Would you pay higher taxes for NHS drugs for all? Poll discussion

SuzySF

reading the Pharmacists posting....I have had use of the NHS and it's Drugs for many years...I took a "super" anti-rejection drug after my transplant (no not kidneys) this was farily new ISH, but had been used for some years. 9 years down the line from transplant I suffered catastrophic side effects (I am not alone- hundreds of other users suffered too) Kidney failure. The drug i was on was hugely expensive, and the replacement (of which i was a clinical trial) is equally expensive....now I have am shorty to commence dialysis - due to my geographical location (wales) I will have to travel 16,00 MILES A YEAR for dialysys due to the Welsh HA still not getting their act together and building (as has been on the cards for years) a local unit....but in the meantime they have found the money for free prescriptions for all (and anyone from over the border who can register with a welsh med practise). If you actually ASKED the population they all say they want to pay SOMETHING for a prescription ....and who says the elected members represent the population ??!!!???!!! (we got Rhodri back - what a shame )

MakeitgoRIGHT

Francisca wrote: »

I would love to commit more money through taxation to fund the NHS. />

We already pay the earth in high wages to the GP drug pushers, and pay much of the cost of the drugs themselves, and not surprisingly the majority of this nation is hooked on medical drugs. And now someone (possibly connected to the profits of this drugging industry) says we should make the drugs even cheaper so more people can be better and more effectively drugged in the country......NO WAY! I won't support that. I think the GPs should have to go on the streets like the street drug-pushers and peddle the wares of their pharmaceutical masters on even terms. Meanwhile, they should be restricted on the millions of prescriptions they feed to the population and get them focused on making people healthy.

sinizterguy

Errata wrote: »

Apparently GPconsultations have increased by 40% during the last 10 years. Surely the nation isn't 40% sicker than it was.

And surely you must have considered the effect on inflation ?

Because if you havent you're just posting one half of the story which makes GPs look bad and ignoring the important bits which put it into perspective.

sinizterguy

melancholly wrote: »

i have to say that i think GPs salaries should be capped - they got a great deal in their last negotiation and i think earning over £100,000 is a bit excessive

Why should they be capped? They are treating people who are ill, and their salary shoud be capped while everyone else in the country has free rein to earn whatever they want? Is it because you don't see yourself earning that much or some other reason?


You want GPs to be handicapped because they deliver a valuable and essential service?

sicandar

GPs and hospital doctors work very hard for what they get.

The govt did not believe they worked as hard as they did so decided to pay everyone by the hour, and to monitor the hours little realising the extra hours and days doctors were already putting in for free.

A classic case in point - GPs were offered a £6000 to provide emergencey cover for everyone of their patients after hours every night and weekend for 365 days a year. These are the same GPs who were providing daytime cover. The hours and effect on family life were devatsting and the profession was declining in numbers as a result.

The govt refused to negotiate, thinking that they could do it better and cheaper. The consequences are a more expensive and less efficient system run by the PCTs and private companies out to make a profit.

Gps wages did go up with the new contract but nowhere near as much as was reported. A huge chunk of it was just reshuffeling money and calling it an increase eg if a gp earned £x previously they would pay 6% for penison before from this and the employer would pay 14% pension contribution (as is the case for most emplyer pensions).

Now the Govt paid the GPs that 14% directly and told them to pay their own 14% employers contribution. Then they reported that as a 14% increase in GP wages!

The recent satisfaction rating of GPs, commisioned by the government showed a satsifaction level of about 84%. i know of very few if any other professional who have been monitored to such a degree and are even near this level of satisfaction.

The problem is with millions of consultations there are bound to be a few unsatisfied people unfortunately these are often the most vocal (and sometimes justifiably so) but that doesn't mean to say all doctors are bad. Most are excellent some are good and a few are not quite as good as the rest.

Errata

sinizterguy wrote: »

And surely you must have considered the effect on inflation ?

Because if you havent you're just posting one half of the story which makes GPs look bad and ignoring the important bits which put it into perspective.

I can't see anything in my post which makes GPs look bad, and that certainly wasn't my intention. I was stating a fact and posing a question.

gravitytolls

I think there is probably enough money in the coffers to improve the NHS. I suspect it's simply bad management that causes cash crisi within hospitals. It seems to me that in the same way that local authorities spend exorbitant amounts of cash on building works, the NHS is such a huge organisation that money is spent just sending letters to various departments before anything is even decided.

I hate to say it, but I think it's time the NHS were put in the hands of private companies, and I think it would deliver a far better service. Catering, cleaning etc. have been handed out to franchise for years, I say either have it run by the state fully, or run it privately fully. You can't have it halfway, as with the railways, it's just an expensive !!!! up.

Errata

Since catering moved to private contractors the food hasn't improved. Since cleaning moved to private contractors we have an epidemic of hospital acquired infections. The NHS IT systems being developed by private contractors are in chaos. PFI is costing Trusts £millions each year they wouldn't have to spend if they'd borrowed the cash from the government.
Some private contractors providing elective procedures are being found to not be as successful as was expected.
With this mix of private and public it would seem that we have the worst of both worlds.

sinizterguy

Errata wrote: »

I can't see anything in my post which makes GPs look bad, and that certainly wasn't my intention. I was stating a fact and posing a question.

Sorry if it came off too harsh. I was just pointing out other factors which are involved - the nation does not need to be 40% sicker for them to have a 40% increase.

Errata

sinizterguy wrote: »

Sorry if it came off too harsh. I was just pointing out other factors which are involved - the nation does not need to be 40% sicker for them to have a 40% increase.

No problem. Perhaps the nation just thinks it's 40% sicker? I understand that a third of all patients present with somatisation.