VENT-Doctors Receptionists

Soubrette

bod1467 wrote: »

So you're saying access to health care should be based on ability to pay?

No, I'm saying that there should be a nominal cost. I understand that this is not perfect but I think that it is better than the system we have at the moment where a small but significant proportion of the population use a lot of the resources.

This means that they are subsidised by everyone but more importantly people who need those resources ie those with chronic or acute illnesses aren't able to access them very easily. The OP in this thread for example, has already pointed out that they can't see the GP of choice because that GP is booked solid. Perhaps if people were a) educated on where to go in certain circumstance and b) forced to consider whether the GP visit that they consider an emergency is actually one.

I recognise that there may be a few people who are too mean to see the GP when they need to and there may even be some people that die but I believe that there are more people who can't see a GP when they need one and who die now because they can't get the care they need due to the worried well or the slightly ill who know if they mention the word emergency then they will be seen quickly.

Another effect of cutting down on the people who see a GP would hopefully be that more personal relationships can be build with those who regularly visit.

bod1467

I understand what you're driving at, but it's the start of a slippery slope to dismantling the NHS and moving to a fully private healthcare system. (Or as near as dammit - like in the USA. We all know this is the Tory party's unstated goal).

Paully232000

£10 a time. I wouldn't call that nominal for some people on low incomes who aren't children or the elderly. That is a slippery slope of paying for everything and really privatizing the NHS. So for each visit to the GP, presuming you get a prescription will be £17.85.
Would that not put more people off going to their GP who actually need to rather than those that time waste.
Also it could have the knock-on effect of increasing those who go to A&E (presuming you don't think that we should charge for that too).

Bangton

I empathise. Unfortunately I have a GP at my practice who is completely awful. I haven't been to docs in a year and prior to a stint last year where I went 4 times within a space of about 2 months hadn't been for a good 6yrs or so. So imagine my horror when I went with white spots on my tonsils to be told i had a condition called globulus hypochondria! Basically due to anxiety I was making my symptoms up!!! Fair enough if he hadn't basically treated me like a naughty school kid and proceeded to take 2 personal mobile calls whilst I was in his surgery.

Nowadays I really won't go to docs for anything!! My partner went this morning and saw the same doctor and when I asked how it went he laughed his head off and said they got on like a house on fire! I'm spewing - he chatted to my partner about witchcraft (no idea why!) and how he wished he'd chosen another profession but was vile to little old me!

Anyway..no idea why I've told that story. I suppose it's to show that unfortunately like everyone, doctors, receptionists and just about everyone can have their days when they are just downright rude. It doesn't make it right but take it with a pinch of salt. Or be bitter like me!!

Perhaps it will help in some daft way, as in you'll really need to go in future or won't risk ringing them!!

PILES

mightyroyals wrote: »

I can assure you that i do not go because i am sad or lonely, I go because i believe there is some thing wrong with me and fear the worst will happen if i do not go,
I do not go for the fun of it believe you me i would much rather not feel like this but it is something i am trying to get through with cbt so i would appreciate it if you did not say i go because im sad or lonely because there is something wrong with me its health anxiety a mental health condition which is being treated by a cbt specialist and my gp.

:huh: I think you misunderstood my post. As I said "If you needed medication then presumably something was wrong with you".

mightyroyals

PILES wrote: »

:huh: I think you misunderstood my post. As I said "If you needed medication then presumably something was wrong with you".

Sorry my bad i read through your post to quickly. Sorry

Soubrette

bod1467 wrote: »

I understand what you're driving at, but it's the start of a slippery slope to dismantling the NHS and moving to a fully private healthcare system. (Or as near as dammit - like in the USA. We all know this is the Tory party's unstated goal).

Yes that is one of the big disadvantages, not just the Tories, I wouldn't trust any other flavour of political party to not treat patients as cashcows.

However, they do run similar systems in some European countries and it hasn't led to a dismantling of their mostly socialist health care systems so it's not inevitable (although like I say, its more than just a possibility in our political system).

Soubrette

Paully232000 wrote: »

£10 a time. I wouldn't call that nominal for some people on low incomes who aren't children or the elderly. That is a slippery slope of paying for everything and really privatizing the NHS. So for each visit to the GP, presuming you get a prescription will be £17.85.
Would that not put more people off going to their GP who actually need to rather than those that time waste.
Also it could have the knock-on effect of increasing those who go to A&E (presuming you don't think that we should charge for that too).

Personally I would charge for A&E too but visits to a pharmacy for advice would be free.

I understand what you say about the slippery slope and it's a very real danger but they do have this system in some European countries and it does seem to work.

As to nominal - I woudn't care if it was £5, just some kind of amount that would make someone consider whether they need to go the GPs or A&E. For most people that might add up to say £15 or £20 a year, for people with chronic conditions it may be more say £50 to £120 a year but they would hopefully have the benefit of seeing the GP they wanted to see, sooner than they're able to see them now. Maybe if less appointments are made, the powers that be could increase the amount of patient/GP time to more than the measly 7 or 8 mins that a GP has now.

I don't claim it's perfect but I think it's better than the current system.

Paully232000

Soubrette wrote: »

Personally I would charge for A&E too but visits to a pharmacy for advice would be free.

I understand what you say about the slippery slope and it's a very real danger but they do have this system in some European countries and it does seem to work.

As to nominal - I woudn't care if it was £5, just some kind of amount that would make someone consider whether they need to go the GPs or A&E. For most people that might add up to say £15 or £20 a year, for people with chronic conditions it may be more say £50 to £120 a year but they would hopefully have the benefit of seeing the GP they wanted to see, sooner than they're able to see them now. Maybe if less appointments are made, the powers that be could increase the amount of patient/GP time to more than the measly 7 or 8 mins that a GP has now.

I don't claim it's perfect but I think it's better than the current system.

I do see what you mean and can see the logic in it, but my concern would be that those with chronic conditions are the very people who may not be able to afford even an extra £100+ a year and have no choice other that to visit their GP for whatever reason.

They may decide not to go, and this would free up time for the GP to see others for longer, or see more people and this cant be a good thing and could cost the NHS more in the long run if their condition deteriorates and requires more intensive treatment/hospital admission.

Soubrette

Paully232000 wrote: »

I do see what you mean and can see the logic in it, but my concern would be that those with chronic conditions are the very people who may not be able to afford even an extra £100+ a year and have no choice other that to visit their GP for whatever reason.

They may decide not to go, and this would free up time for the GP to see others for longer, or see more people and this cant be a good thing and could cost the NHS more in the long run if their condition deteriorates and requires more intensive treatment/hospital admission.

I think there will definitely be people who make that decision but I also think there are people with chronic conditions that make that decision now, not because it costs them money but it costs them in time and inconvenience to see their GP and because of the lack of time, they often feel hurried and not attended to or even cared about by their GPs. These people will also allow their chronic conditions to deteriorate and do cost the NHS more in the long run (as well as their own personal discomfort and quality of life being impacted). The question, and one which I don't think either of us can answer as I don't think the statistics are out there, is...does the current system let down the most people? or would my system?