiting in A&E (if I'm not in immediate danger) but it does let people down... You're right though, it is fantastic in many areas

There's not enough facts here to say for definite but this doesn't sound negligent at all to me (in the legal sense). You need to remember that doctors don't want to be sued for negligence, if the doctors didn't think your aunt needed a blood test for a bloated stomach then there will be a reason why and if part of that reason is that other responsible GPs also would not have sent your aunt for bloods based on her symptoms and what she has described to them then there wouldn't be a successful claim in negligence. I also don't think one person being misdiagnosed would justify a statement like 'the NHS is failing', I can see why you'd think that when it's your relatives and obviously emotive (although I have also had family members misdiagnosed and seriously ill because of it) but I don't think that's the natural conclusion based on one person either

Go private if you don't like it.

The NHS is one of the best things about the UK.

Well that's not really a very helpful comment is it? Most people can't afford to go private. Seeing as there's no option to 'opt out' of paying for the NHS (funded through general taxation) it makes sense that the public should have some say and be able to give their own opinion about whether the quality of the service is really meeting their needs.

Simply saying the NHS is 'the best thing' does nothing for people who have to wait endless amounts of time to gain a single GP appointment etc.

There were no tests at all! She even said to her doctor she thinks its cancer, she had many of the symptoms for cancer to be a suspect... she went to a solicitor regarding the issue who said she had a good case but didn't go forward with it since she didn't want money from them, she also received several apologies from NHS management and the GP's office was taken under new management. I guess its wrong to accuse the whole system of failure (that's not what i intended but clearly that's how its come out) but this isn't a rare story, on top of that the delay for treatment was ridiculous.. she was put in a situation of go private (luckily she had the option) or die... unless something is done soon, even more cases where there is misdiagnosis or too long of a waiting list for vital treatment will occur sadly

Lmao "underfunding"
It lacks efficiency.

I'm sorry this happened to your aunt. But do you have any idea how many patients worry that they have cancer when they don't? Or how many 'cancer symptoms' are both non-specific to cancer and extremely nebulous anyway? How would you solve the problem of trying to test all of those people for a disease they're not likely to have (and I'm assuming you're aware how expensive even 'simple blood tests' are)?

If every single person who was worried about their symptoms was tested for every eventuality without taking into account the likelihood of the risk, costs would be through the roof. Do you appreciate that there simply isn't the money to do what you're suggesting should be done? Unless we're willing to pour literally billions more into the NHS, we need to rationalise tests and services according to statistical likelihoods, as we currently do.

Your previous comment about how your aunt's private doctors 'took some tests and the results came back the next week saying its cancer and has been in her body for a year' doesn't sound quite right. There's no test that I can think of that would definitively tell you anything so specific. With a combination of staging scans and biopsies you might be able to make a good guess at how long a cancer has been present, but it isn't as straightforward as retrospectively saying 'it's been there a year' or 'it's been there a few months', I'm afraid.

nice to see how low you set the bar.

Have you gone back to your GP to get any more tests / a referral?

Just be glad you don't live in the US and many other countries and have to pay money for your treatment, because in many other countries healthcare is expensive. Having free healthcare is one of the best things about the UK.