NCT for cars once a year, why not for people?

Stinicker

Just thinking about this today, our cars get tested once every 2 years and every year when greater than 10 years. We actually test our cars and look after them better than our bodies.

There should be a mandatory health screen programme once a year for people, check for all the cancers, diabetes, prostate, diet advice, blood tests, std screen, cardiac and physio etc. It could cut the risk of heart attack, lower cholesterol etc.

I'm no medical expert but it would make a hell of alot of sense, the majority of diseases and illnesses can be treated and cured if caught early. I am sure that the costs of such a programme would be offset by the savings in catching diseases earlier, less people on sick time and it would lead to a much healthier populace I imagine.

I wonder is it done anywhere else world wide?

Samich

Good idea. But the NCT is just a money making thing anyways and they already have excuses to take money of people so don't need another.

Luap

I knew a woman once, she died soon afterwards.

RichieC

We don't weigh a ton and kill people if we suddenly keel over or break something while sprinting.

Dubit10

Your around 70 years too late for the master race fella.

quietriot

I know that in some parts of Eastern Europe you get thorough health checks yearly as part of the taxes you pay, however their rates of tax are higher and, well, you know Irish people...not the most reasonable of people. They'd want the same care but for free, otherwise it'd be an outrage Joe.

People can get all the tests you listed, they do cost a lot though. I wouldn't be prepared to have it as a public service.

dxhound2005

Maloney_o9 wrote: »

I knew a woman once, she died soon afterwards.

Did she catch something from you?

Irish Steve

Samich wrote: »

Good idea. But the NCT is just a money making thing anyways and they already have excuses to take money of people so don't need another.

You might see it that way. Like it or not, the NCT is the difference between the country running around in bent mangled heaps that should have been crushed years earlier, and using vehicles that have had a relatively unbiased and recent check of their condition to ensure that they are meeting at least a minimal standard of roadworthiness.

Just try looking at any photographs taken in the late 80's and early 90's if you don't believe me, there were things on the road then that were blatantly unsafe and unfit to be used. At least they are now consigned to history.

SeaFields

If you are relying on the public healthcare system, being informed enough to make a lifestyle change that saves yourself from a major health problem could also save the taxpayer money in the longterm.

Eitherway, interesting idea OP.

44leto

You cab get one if you want, but like the NCT you would have to pay, but a sh!t lot more money.

Liam Byrne

Domo230 wrote: »

Because if a car is faulty it can endanger other peoples lives and not just the driver.






You being in poor health is unlikely to put other peoples lives at risk.

What if you're driving your NCT-friendly car at the time that you pass out ?

Born to Die

Domo230 wrote: »

Because if a car is faulty it can endanger other peoples lives and not just the driver.






You being in poor health is unlikely to put other peoples lives at risk.

What if you are carrying zombie flu and driving around the country picking up hookers in your recently NCT passed car.

M cebee

i'd like an annual screening for scumbag syndrome

get them off the streets

Captain Chaos

Domo230 wrote: »

Because if a car is faulty it can endanger other peoples lives and not just the driver.






You being in poor health is unlikely to put other peoples lives at risk.

Unless you happen to die while driving a car at high speed.

Tora Bora

Maloney_o9 wrote: »

I knew a woman once, she died soon afterwards.

There are people dying nowadays, who never died before.:cool:

Tora Bora

Stinicker wrote: »

Just thinking about this today, our cars get tested once every 2 years and every year when greater than 10 years. We actually test our cars and look after them better than our bodies.

There should be a mandatory health screen programme once a year for people, check for all the cancers, diabetes, prostate, diet advice, blood tests, std screen, cardiac and physio etc. It could cut the risk of heart attack, lower cholesterol etc.

I'm no medical expert but it would make a hell of alot of sense, the majority of diseases and illnesses can be treated and cured if caught early. I am sure that the costs of such a programme would be offset by the savings in catching diseases earlier, less people on sick time and it would lead to a much healthier populace I imagine.

I wonder is it done anywhere else world wide?

Great idea altogether. Then, we could close the loop, and bring in a cash for clunkers scheme.:o

Capt'n Midnight

The likes of VHI are asking for a grand a year for full cover without offering free screening


Free annual health checks for all sounds like a good idea, allow people to opt out, but charge the difference between the what their treatment cost compared to what it would have cost ...

I'm sure someone could put a figure on the number of lives that could be saved, but it would cost money in the short term


people could get screened for cholesterol too. so only those at risk would have to worry about reducing their intake. Cholesterol , despite all the "healthy options " ads to the contrary isn't a problem for most people

earpiece

Hey, this a great idea..... but, I see a problem, this is Ireland and we can't seem to test those whom need to be tested as is!

thecornflake

earpiece wrote: »

Hey, this a great idea..... but, I see a problem, this is Ireland and we can't seem to test those whom need to be tested as is!

So true, we can't even cope with what we have atm let alone bringing in another ~ 5 million people through the system every year.

antodeco

Free prostate massages for all!

Chuck Stone

It might cost more than it saves. 4.5 million people being tested annually or biannually would involve a lot of resources and what would be the rationale?

Fat folks still gonna munch.
Smokers gonna smoke.
Drinkers gonna booze.
Stoners gonna toke.

etc.

Cianos

Those who lead unhealthy lives actually save the health system money, because they die quicker. Those who live long healthy lives use more resources, because when they eventually become dependent, they take so long to go.

2 stroke

What we need is an annual road test.

Capt'n Midnight

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It might cost more than it saves. 4.5 million people being tested annually or biannually would involve a lot of resources and what would be the rationale?

make it conditional on having a medical card or for doctors who get funds form the HSA

4.5m x €50 = €225million a year

That's less than 1.7% of the HSE budget this year ( €13.317bn )
so not a big cost compared to the average annual HSE spend of €3,000 on each of us.

As an aside full genome sequencing can be done for less than €1,000 so if you ignore the privacy issues and factor in the Moore's Law price drops this and other lab on a chip screening could be cost effective very soon. I'll repeat that again , the cost per year of DNA screening works out a €14 per year of normal life expectancy. And that cost will drop further. In fact that could done using the existing heel prick test blood samples stored in Holles Street.


If you do it as a one stop shop where people can get vaccinations etc. on the same visit it's real cost drops. There are perhaps economies of scale too. The lab tests / referrals are essentially free, since they would have to be done anyway, this is just an annual health check and up to the doctor to decide what tests to run (doctor must gets no kickback for tests), not a private company who have to justify the costs of equipment and so like to do tests "to be on the safe side"


Hopefully it would have value added as it could catch people who would otherwise never visit, stuff like depression, domestic violence , whatever.

biko

We could have a VRT too for Irish guys dating Polish chicks.

token101

The entire thing would be completely pointless if it was opt out, that would just be advising people there would be a free yearly check up which people can get anyway!

Forcing people to go to doctors is wrong. It's my life, I'll go if I feel like it, if I don't I won't. If I want to sit at home and eat a diet of battered sausages dipped in dripping followed by a crate of Dutch whilst smoking unfiltered Major as I inject heroin into my eyelids, that's my decision. I don't want some dickhead in a coat telling me judgementally that I'm not roadworthy and need a liver or new eyes. I'll go to the doc when I'm good and ready.

On a slightly more serious note, people with depression may not want to be diagnosed. Having depression on your medical records isn't something people might want and may choose to deal with it their own way in their own time. It's not nanny state's job to tell them otherwise.

Lando Griffin

Is there not some kind of home prostate kit available, Im sure the OH was trying to get one around Christmas as a present.

smash

Little problem here... over 4m people and fúck all hospitals/GP's to take on the patients.

opinion guy

Detailed annual health screening for everyone would be wasteful. Besides, we can't deal with the sick people we already have.

Cianos wrote: »

Those who lead unhealthy lives actually save the health system money, because they die quicker. Those who live long healthy lives use more resources, because when they eventually become dependent, they take so long to go.

Not true. Infirmity is not necessarily just down to age. Just because someone is old does not mean they are automatically using up resources. A 50 year old diabetic is likely using far more resources than an 85 year old healthy person still able to look after themselves

amacachi

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

make it conditional on having a medical card or for doctors who get funds form the HSA

4.5m x €50 = €225million a year

That's less than 1.7% of the HSE budget this year ( €13.317bn )
so not a big cost compared to the average annual HSE spend of €3,000 on each of us.

As an aside full genome sequencing can be done for less than €1,000 so if you ignore the privacy issues and factor in the Moore's Law price drops this and other lab on a chip screening could be cost effective very soon. I'll repeat that again , the cost per year of DNA screening works out a €14 per year of normal life expectancy. And that cost will drop further. In fact that could done using the existing heel prick test blood samples stored in Holles Street.


If you do it as a one stop shop where people can get vaccinations etc. on the same visit it's real cost drops. There are perhaps economies of scale too. The lab tests / referrals are essentially free, since they would have to be done anyway, this is just an annual health check and up to the doctor to decide what tests to run (doctor must gets no kickback for tests), not a private company who have to justify the costs of equipment and so like to do tests "to be on the safe side"


Hopefully it would have value added as it could catch people who would otherwise never visit, stuff like depression, domestic violence , whatever.

What kind of screening are ya gonna get for 50 quid?

amacachi

opinion guy wrote: »

Not true. Infirmity is not necessarily just down to age. Just because someone is old does not mean they are automatically using up resources. A 50 year old diabetic is likely using far more resources than an 85 year old healthy person still able to look after themselves

Pension? Nursing homes? There's a lot of expenses for more-or-less healthy old people to be taken into consideration.

token101

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Is there not some kind of home prostate kit available, Im sure the OH was trying to get one around Christmas as a present.

Tell her to shove it up her hole.

Chuck Stone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

4.5m x €50 = €225million a year

That's less than 1.7% of the HSE budget this year ( €13.317bn )
so not a big cost compared to the average annual HSE spend of €3,000 on each of us.

€50 for a medical? That would be a very basic medical that would probably have little impact on catching early problems.

Again, what would be the rationale for a yearly health test? What do you do when people are overweight or smoke or abuse substances?

Hopefully it would have value added as it could catch people who would otherwise never visit, stuff like depression, domestic violence , whatever.

People who aren't going to visit for domestic violence and depression will not suddenly spill their guts if they are forced to go for a €50 check up. Maybe one in 20 will but would they have anyway of their own volition or by a public awareness campaign?

There are questions being raised as to the cost benefits of routine breast cancer screening which highlight how 'over egging the pudding' is a distinct possibility when it comes to health screening.

A DNA test at birth might be something parents could sign up for if privacy was an iron clad guarantee.

c_man

Stinicker wrote: »

There should be a mandatory health screen programme once a year for people

And if I fail, then what?

Doc Ruby

Stinicker wrote: »

There should be a mandatory health screen programme once a year for people, check for all the cancers, diabetes, prostate, diet advice, blood tests, std screen, cardiac and physio etc. It could cut the risk of heart attack, lower cholesterol etc.

I'm well in favour of this. Almost nothing can kill you or make you seriously ill if its caught early enough. It would save SO MUCH MONEY in healthcare. Not to mention so many lives.

Capt'n Midnight

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There are questions being raised as to the cost benefits of routine breast cancer screening which highlight how 'over egging the pudding' is a distinct possibility when it comes to health screening.

Invsive tests like X-Rays and Cat scans are more likely to be of no benefit.

How much does it cost to get a garage to look at your car ?

How much does the NCT cost ?

This is about giving doctors €225 million, BUT they have to work for it.

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2011/08AUG11/220811-Rise-in-points-at-UCD-follows-economic-trend.html
Medical in UCD 738 points
Enginneering, Science, Business, Languages are all in the 400's

amacachi

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Invsive tests like X-Rays and Cat scans are more likely to be of no benefit.

How much does it cost to get a garage to look at your car ?

How much does the NCT cost ?

This is about giving doctors €225 million, BUT they have to work for it.

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2011/08AUG11/220811-Rise-in-points-at-UCD-follows-economic-trend.html
Medical in UCD 738 points
Enginneering, Science, Business, Languages are all in the 400's

Not sure what the point of that link is but you don't mention that the 738 includes the score from an aptitude test as well as LC results.

Nothingbetter2d

Maloney_o9 wrote: »

I knew a woman once, she died soon afterwards.

i also knew a woman once she also died soon after.... it must be an epidemic.

Chuck Stone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How much does it cost to get a garage to look at your car ?

How much does the NCT cost ?

I think the car - human comparison is unhelpful.

Cars have spare parts and don't need hospital beds and don't need to be cared for like a human. If it breaks down you can leave it lying there for a month or two before deciding whether you're going to fix it or scrap it. Cars are nowhere near as complicated as a humans as I'm sure you're fully aware of.

This is about giving doctors €225 million, BUT they have to work for it.

I'm not sure where you're going with this tbh.

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2011/08AUG11/220811-Rise-in-points-at-UCD-follows-economic-trend.html
Medical in UCD 738 points

I'm not sure how this is relevant either although I do think the costs of health care could be driven down if there were more medical professionals coming out of the system or coming in from abroad*.



*I have no idea if there are obstacles put in their way but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were.

robindch

Stinicker wrote: »

I wonder is it done anywhere else world wide?

Yes, I believe it's done in Cuba, where each GP is required to see each patient in his/her catchment area at least once a year.

Last time I checked, Cuba's life expectancy is the same as Canada's for something like 10% of the cost.

token101

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I'm well in favour of this. Almost nothing can kill you or make you seriously ill if its caught early enough. It would save SO MUCH MONEY in healthcare. Not to mention so many lives.

What if you catch a bullet in the head? Or you catch a tiger by the balls? If you catch an early train and it crashes into a river? Or you catch your nuts in a low lying door handle and you're left alone to die in a pool of your own blood? What if you catch your mam catching you catching yourself. You can't recover from any of these situations. Your argument is an absolute sham.

opinion guy

amacachi wrote: »

Pension? Nursing homes? There's a lot of expenses for more-or-less healthy old people to be taken into consideration.

Not all old people require nursing homes. Do you have any idea the cost of treating diabetes ? Its staggering. A diagnosis of diabetes carries the following implications - regular check ups with GP, endocrinologist, diabetes nurse, regular eye screening, BUCKETS of medications including insulin, eventually after 10 or 15 years if not sooner, high risk kidney disease possibly including dialysis and or transplant, high risk of stroke/heart attack and all that involves (i.e. expensive ****) etc etc and so on with lots of other potential complications I can't think of.

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I believe it's done in Cuba, where each GP is required to see each patient in his/her catchment area at least once a year.

Last time I checked, Cuba's life expectancy is the same as Canada's for something like 10% of the cost.

Don't Cuba run roughshod over international patent agreements and make cheap generic versions of expensive drugs ? There is more to health costs than GP appointments