Gotta Serve Somebody
As a younger GP Partner I think its inexcusable not to have voted, for whatever reason. If it was older GPs then they were wrong not to at least express an opinion based on valued experience. It undermines us as a profession and gives the BMA a solid platform to push ahead with whatever changes they want because we plainly dont care. Lets face it with this level of apathy they are right. I was against the contract (well specifically the creep of stage 2) but wont be moaning about it. As a profession we have spoken, do unto us as you wish.
Well written with some valid points. I do think the loan premises scheme has some merits. Being a retiring gp with a stake in the practice and no gp to replace you would be worrying - as it would be for the younger partners who have to find the money! Hopefully this wont be to the detriment of health board owned premises such as ours. As regards out new title of "expert bla bla", no thanks. Formally leading teams of care managers, district nurses (good luck) etc etc strikes me as a way to make up for the failures of social care. Who's going to be seeing all the patients whislt we discuss the lack of care and nursing home beds. Oh thats right.... physios!!!!
Very well put. A well thought out argument. This whole contract has left me even more jaded with the bma. I thought unions were usupposed to work on behalf of their members, not impose their will/crackpot vision upon the later!
Those voting in favour of this have clearly got Stockholm syndrome from their all their meetings.
Saviour! Not if your a rural GP!
The impact report has arrived and surprise surprise they are slashing our Global sum and topping it up with a "payment protection". Anyone got any idea how long this "protection" lasts? If they cut the global sum by the amount they are suggesting there will fewer GPs to serve the local community. By fewer I mean none!
This certainly wont help with the rural recruitment crisis.