Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
1 October 2010
08:3673221#1
Today the B.M.A. has spoken out AGAINST the changes proposed by this cobbled together govt.
Stating it will be disruptive, and costly.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
1 October 2010
10:2473234#2
The BMA has had a lot to cope with, with changes of government regulations, etc. over recent years. And GPs too have had difficulties.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 October 2010
10:4973242#3
health and education have always been used as political footballs, to the detriment of the pupils and patients.
i have to admit i like the idea of transferring money to general practice from the primary care trusts, hopefully more can be carried out at our local surgery rather than traipsing to distant hospitals.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
10:5473244#4
Vested interests will always complain. According to BMA surveys though, most doctors voted Conservative in the election....
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
11:1773250#5
Just seen a post by Sid on the front page as he cannot post here.
He pointed out that the BMA have not expressed concern at the changes being made at all, only the pace of changes. An important difference that can be checked out on the BBC website.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
1 October 2010
11:2573253#6
BAZ;
I have replied on the front page to sid's comments.
just for info
Dr Richard Vautreu dep chair of Gp's committee says they have serious concerns.
Dr Hemish Meldrum
mUCH in the report can be potentially damaging.
Whether they vote tory/labour/lib dem I dont care.
What I do care about is the survival of the NHS
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
11:5873263#7
I think your priorities are wrong there keith.
You care about the survival of an organisation.
I care about getting the best possible healthcare to everyone, free at the point of delivery to all that need it. That is my priority - who delivers that is not important.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
1 October 2010
12:1973272#8
Baz;
I share your view, but how that is obtained we will never agree on, so theres no point going round in circles.
Apart from the last 6 words I agree on your posting.
It does matter who can provide it, and If it can be afforded by all.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
13:0873277#9
Keith - the last 8 words of your are redundant taken with the first sentence of mine, on that we agree totally. Why should it matter who provides it as long as it is free at the point of delivery and available to all? I am not being argumentative as so much as trying to understand why you say who provides it is important.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 October 2010
15:2273294#10
barry
earlier you said that you wanted to see the end of the n.h.s. how could a free at the point of use be operated differently?
are you suggesting compulsory health insurance or having smaller localised versions of health delivery services?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
15:4673300#11
No Howard - the only principal I would keep is free at the point of delivery for everyone. PME should still be an option for people, with tax relief and incentives for employers to provide cover - I would certainly not make it compulsory.
How that health care get delivered to the people is another matter.
Maybe make all hospitals private and on contract to local commissioning bodies of GP's for instance. There are all sorts of models that could be followed. One thing is sure, the NHS needs reform desperately and for too long it has been a holy cow for which any suggestion of reform receives howls of horror.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
1 October 2010
16:0073301#12
BARRYW;
I think our HOWARD has got you.
Nobady denies the NHS is not perfect, but if theres to be changes it has to be in the interests of the patient.
I feel there some emotive issues regarding private medicine, and so I will choose my words carefully.
Some have bee clear that private medicine is unfair and Q jumping those that may not be able to afford private medicine, but may need that treatment.
This debate will go on.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
16:2473309#13
Nothing at all unfair about it except that those who have it are not being recognised with tax relief on the premiums.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
1 October 2010
16:2673310#14
Barryw
I think you need get out more,
More to areas that wouldn't be able afford private medicine
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 October 2010
16:5373317#15
Keith - open both our eyes and mind.
I have a far better grasp of private medical cover than you from both personal and professional experience. Not an area I advise in professionally it is nevertheless important for me to have a grasp of the issues/costs etc. Also read what I am actually saying. Your comment """More to areas that wouldn't be able afford private medicine"""" has no relevance at all and is completely immaterial.
You have still not explained why protecting the institution is important rather than merely protecting the principal of free health treatment at the point of delivery. The two are not the same.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
1 October 2010
17:1373319#16
Keith,
One of my family queue jumped from an NHS hospital waiting list to a private hospital for an operation this year - in a scheme paid for by the NHS and set up under a Labour government - what's your view on that?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 October 2010
21:2073360#17
ray
one of the promises made by the last regime was that if the time for treatment exceeded a reasonable period then the patient would be referred for private surgery.
i suspect that you knew that anyway.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
1 October 2010
23:3173370#18
Yes, just trying to get a word in edgeways between Barry and Keith! If Keith had his way and private treatment was banned then that option wouldn't be available and there would be more patients on even longer NHS lists.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
2 October 2010
12:2973391#19
RAY;
I fully understand the need for private medicine, and have never indicated any different.
What I don't agree with is it taking the place of NHS as not every can afford private insurance.
And what happens to those that cant.
BARRYW;
Believe me I have a lot more knowledge than you think on private and the NHS so please, I respect your view(even if i dont agree with it)
I won't go into my private affairs, apart from to say barryw your wrong on my knowledge of the issue.
Getting back to the NHS yes free at the point of entry we agree on baz; its how that's achieved, we appreciate(or some of us do) the NHS has a basis to get the job done, it's not perfect, but to change it the way the tories(with lib dem support) want to do, like the BMA has said will put doctor against doctor, and will break down many good working relationships between doctor and hospital.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS