which leads to the inevitable conclusion - politics and healthcare shouldn't be mixed. I.e socialised medicine harms everyone, through waste, misuse, corruption, lack of quality and affordability, removal of individual responsibility... Wisen up, choose limited govt.
"immediate policies to stem the demand"???
1. charge patients for appts, DNAs, etc. + prescriptions in Scotland
2. No prescribing of otc meds unless nursing/elderly care.
ahem... SELLOUT!.... ahem
|Curious | Locum GP|30 Oct 2019 11:13pm
You are assuming its IGNORANCE that has led to this. What's much more likely is that its just like what Parliament is doing to Brexit - malevolent, treacherous, sinister, corrupt. Surveys won't do f*k all. They don't and have NEVER cared. Whilst "revolution" might be a step too far, we better wise up and vote increasingly to LIMIT the power of the state.
The solution is not to sue them. The decision makers don't suffer, they get paid off and move on to something else. And who pays the legal costs? We, the taxpayers do. And the lawyers get richer. The only long term viable solution, is to DESOCIALISE HEALTHCARE, DECENTRALISE GOVT.
What I'm surprised at Jaimie, is you expected it ANY other way.... almost betraying a naivety/ignorance....
This is what happens when we 'agreed' to a bulk contract, with a huge power imbalance in favour of the state...
Direct competition for/from the 'clients' is the only promoter of quality I'm afraid, and there is simply none of that in our current system
|Truth finder | GP Partner/Principal|30 Oct 2019 9:57am
This country lacks personal responsibility.
- and what do you think is entirely responsible for that? Socialism is fundamentally taking responsibility from individuals and placing it on the state...
When Person B holds a gun to person C's head and says - give me your money so I can 'act now' to avert this 'crisis'...
Even if Person C says I don't believe this at all.
Person B is downright dangerous and sinister.
Vinci - you should have EVERYTHING AGAINST social prescribing. Its your taxes too that are being frittered away on this vanity project.
|Truth finder | GP Partner/Principal|22 Oct 2019 2:44pm
- if only it was through ignorance that they're not. Its highly likely that there is a more sinister explanation, and which is more universal too - Govt agencies tend to propagate/exacerbate problems they were created to solve, as their continued survival/funding is dependent on the problem in the first place.
You know that's not going to happen, Cops. Its a state bureaucracy, i.e. it is funded by the state and comes from the top. Only the top can get rid of it or even force it to change. How can we influence that? We stop voting for the status quo, for big government, and go for the TRUE libertarians, not the fake tories/labour-lite.
Jaimie, how much more can you take and how much longer would you wait, before you decide that the CQC can't be reformed, and should be disbanded???
|Ivan Benett | Salaried GP|02 Oct 2019 11:32am
To counter you - NOTHING works for all.
You can have 2 out of 3 of - Universality, Affordability, Quality.
You want the NHS to be universal and "high quality/low waiting times"? You bankrupt the country. You want to keep it affordable? You have to ration, i.e waiting times. A private system provides competition, and that promotes affordability and quality. You also incentivise the public to strive to cover their own invidividual health responsibilities and maybe those of their close ones too. (Are you going to tell me that promoting closer familial ties is a bad thing?) You might even convince the more fortunate in life of the utility of generosity towards strangers.
Compelling via a 3rd party/the state results in 1. LESS altruism. 2. abuse/misuse. 3. ANY state comes with "under resourcing, pitifully managed reorganisations, and incoherent workforce planning" - inefficiency comes with the territory, as "it is always easier to spend someone else's money".
"All evidence suggests these systems disadvantages those least able to speak or pay for themselves." - Please cite some. I've seen loads of evidence that people are not "dying on the streets" for lack of healthcare in countries with more privately based health systems.
Finally - You, Ivan, are free to contribute more tax to the Treasury, if you feel the state is under-resourcing the NHS, and that the state would spend it efficiently. Don't be telling, or worse, compelling me to do the same.
Lol ShefDoc throwing around labels like it was Black Friday!
What race exactly is "anti-immigrant" sentiment directed towards?
"Far-right"? How is Brexit far-right? You calling all Leavers far-right?
Conflating far-right and nationalism?
Self-harm? Ya sometimes we vote in a 'wrong' govt, doesn't mean we don't respect an election result, do we? PM behaves like a dictator? You don't know dictators do you :) What do you think of the Supreme Court, which has assumed authority over the Queen now, and which has zero accountability? You must be BESIDE yourself with rage :) Shrinking state is GOOD, because it is incompetent.
|jonathan heatley | GP Partner/Principal|28 Sep 2019 10:21am
Common sense left when the lawyers came in :)
|Gerald Freshwater | Hospital Doctor|28 Sep 2019 2:35pm
"there is little evidence that the country is broke"
- You don't feel it because it is our children and their children futures that are being mortgaged. Its called debt/deficit and its rising. The numbers don't lie.
- Do you think other European countries aren't going the same way we are? And would you be happy paying the amount of progressive tax they do? Watch Sweden, Holland, etc down the road.
- Oh I agree with money being better spent (e.g. not sending it to the EU), and being elected on failure. State investment is just kicking the ball down the line... No, we should be governed by freedom/liberty/transparency, and not compulsion, as history and evidence shows that is the most successful... for most... And social virtue/altruism picks up the rest.
- Lol yes the Scottish govt saved money, as it didn't have to pay that fiscal army... but in a private setting, its the service providers that cover that cost. Doesn't seem like many of the other countries that run co-payments/insurance based systems are wanting to switch to free prescriptions...
|Turn out the lights | GP Partner/Principal|26 Sep 2019 3:05pm
"free market intervention"
- You don't know the definition of free market v intervention. State intervention via socialised medicine is NOT free market. State procurement utilising taxpayers' funds is NOT free market. You betray your own ignorance. The state's role should be limited to maximising transparency, and minimising corruption (via anti-trust laws)
|Patrick Southam | GP Partner/Principal|25 Sep 2019 9:33pm
- they don't want to. Why? Cos the country is broke and they can't afford anything else other than the bulk contract. Why? Cos you have a big state running things inefficiently. Why does no one see THIS? Even more bizarrely, why does the entire Left want to give the state MORE power/tax/and believe that things will turn out better?
- On a side note Jaimie, UKIP actually costed their manifesto independently, and were the first one to do so. And explained how they were going to fund it.