Weird, I've just been writing a letter to our local CCG about this. The doctor's we go to is a joke.
But, alas and alack, doing something about this will add a large extra burden onto the NHS, and who's going to pay for it? (It'd be nice if we could claw some of it back from the overpaid doctors and locums, but that's not going to happen.)
SeanT, in response to your question beginning of the thread (for some reason the quote button isn't showing up for me today):
I, for one, am on the same page as you on this. I would vote for a fascist government over allowing the country to become majority Muslim, or allowing Sharia law to be adopted (taking your hypothetical scenario as it comes).
I do take issue with one aspect of your post though. Since when have Farage or (Marine) Le Pen been examples of fascism? For the record, I'd happily vote for Farage with or without the threat of Sharia - if I were French (perish the thought) I'd probably vote for Fillon, but would vote Le Pen over any of the other alternatives (e.g. If Juppe had been the LR candidate).
That being said, in your hypothetical scenario I'd vote for a genuine fascist, e.g. Mussolini (before anyone Godwins - yes that's a verb as of now - I'd probably draw the line at Hitler, thought provoking though, as genuinely unsure that Sharia wouldn't be worse)
SeanT's hypothetical is absurd. And the correct answer is that I would emigrate and leave the two factions to fight for control of a country that I would no longer consider one that I had any affinity with. I would look to move to somewhere that still placed some weight on liberal values, probably a long way away. On the hypothetical as posed, I understand that to mean that I would let Britain become majority Muslim under sharia law.
By what mechanism in the hypothetical is Nigel Farage going to stop Britain becoming majority Muslim?
So you'd emigrate to Orban's quasi-Fascist Hungary, where you'd be safe. Rather than, as a homosexual, be thrown off walls in your own country, England.
People as confused as you are utterly beyond satire.
I answered your stupid fascist chic hypothetical. Now answer my supplementary question. Would you will forced deportations? Mass sterilsations? Gas chambers? By what means is the march of Islam to be stopped by your alt right chums?
I've already answered that a trillion times. I would make hardcore Islam impossible to practise in the UK. Limit or ban halal meat. Prohibit any kind of shariah law. Prosecute FGM wih extreme vigour. Ban cousin marriage. Deport all incendiary imams. Ban the burqa and niqab. Close down any foreign-funded mosques (and forbid foreign-funding). Place restrictions on minarets, praying at work, etc.
This would, over time, I believe, make the UK an unwelcoming place to be a very conservative Muslim, in the most humane way possible. No one would be deported. They would just leave, and they would stop coming.
One of my regrets from this turbulent year is how I have grown to despise you, intellectually and morally.
You're ducking the question, coward. What if those measures don't work? At what point do you decide that an anti Muslim majority measure is too immoral to attempt?
How are you going to persuade Islam to be less homophobic?
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
What do other pb-ers think?
I have gay, Jewish, and evangelical Christian friends and relatives[1]. So if we assume there isn't a Kobayashi Maru[2] option, nor abstention, and there are only two rather horrific options, then I would read each party's manifesto and vote for that party that gave them and me the greatest chance of survival.
[1] As previously noted, it's a biiiiig family. [2] Sunil, you explain it to him: it's late.
@viewcode I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to save Brexit!
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
What do other pb-ers think?
I have gay, Jewish, and evangelical Christian friends and relatives[1]. So if we assume there isn't a Kobayashi Maru[2] option, nor abstention, and there are only two rather horrific options, then I would read each party's manifesto and vote for that party that gave them and me the greatest chance of survival.
[1] As previously noted, it's a biiiiig family. [2] Sunil, you explain it to him: it's late.
@viewcode I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to save Brexit!
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
What do other pb-ers think?
I have gay, Jewish, and evangelical Christian friends and relatives[1]. So if we assume there isn't a Kobayashi Maru[2] option, nor abstention, and there are only two rather horrific options, then I would read each party's manifesto and vote for that party that gave them and me the greatest chance of survival.
[1] As previously noted, it's a biiiiig family. [2] Sunil, you explain it to him: it's late.
@viewcode I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to save Brexit!
SeanT said: "I would make hardcore Islam impossible to practise in the UK. Limit or ban halal meat. Prohibit any kind of shariah law. Prosecute FGM wih extreme vigour. Ban cousin marriage. Deport all incendiary imams. Ban the burqa and niqab. Close down any foreign-funded mosques (and forbid foreign-funding). Place restrictions on minarets, praying at work, etc."
Many Brits agree with most or all of this shopping list, and yet nothing is done. Rather reminiscent of Brexit, where politicians discovered to their surprise that people hadn't "got with the program" after all. People feel helpless and are cowed by accusations of racism. And there is the irony that many, if not most, Muslim immigrants don't really want Britain to become Kashmir on Sea anyway.
From that point of view, there are two elephants in the room. One is the relative ease still (through family or marriage) of emigrating from Pakistan to the UK. The other is the birth rate. When this was a monocultural nation, which it was still considered to be until the 1980s, birth control was national policy. Since we've switched to multiculturalism, birth control is never mentioned, and yet it's one of the key ways of integrating into British society.
So, Sandpit, you do actually live in a majority Muslim country, and you've chosen that over May.
You've voted for that over democracy. Care to share how that's working out?
I do indeed live in a majority Muslim country, albeit in about the most liberal City in the Muslim world - I got married in the Catholic Church here, and believers of all religions are encouraged unlike in many other countries. Life is good here, it's hot and sunny outside and there will be a massive party tomorrow night, same as everywhere else. Last week there were Christmas trees everywhere!
Other Muslim countries, including Iran, Yemen and Saudi, all an hour or two away by plane, are very different placed indeed, places that I would want to visit let alone live.
With regard to @SeanT's question, which is where I think you were leading me, I agree with him. I'd go with the option that left open the possibility that we could collectively kick the scumbags out in the future. Hi Nigel and Marine.
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
What do other pb-ers think?
I definitely go Muslim/Sharia over Le Pen/Farage. If only for the fact that it would annoy many people who richly deserve it.
48hrs rule is too blunt. Often I don't want or need to see a GP within 2 days, I want to see them when it is convenient. When Blair tried to enforce this 48hr approach it caused lots of problems.
Two words...Online Booking..the fact even the smallest of businesses these days have online booking and you can buy off the shelf systems makes the fact the majority of GP surgeries not having it both incredible and unacceptable.
Our GPs have online booking. It just saves a receptionist not a doctor.
48hrs rule is too blunt. Often I don't want or need to see a GP within 2 days, I want to see them when it is convenient. When Blair tried to enforce this 48hr approach it caused lots of problems.
Two words...Online Booking..the fact even the smallest of businesses these days have online booking and you can buy off the shelf systems makes the fact the majority of GP surgeries not having it both incredible and unacceptable.
Until we start penalising people who don't turn up for appointments we're going to continue having problems.
The Do Not Show are mostly drug adicts or those with mental problems at our GPs. The surgery uses text message reminders but that does not help much for the drug adicts and those with mental problems who do not turn up for their appointments.
Obviously the whole Farage vs Islam question is ridiculous and has the didactic value of one of those "Would you rather be invisible or never be able to able to masturbate again?" questions from Family Guy.
Would you rather visit in Raqqa or go on a caravaning holiday around Northern Ireland with SeanT in the dead of winter?
A GP's pension costs taxpayers something like £3m a head. They also cost us about £100K a year, plus staff, plus offices etc. And we get to pay for their training. How many more do we want to employ to meet this completely pointless target?
GPs are mostly private businesses. GP practices are paid on the number of payients on their books and for other extra procedures which they carry out. Partners are paid out of the profits although they also employ non partner doctors on an hourly basis.
So the taxpayer is not directly paying GP salaries or pensions.
48hrs rule is too blunt. Often I don't want or need to see a GP within 2 days, I want to see them when it is convenient. When Blair tried to enforce this 48hr approach it caused lots of problems.
Two words...Online Booking..the fact even the smallest of businesses these days have online booking and you can buy off the shelf systems makes the fact the majority of GP surgeries not having it both incredible and unacceptable.
Our GPs have online booking. It just saves a receptionist not a doctor.
Mine does to, but most still don't which in this day and age is totally unacceptable. It is also hugely inefficient all round and more than just a receptionist replacement.
Any other business they would also be building other systems / services to increase efficiency. Blair had the right idea when he foresaw that the NHS needed a big IT overhaul, but the solution was a disaster.
Now a days there are loads of commercial products available, both for medical and ones that could be adapted for purposes of GP surgery.
On Doctors, I can well understand why there are shortages in A&E (Hunt's reforms seemed to have a blind spot here even though the intention was good) but a GP shortage is an odd one to "spring up" to my mind...
It is the demand which has increased as well as some doctors retiring earlier than in the past as they have been better remunerated via the new contract Labour gave away.
My GP's surgery now deploys a telephone triage system that seems to work remarkably well. You call the surgery and are invited to give a brief description of the issue to the receptionist (it's not mandatory to comply with the request to provide information about your health concern) and a doctor will call you back within 24 hours to discuss the problem. When the GP calls they either dispense advice, provide a prescription, or book a face to face appointment as required. This means that those needing to sit down with a GP get appointments far quicker.
I've found it to be incredibly efficient (like Keiran I too have needed to see a GP several times this year after never before requiring their assistance) and means that I don't need to take time off work for most appointments as they take place remotely. I imagine it also avoids the spread of coughs and colds in the surgery waiting room from those who should be taking cold medicine and staying in bed!
Telephone appointments are more convenient for the patient but still take the same average 10 minutes that a face a face appointment takes - so no saving for the doctors.
Weird, I've just been writing a letter to our local CCG about this. The doctor's we go to is a joke.
But, alas and alack, doing something about this will add a large extra burden onto the NHS, and who's going to pay for it? (It'd be nice if we could claw some of it back from the overpaid doctors and locums, but that's not going to happen.)
I don't think the Clinical Commisssioning Group is responsible for GPs.
The anti-Semitic rants of the Muslim activists who won the PM's praise: Members of a taxpayer-funded anti-extremism group post conspiracy theories on Facebook which blame Israel the for Sandy Hook massacre
The anti-Semitic rants of the Muslim activists who won the PM's praise: Members of a taxpayer-funded anti-extremism group post conspiracy theories on Facebook which blame Israel the for Sandy Hook massacre
My GP's surgery now deploys a telephone triage system that seems to work remarkably well. You call the surgery and are invited to give a brief description of the issue to the receptionist (it's not mandatory to comply with the request to provide information about your health concern) and a doctor will call you back within 24 hours to discuss the problem. When the GP calls they either dispense advice, provide a prescription, or book a face to face appointment as required. This means that those needing to sit down with a GP get appointments far quicker.
I've found it to be incredibly efficient (like Keiran I too have needed to see a GP several times this year after never before requiring their assistance) and means that I don't need to take time off work for most appointments as they take place remotely. I imagine it also avoids the spread of coughs and colds in the surgery waiting room from those who should be taking cold medicine and staying in bed!
Telephone appointments are more convenient for the patient but still take the same average 10 minutes that a face a face appointment takes - so no saving for the doctors.
They save time as they are unscheduled callback appointments. Doctors don't have to wait for patients to appear at a specific time and can fit them in as time allows, plus you don't waste time from patients not filling the entirety of a ten minute booking slot.
Why has this site allowed itself to get hijacked by nonsense political petitions and campaigns? Let's get back to betting I say!
I agree ..... this is not the type of personal hobby horse which PB.com is supposed to be about. If Keiran Pedley wishes to organise his own campaigns, let him do just that instead of attempting to ride on the back of Mike Smithson's unique site.
"People feel helpless and are cowed by accusations of racism."
Something that rarely seems to be mentioned on here, is that people feel helpless and are cowed by actual racism.
Whilst accusations of racism are sometimes wrongly used to excuse or cover up, there can be little doubt that racism does exist, and can significantly hurt peoples' lives and prospects.
My father was a GP. There's never been a time when supply wasn't aggressively rationed. Things may have changed but roughly 5% of patients took 95% of the time and are generally able to book weeks in advance. The occasionally ill never got a look in.
Someone else has made the additional and generally unspoken point that roughly when one has a significantly higher number of women GPs we find that in practice they work in different ways but assume that the sexes behave the same.
Ah, petitions. Can't recall one being started after Blair was astounded [or acting astounded] on Question Time (probably the 2005 election special) that some audience members had to wait weeks for an appointment.
Interesting hypothetical, Mr. T. I'd say the actual alternative, given the tin-ear, arrogance, complacency and intransigence amongst the political class, may end up being further to the right than that.
But, if it were a case of Farage or Shariah Law, I'd go for the one that doesn't punish women for adultery when they have the temerity to get raped.
There did used to be a 48-hour target under Labour - the problem was that practices would game the system by e.g. not answering phones once all appointments were booked, or just having a rule that they only gave out appointments for the next 48 hours. Could you make rules against this? Yes, but try enforcing them.
My practice also operates the telephone triage system and it works well from my patient perspective.
OK, here is a true story with a clear moral about not messing about with the NHS.
October 2012: I attend appointment with nhs consultant for him to tell me whether I need a colonoscopy to look for cancer. he says not needed, case closed.
December 2012, just before Christmas: receive letter from consultant's secretary saying you are now booked in on [date in late January] for the colonoscopy arranged between you and Mr. consultant in your meeting of October.
January 2013: I telephone consultant's secretary about 8 times to say you have got this wrong, we agreed no colonoscopy. Each time goes to her voicemail and I get the same message "I can't talk to you because today is Christmas Eve, and I am off until 28th December".
At this stage I think: with any other organisation I would think I had done enough to advise them of their own fuckwitted incompetence, and would simply miss the appointment. However, I hate people who waste the resources of the NHS by not turning up for procedures out of laziness, and rather than appearing to be one of those people, I give in and undergo a completely unnecessary (as I think) colonoscopy, since cancelling it seems impossible.
end January 2013: colonoscopy finds tumour in sigmoid colon.
March 2013: resection of tumour plus 3 lymph nodes (so stage 3b cancer), followed by 6 months chemo, followed from then to date by clear CT scans and colonoscopies.
I never found out whether the consultant changed his mind or the secretary made a mistake. If the latter, and if I had managed to correct the mistake, that would have been the end of me. As it is, I am pretty much cured.
Ah, petitions. Can't recall one being started after Blair was astounded [or acting astounded] on Question Time (probably the 2005 election special) that some audience members had to wait weeks for an appointment.
Interesting hypothetical, Mr. T. I'd say the actual alternative, given the tin-ear, arrogance, complacency and intransigence amongst the political class, may end up being further to the right than that.
But, if it were a case of Farage or Shariah Law, I'd go for the one that doesn't punish women for adultery when they have the temerity to get raped.
Mr Dancer, you make a good point that men and women may have somewhat different perspectives regarding the application of Sharia Law. It is, how does one say, slightly behind the times of most Western legal systems when it comes to the rights of women.
Going GP specifc, I was wondering if any of you chaps knew how many people we were seeing a day? I'm still a registrar (think GP apprentice) yet on Wednesday when not doing the extended cover to 1830, just appointments up to 1700 booked and calls) I dealt with 48 in person/phonecall appointments and did a visit. The system is creaking and generally I do not know what can be done to save it, although access limitation has to be paramount.
This is without the streams of letters and results coming back in to be dealth with.
Matt does make the interesting point of there being quite a few people who never seem to miss the day their sick note is 'due' who always seem to get appointments. THere are also those that game the system and get into the emergency appointments needed to be kept back with coughs/colds.
Telephone triage can be the answer - but it heavily favours young professionals. Lots of people get miffed they aren't going to 'be seen', it is easier to miss things and have events, a lot of oppertunistic treatment is missed and a lot of docs really dislike it and would refuse to do it.
There have been some balls ups in pay re pensions from labour continued by the tories, however I genuinely do not think that I could be doing this job at this intensity at 60. I think it would kill me.
One final point is that GPs are vastly underfunded. We get a global sum per patient on the books and then boosted payouts through some targets and additional services provided. Every other sector of the NHS gets a payment per appointment/attendance. If there was a greater funding parity there wouldn't be as many issues.
Ishmael - sounds like you got lucky the right way. Lots of people get unlucky the wrong way. The local hospital the consultant writes in the notes and dictates a letter. He then writes on a slip of paper appointment in x weeks or discharged or circles investigation x.
It could have been anything from him not explaining it well or having a rethink and not telling you, to a simple clerical error. The IT system is a shambles.
With the system above I would imagine a couple of errors a day at least.
Dr. Muffin, that's interesting on pay, because (some time ago now) the GPs described Alan Johnson's negotiation as 'a bit of a laugh' because it was so inept and (from their/your perspective, generous). Has the system changed since then?
The sum per patient rather than appointment, I'd guess, would mean if you live in a healthier area things are rather easier, and much more difficult if you live in Bubonia-on-Syphilis.
@FrancisUrquhart - Getting online booking for all GP surgeries was not kicked into the long grass. Most GP surgeries have online booking. It is called Patient Access (previously EMIS Access) and is available at http://patient.info/patient-access. It allows you to book appointments, order repeat subscriptions, view your medical record, change your address and send secure messages to your GP practice. It is even available as an app for Android and iPhone, so you can book appointments, etc. with your phone.
If you go to the website and click on Register you will find out if your GP is signed up to this service. If they aren't I suggest you lobby them to join in!
Dr. Muffin, that's interesting on pay, because (some time ago now) the GPs described Alan Johnson's negotiation as 'a bit of a laugh' because it was so inept and (from their/your perspective, generous). Has the system changed since then?
The sum per patient rather than appointment, I'd guess, would mean if you live in a healthier area things are rather easier, and much more difficult if you live in Bubonia-on-Syphilis.
I told Sheffield its re-branding exercise was never gonna work....
A GP's pension costs taxpayers something like £3m a head. They also cost us about £100K a year, plus staff, plus offices etc. And we get to pay for their training. How many more do we want to employ to meet this completely pointless target?
GPs are mostly private businesses. GP practices are paid on the number of payients on their books and for other extra procedures which they carry out. Partners are paid out of the profits although they also employ non partner doctors on an hourly basis.
So the taxpayer is not directly paying GP salaries or pensions.
**** GPs are paid an average £136/y per patient, according to MD in Private Eye.
A consultation with a private doctor would cost you about £136, showing how cost-effective the NHS is compared to most healthcare systems.
Nevertheless, German doctors are paid about half as much, so why not reduce doctors' payments to about £65k/y, the same as an MP is paid, after reducing work stress.
I sympathise with Keiran's position but I don't think 2 days is necessary for a routine matter. I hear that many younger people visit GPs for routine matters for which I was taught 'don't bother the doctor'.
Not necessarily Mr Dancer. I'm right down in the sicker areas (I work in the Neath Port Talbot area) and you're right that initially the Labour negotiations were stupid. It was a 5% loss of pay for loss of OOH work I believe (I was still in school at the time so have never known anything different) and did make many join specifically with no need to worry about on calls. There were a lot of failings with those negotiations all over as they did not realise the amount of on call work that was done.
Your leafy suburb patient is generally rather more demanding for specialist referrals for minor things and comes festooned with questionable data, but on the whole yes your less well to do areas are at a huge disadvantage (like some payment targets are with monitoring BPs statin usage which can be difficult to get some patients in for)
Note with this reduction in funding there have been huge increases in appointments. Where GP practices fail (there have been many) the Health boards take them over and are grossly inefficient.
Target driven bollox rarely work. The system usually finds a way to hit the target without actually improving whatever it was the target was supposed to fix. I work for a sector that loves targets, as once we set the target, that's all we have to worry about. Anyway, why is this place turning into politicalcampaigning.com?
What does not help is Employers attempts to control sickness. I work for (airport company), if you are ill they pressure you to attend your Dr or emergency walk in centre for proof you were ill.
My Doctor of course refuses too unless I've been ill for more than 7 days. My employer still expects me to attempt to get someone at the surgery to sign a letter to show I've been there. (that depends on the kindness of the receptionist). I only get sick pay if I am signed off.
One Flu a few years ago cost me over £200 in lost pay.
It annoys me, If I have the flu, I need bed rest, I don't need to see the Dr unless I get a lung infection and need some antibiotics to clear it up. Luckily I've only had one bout of Norovirus over this year, which kept me off work for three days. Thats good considering I work at germ central at Heathrow Airport,
THe problem of GP appointments could be solved overnight. Charge £5 for a visit to the doctor and have free appts for those with serious issues like diabetes. The surgeries would empty overnight.
A GP's pension costs taxpayers something like £3m a head. They also cost us about £100K a year, plus staff, plus offices etc. And we get to pay for their training. How many more do we want to employ to meet this completely pointless target?
GPs are mostly private businesses. GP practices are paid on the number of payients on their books and for other extra procedures which they carry out. Partners are paid out of the profits although they also employ non partner doctors on an hourly basis.
So the taxpayer is not directly paying GP salaries or pensions.
And where do you think all these "profits" come from? Entirely from the taxpayer. And we give these supposedly self employed people a public sector pension as well.
Don't get me wrong. Doctors work hard for their money. They have a very strong sense of entitlement which I think comes from the current crop being aware that they made the hardest subject to get into at University and did the best at school to achieve that. I am not getting at doctors per se, only the absurdity of this petition which completely ignores the massive financial implications of its demands and gives no thought at all to the alternatives that would have to be put aside to fund it.
Rational Plan - that is completely illegal. If an employer does not allow you to self certify without any evidence for the first 7 days they are in breech of government guidance. Our practice would do a private sick note or £25 (much too low need to change it if I stay there) but I prefer to send people away with the printout of guidance and advising the employer to call the surgery. No employer has called back. Admittedly there are not huge amounts of employed where I am.
100% agree with charges SquareRoot. Political suicide however! Like we need prescription charges here to prevent entitled idiots asking for minor ailment treatments.
Our GP surgery in Leeds has drop-in sessions 3 mornings each week. You just turn up, and wait your turn. Otherwise it can take far too long to get an appointment with one of the GPs.
"Why has this site allowed itself to get hijacked by nonsense political petitions and campaigns? Let's get back to betting I say!"
After a year like the last one where the civilized world turned into Sodom and Gomorrah this appeal to people's better nature is very welcome. Possibly the first green shoots after the ugliness of Brexit and Trump.
Like the 'Summer of Love' following the black days of McCarthy
Rational Plan - that is completely illegal. If an employer does not allow you to self certify without any evidence for the first 7 days they are in breech of government guidance. Our practice would do a private sick note or £25 (much too low need to change it if I stay there) but I prefer to send people away with the printout of guidance and advising the employer to call the surgery. No employer has called back. Admittedly there are not huge amounts of employed where I am.
100% agree with charges SquareRoot. Political suicide however! Like we need prescription charges here to prevent entitled idiots asking for minor ailment treatments.
There is very little evidence to show a material increase in the number prescriptions since they became free for everyone. The logical assumption is that if we went back to charging those that could afford it there would be very little saving in the number of prescriptions.
DavidL I can't seem to quote sorry. I'm in Wales and we have had prescriptions for free longer. The net increase in prescriptions is small BUT it is not about the increase in prescriptions but rather the requests that it generates. Dispensing a repeat prescription is pretty quick. If someone attends the surgery with a viral illness just to get a prescription that is a HUGE waste. This has happened on a few occasions to myself, along with the back and forth that ensues. Not to mention the little notes added to repeat meds to ask for a couple of boxes of paracetamol. It is the extra doctor time that suddenly makes them very expensive, and depends on the doctor resolve (I am pretty resolute in refusing these, but if they insist then you are almost duty bound)
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
Don't know why we pander to Sean T's drunken rants.
Maybe because he is interesting , has interesting if sometimes divisive viewpoints rather than just whining like wimps and accusing people of being drunk as you are doing.
So far one pb-er has answered the question directly. Sunil. And all power to him.
The rest of you are too scared to even address a hypothetical question. It's quite incredible. And very revealing.
Last time I discussed Muslims/Islam with you, you wanted to deport me to Madagascar.
(Though you did graciously apologise the next day for going too far)
Well you're a very interesting example. A liberal British Muslim.
Which would you vote for?
Farage or Shariah?
A 50%+ majority Muslim UK or Marine Le Pen?
These horrible questions are not trivial, they are in essence the question which is roiling all of Europe, and Trump's America, right now. And we are all on one side or the other, or we are just pathetic and hiding under the duvet (e.g. 90% of pb.com)
I'd vote for neither, I'd be expending all my energies on trying to ensure the UK isn't faced with an appalling choice.
Yes, but, CHOOSE
It's called hypothesis. And debate. It's how people educate each other. And I am hoping to be educated. Try and grow a pair. CHOOSE
It really is sensational how pb-ers will twist in the wind, rather than answer a fairly simple question.
The anti-Semitic rants of the Muslim activists who won the PM's praise: Members of a taxpayer-funded anti-extremism group post conspiracy theories on Facebook which blame Israel the for Sandy Hook massacre
Target driven bollox rarely work. The system usually finds a way to hit the target without actually improving whatever it was the target was supposed to fix. I work for a sector that loves targets, as once we set the target, that's all we have to worry about. Anyway, why is this place turning into politicalcampaigning.com?
why is this place turning into politicalcampaigning.com?
If the average time is 13 days... Then to drop the average to two days would presumably require six and half times as many GP appointments... Or a correspondingly large drop in demand.
Your target is all within two days so even more ambitious than an average.
Arguably plenty of people don't bother with GP because there is a wait.. they figure it will sort itself out. So demand might increase - meaning even harder to reach that target.
Even if it were possible... I can't really see that it would be desirable. For many things waiting two days or more is fine.
Given the choice- I'd much rather spend the money on other things within the health sector.
Keiran's right that GPs and all the surrounding issues need highlighting.
Dadge - you dsay that birth control used to be national policy. Not in my lifetime - it's always been a matter of personal choice. You want to have zero kids, 2 kids, 10 kids? Up to you. Always has been. China's one-child policy is the unappealin counter-example.
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
What do other pb-ers think?
I am with you
I am with malcolmg.
And on that political bombshell, it's goodbye 2016. I have fog to drive through....
The flip side of @SeanTs question is how would those in a majority Muslim country react to seeing major cities rapidly change before their eyes.
Imagine Pakistan became a major economy, and attractive for immigrants. Lets say those from the American rust belt who voted Trump moved en masse to Lahore and Karachi to the point where, in 2040, large parts of those cities were more like redneck America than an Islamic city; no one spoke the local language, there were no mosques, there were bars everywhere and people wore cowboy hats. Muslims were being put in jail for defacing photos of Dolly Parton, while every terrorist attack in the region was from 2nd generation American immigrants (being inspired by a group in America telling them to do it).
I reckon they'd vote for hardline Islamists. Of course the scenario I describe would never be allowed to happen, as it should not have here.
To answer the @SeanT hypothesis - I'd go for a far-right Christian over theocratic Muslim every time.
The former I see as a symptom of broader political issues that can be overcome in the medium term, establishing a Caliphate is a whole lot harder to reverse in any meaningful sense - and it'd change our country forever.
My GP surgery had an online booking system until a few months ago. A few people complained because they did not (would not ?) have internet so they removed this wonderful system that had worked perfectly well and went back to phones. Many thousands of people who were quite happy previously now have to phone commencing 8.30 am in the morning and it is unlikely you will ever get an answer let alone near a doc within 48 hours. I don't blame the government for this I blame the surgery. They had a good system and then just went back to the stone age.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
Sorry Keiran but no signature from me. It's populist nonsense. Not everyone needs to see a GP within 48 hrs. So creating a " right " warps medical priorities, is dangerous and means services will be designed round a single target rather than actual patient outcomes. I really can't think of a worse way to tackle the supply/demand problem in Primary Care than building in a single bizzare target that will warp all. That's before it destroys all the attempts to get people to see Nurses/Pharmacists where appropriate. It's the kind of nonsense UKIP would propose. Actually it's worse than that. It's the kind of public service reform New Labour would propose.
My GP surgery had an online booking system until a few months ago. A few people complained because they did not (would not ?) have internet so they removed this wonderful system that had worked perfectly well and went back to phones. Many thousands of people who were quite happy previously now have to phone commencing 8.30 am in the morning and it is unlikely you will ever get an answer let alone near a doc within 48 hours. I don't blame the government for this I blame the surgery. They had a good system and then just went back to the stone age.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
Not sure why they couldn't just operate the two systems side by side - it's what the vast majority of visitor attractions, restaurants, theatres etc. do.
Keiran's right that GPs and all the surrounding issues need highlighting.
Dadge - you dsay that birth control used to be national policy. Not in my lifetime - it's always been a matter of personal choice. You want to have zero kids, 2 kids, 10 kids? Up to you. Always has been. China's one-child policy is the unappealin counter-example.
Highlightjng an issue is one thing. I have no doubt that GPs are struggling and that more funding would help.
But proposing something that would be disastrous if a serious effort to implement was made is another.
It may well be that we need more GPs... But we do not need everyone to have an appointment in two days. There will be much more important places to put at least some f the money required to meet this target. And setting unachievable targets leads to gaming and other unintended adverse outcomes.
DavidL I can't seem to quote sorry. I'm in Wales and we have had prescriptions for free longer. The net increase in prescriptions is small BUT it is not about the increase in prescriptions but rather the requests that it generates. Dispensing a repeat prescription is pretty quick. If someone attends the surgery with a viral illness just to get a prescription that is a HUGE waste. This has happened on a few occasions to myself, along with the back and forth that ensues. Not to mention the little notes added to repeat meds to ask for a couple of boxes of paracetamol. It is the extra doctor time that suddenly makes them very expensive, and depends on the doctor resolve (I am pretty resolute in refusing these, but if they insist then you are almost duty bound)
For Roger the Wimp , seems to somehow have got onto wrong post.
The Scottish Neo-Nazi's onboard. There's a surprise!
LOL, big jessie boy has got one of his minimum wage servants to post for him. Stick to putting your pigtails in and playing with your dolls loser. As usual your insipid whining input is up to your usual pathetic standards.
I'm gonna repost this, because it really is the acid test for feebleness of intellect and cowardice of character. If you can't even bear to address this hypothetical but not impossible dilemma then you FAIL. Here it is.
If you had a hypothetical choice, between voting for a hard right, Fascist or Front National type party, or your country becoming majority Muslim, which would you choose?
Those are the alternatives, pb-ers:
Muslim or Le Pen.
Farage or Shariah
Unquestionably, I would vote Farage. I would almost certainly vote Le Pen or Wilders. Indeed I would probably vote for Mussolini, in preference to Britain becoming majority Muslim.
What do other pb-ers think?
I am with you
I am with malcolmg.
And on that political bombshell, it's goodbye 2016. I have fog to drive through....
DavidL I can't seem to quote sorry. I'm in Wales and we have had prescriptions for free longer. The net increase in prescriptions is small BUT it is not about the increase in prescriptions but rather the requests that it generates. Dispensing a repeat prescription is pretty quick. If someone attends the surgery with a viral illness just to get a prescription that is a HUGE waste. This has happened on a few occasions to myself, along with the back and forth that ensues. Not to mention the little notes added to repeat meds to ask for a couple of boxes of paracetamol. It is the extra doctor time that suddenly makes them very expensive, and depends on the doctor resolve (I am pretty resolute in refusing these, but if they insist then you are almost duty bound)
If you click on a date stamp it takes you to a version of the site which allows quotation etc. It is not as aesthetically pleasing as the main site but it has greater utility at the moment.
I agree that people demanding antibiotics in particular is a menace in that it is reducing the efficacy of those antibiotics, it does no good and it does indeed cost money in wasted doctors' time. It is yet another reason why I am against this petition. Waiting for an appointment a significant number of people get better. In fact my wife claims that making a doctor's appointment is the best medicine known to man. As long as they remember to cancel the appointment when they do....
The Scottish Neo-Nazi's onboard. There's a surprise!
Just to make sure the cretin sees it................ LOL, big jessie boy has got one of his minimum wage servants to post for him. Stick to putting your pigtails in and playing with your dolls loser. As usual your insipid whining input is up to your usual pathetic standards.
My GP surgery had an online booking system until a few months ago. A few people complained because they did not (would not ?) have internet so they removed this wonderful system that had worked perfectly well and went back to phones. Many thousands of people who were quite happy previously now have to phone commencing 8.30 am in the morning and it is unlikely you will ever get an answer let alone near a doc within 48 hours. I don't blame the government for this I blame the surgery. They had a good system and then just went back to the stone age.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
Not sure why they couldn't just operate the two systems side by side - it's what the vast majority of visitor attractions, restaurants, theatres etc. do.
Yes and they did as far as I could tell. The complainants apparently said they couldn't get appointments that had already been taken online? That could be the case of course.
Either way that can happen with theatres, restaurants. I just don't see theatres and restaurants going back to phones because a few people complain all the seats have already gone.
"To answer the @SeanT hypothesis - I'd go for a far-right Christian over theocratic Muslim every time."
In 1933, German folk voted for a man who became the foremost Crusader of the last 500 years in his butchery of non-Christians - is that what you would advocate?
I would choose living in present day Iran over Germany post 1933.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
My GP surgery had an online booking system until a few months ago. A few people complained because they did not (would not ?) have internet so they removed this wonderful system that had worked perfectly well and went back to phones. Many thousands of people who were quite happy previously now have to phone commencing 8.30 am in the morning and it is unlikely you will ever get an answer let alone near a doc within 48 hours. I don't blame the government for this I blame the surgery. They had a good system and then just went back to the stone age.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
No-shows? So what? What money is wasted if people miss an appointment in Outpatients or with their family doctor? None. Not a dime, not a bean, not a sausage. It just means the next patient will be seen a bit sooner (which in my experience normally means 20 minutes late rather than half an hour).
When it does waste money is for (say) elective surgery, where expensive resources really have been booked and reserved for that patient. But most of the time no-shows are irrelevant and we should not be misled by innumerate doctors dividing the fixed costs of the surgery by the number of minutes in a day to declare that each appointment costs £xxx so a missed appointment loses £xxx.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
If the same was happening in reverse, as I tried to describe in my previous post, ie the major cities of an Islamic country becoming totally unIslamic through mass immigration (of Trump supporters in my example), there being a constant terrorist threat from those immigrants to the point where public transport is manned by armed policemen, no doubt the Muslims in those cities would be unhappy with the way things had gone, and I would be on the side of those muslims that felt their politicians had hung them out to dry.
The time to do anything about it was 40-50 odd years ago. It is impossible now without violence breaking out, so the solution is Islamic/Non Islamic marriage/kids
"Maybe because he is interesting , has interesting if sometimes divisive viewpoints rather than just whining like wimps and accusing people of being drunk as you are doing."
And sometims he's sober and he writes well. Why don't you try it?
Sorry Keiran but no signature from me. It's populist nonsense. Not everyone needs to see a GP within 48 hrs. So creating a " right " warps medical priorities, is dangerous and means services will be designed round a single target rather than actual patient outcomes. I really can't think of a worse way to tackle the supply/demand problem in Primary Care than building in a single bizzare target that will warp all. That's before it destroys all the attempts to get people to see Nurses/Pharmacists where appropriate. It's the kind of nonsense UKIP would propose. Actually it's worse than that. It's the kind of public service reform New Labour would propose.
I completely agree. Stupid targets are the bane of the NHS, and very distorting.
I am in hospital practice, so a slightly set of problems, but we have a target system that prioritises new patients via an 18 week Referral to treatment target. There are no targets for follow up so follow up appointments are frequently cancelled to make way for new. There is a real problem with capacity, and when you give one patient priority another one gets sidelined.
There is a need for more capacity in General Practice, but the answer needs to involve issues of recruitment and retention. This is not primarily about money, but particularly about the total environment of postgraduate training and support, an increasingly impatient group of patients, onerous bureaucracy and a punitive approach to missed targets.
How would a GP be punished for missing this 48 hours target? Who is going to record compliance? how is it to be monitored? what is the reporting arrangement for the CCG to address it?
Surely this target would just distract Doctors from clinical work, and drive morale lower. This is not a solution, it is the problem.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
If the same was happening in reverse, as I tried to describe in my previous post, ie the major cities of an Islamic country becoming totally unIslamic through mass immigration (of Trump supporters in my example), there being a constant terrorist threat from those immigrants to the point where public transport is manned by armed policemen, no doubt the Muslims in those cities would be unhappy with the way things had gone, and I would be on the side of those muslims that felt their politicians had hung them out to dry.
But what measures would you oppose to stop what you see as the undesired outcome? Forced conversions? Ghettos? Forced deportations? Compulsory sterilisation? Gas chambers?
It's easy to say that you would will a government that took measures to prevent a majority Muslim Britain under sharia law. But at what point do you give up?
Another problem with Keiran's silly nonsense is the " routine appointment " statistic. The fact you wait 13 days on average for a " routine " appointment slot is an example of the kind of target setting he is proposing. No one who has the bitter experience or middle class capacity ever waits 13 days for an appointment. Because they learn the work arounds. What to say to the Receptionist, the drop in clinics, telephone consultations, emergency appointments, cancellation lists etc.
" Routine " appointments are what you get if you ring up and politely ask for an appointment and say nothing else. It's a poor choice for statistic to reconstruct primary care around.
I'm sorry but this really looks like Daily Mail hobby horse fauxtrage from Keiran based on some poor personal experiences.
I'd oppose a far right government if the consequences of supporting it became worse than the consequences of opposing it, in the form of civil war or genocide. Speaking hypothetically, I'd oppose the kind of government that was led by Adolf Hitler, but could live with the type of government that was led by Salazar or Pinochet.
In short, we should publish a swathe of targets for various public services, all of which should indicate a well-functioning service. Much like for exams in schools and universities, we don't query every single target every time (otherwise each target is just a cheat-sheet inviting shenanigans or distorted priorities) but assess according to a random selection of these targets each year. This would give us a better and more accurate measure of how the services are actually doing.
I'd oppose a far right government if the consequences of supporting it became worse than the consequences of opposing it, in the form of civil war or genocide. Speaking hypothetically, I'd oppose the kind of government that was led by Adolf Hitler, but could live with the type of government that was led by Salazar or Pinochet.
So you're happy to support a far right government that declared an offensive on Muslims and happy to keep supporting it when the civil disorder that provoked required increasingly repressive measures in response.
My GP surgery had an online booking system until a few months ago. A few people complained because they did not (would not ?) have internet so they removed this wonderful system that had worked perfectly well and went back to phones. Many thousands of people who were quite happy previously now have to phone commencing 8.30 am in the morning and it is unlikely you will ever get an answer let alone near a doc within 48 hours. I don't blame the government for this I blame the surgery. They had a good system and then just went back to the stone age.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
Not sure why they couldn't just operate the two systems side by side - it's what the vast majority of visitor attractions, restaurants, theatres etc. do.
Yes and they did as far as I could tell. The complainants apparently said they couldn't get appointments that had already been taken online? That could be the case of course.
Either way that can happen with theatres, restaurants. I just don't see theatres and restaurants going back to phones because a few people complain all the seats have already gone.
A bizarre complaint considering they face the same situation with appointments being taken already by phone - there's no difference.
I would suggest there might have been other issues with personnel and internal systems.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
If the same was happening in reverse, as I tried to describe in my previous post, ie the major cities of an Islamic country becoming totally unIslamic through mass immigration (of Trump supporters in my example), there being a constant terrorist threat from those immigrants to the point where public transport is manned by armed policemen, no doubt the Muslims in those cities would be unhappy with the way things had gone, and I would be on the side of those muslims that felt their politicians had hung them out to dry.
But what measures would you oppose to stop what you see as the undesired outcome? Forced conversions? Ghettos? Forced deportations? Compulsory sterilisation? Gas chambers?
It's easy to say that you would will a government that took measures to prevent a majority Muslim Britain under sharia law. But at what point do you give up?
I wouldn't allow any new Mosques to be opened, but the time that something could be done was 40-50 years ago.. encourage the immigrants to go home before they could establish roots. Now I think it is probably too late for any intervention to work, and the result will be that in 30-40 years there will be the kind of civil war we see on tv from the middle East now, and that will sort it out, maybe, one way or the other.
The only hope is children being born to mixed heritage Muslim/non muslim parents. But that's not allowed... its just a disaster all round.
Having lived and worked in a number of Muslim countries in my lifetime I have not had any conflicts with the local population as to how they go about their lives nor them with me as far as I was aware. I was the guest in their countries and simply abided by their ways and customs even though the more extreme countries treated their own people, women, some other nationals and homosexuals in an appalling way in my personal view. There is only one place I went that I then subsequently refused to return to and have never done so since for these reasons.
However, I do know one thing from those experiences that is it is by a country mile far easier to change or modify a government, even a very extreme one, than to even talk let alone attempt to do the same with some religions. Something that should be considered very very carefully before opting for one or the other in the context of the U.K.
I'm not sure why you equate Hitler to a far-right Christian, daodao? If you go round killing anyone then you are not a Christian whatever label you might wish to stick on. Jesus gave us the commandment to "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another". (John 13.34). So if there is a far-right Christian group that espouses killing Muslims, Jews or anyone else for that matter then they are most certainly not followers of Christ.
It's a real shame Turkey's sliding backwards. A few decades ago, whilst not perfect, it was a good symbol of how a country could be Muslim and secular. Now the 'democratic' leader has locked up tens of thousands, sacked or arrested about a third of the judiciary, and destroyed much (most?) of the free press.
I think it's worth noting (I missed before that it wasn't just Sharia/Farage but Muslim/le Pen) that there's not a single Muslim-majority type country. Leaving aside the war-torn examples of Iraq and Syria, there's Saudi Arabia and Iran on the one hand, and Indonesia/Malaysia on the other. Indonesia and Malaysia aren't ideal but they seem far more stable, tolerant and less theocratic.
Disappointing to learn @SeanT isn't drunk. As he knows his shoddily constructed false choice of straw people is nonsense I can only assume he wants to be unpleasant about an entire world religion again.
However to play along of course I'd prefer Britain to become majority Muslim than Facistic. Sufism or the Third Riech ? The Red Cresent or Auchwitz ? Interfaith Iftars or Public Executions ? The works of the ' Golden Age ' or Book Burning ? Islamic finance or Hyper Inflation ? Zakat or Torture Chambers ?
Oh look @SeanT isn't the only one who can make fatuous false choices to make a rhetorical point.
@Seant that's a pretty easy choice to make. A Farage-led government might well be shambolic, but it wouldn't threaten basic liberties.
I'll ask you the question that SeanT ducked. At what point do you oppose a far right government implementing measures aimed at preventing a Muslim majority? At what point do you give up?
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
If the same was happening in reverse, as I tried to describe in my previous post, ie the major cities of an Islamic country becoming totally unIslamic through mass immigration (of Trump supporters in my example), there being a constant terrorist threat from those immigrants to the point where public transport is manned by armed policemen, no doubt the Muslims in those cities would be unhappy with the way things had gone, and I would be on the side of those muslims that felt their politicians had hung them out to dry.
But what measures would you oppose to stop what you see as the undesired outcome? Forced conversions? Ghettos? Forced deportations? Compulsory sterilisation? Gas chambers?
It's easy to say that you would will a government that took measures to prevent a majority Muslim Britain under sharia law. But at what point do you give up?
isam has a particular bee in his bonnet about Islam, as does SeanT. Muslims make up about 6% of the UK population, but of these about half are secular, with only a fairly cursory cultural background in the religion. The prospect of a Sharia government is nonexistent.
I agree that the intolerant and misogynistic aspects of Islam should be discourraged, but this need not be coercive. It should start by dealing only with democratically chosen representatives, not self appinted community leaders, or clan elders. It should continue with active encouragement of female education, which is the most effective route to development for any community, as well as reducing fertility rates.
Want to bring down the Muslim theocracy? hire a Muslim girl.
I'd oppose a far right government if the consequences of supporting it became worse than the consequences of opposing it, in the form of civil war or genocide. Speaking hypothetically, I'd oppose the kind of government that was led by Adolf Hitler, but could live with the type of government that was led by Salazar or Pinochet.
A problem with this sort of conjecture is that the writer always assumes that they're on the 'right' side of the given government. "Sure," they say: "I'd much rather live under a far-right government than an Islamic / left-wing / etc one."
However, as has been seen over the world, extreme governments of all types, whether theocratic, left-wing, or right-wing are difficult places to live. If you fit in with the desires of the leaders, you are fine. If you dissent, sometimes in small ways, then you're in trouble.
This is particularly odd given that we're on a website where there is often strong dissent from the government line. We call our politicians and leaders all sorts of names: we insult them, tell them they're wrong, and generally criticise. The fact we can do that fairly strongly without the law intervening in almost all cases is a sign of a healthy society.
However, in many authoritarian countries such comments might become a jail sentence or worse.
Can you honestly say that if you'd lived under Salazar or Pinochet, you would not have upset the regime in a way that would not cause you problems?
Sorry Keiran but no signature from me. It's populist nonsense. Not everyone needs to see a GP within 48 hrs. So creating a " right " warps medical priorities, is dangerous and means services will be designed round a single target rather than actual patient outcomes. I really can't think of a worse way to tackle the supply/demand problem in Primary Care than building in a single bizzare target that will warp all. That's before it destroys all the attempts to get people to see Nurses/Pharmacists where appropriate. It's the kind of nonsense UKIP would propose. Actually it's worse than that. It's the kind of public service reform New Labour would propose.
Popped into the shop this morning to do task that usually takes a few hours - only to find it didn't take more than an hour.
Logged on to PB to find myself agreeing with malc and Yellow Submarine.
This afternoon I'm going to see the Baggies at St Marys.
Comments
But, alas and alack, doing something about this will add a large extra burden onto the NHS, and who's going to pay for it? (It'd be nice if we could claw some of it back from the overpaid doctors and locums, but that's not going to happen.)
I, for one, am on the same page as you on this. I would vote for a fascist government over allowing the country to become majority Muslim, or allowing Sharia law to be adopted (taking your hypothetical scenario as it comes).
I do take issue with one aspect of your post though. Since when have Farage or (Marine) Le Pen been examples of fascism? For the record, I'd happily vote for Farage with or without the threat of Sharia - if I were French (perish the thought) I'd probably vote for Fillon, but would vote Le Pen over any of the other alternatives (e.g. If Juppe had been the LR candidate).
That being said, in your hypothetical scenario I'd vote for a genuine fascist, e.g. Mussolini (before anyone Godwins - yes that's a verb as of now - I'd probably draw the line at Hitler, thought provoking though, as genuinely unsure that Sharia wouldn't be worse)
I reprogrammed the simulation so it was possible to save Brexit!
You've voted for that over democracy. Care to share how that's working out?
* The strong choose the better
* The foolish choose the worse
* The weak choose both
* The smart choose the third...
Many Brits agree with most or all of this shopping list, and yet nothing is done. Rather reminiscent of Brexit, where politicians discovered to their surprise that people hadn't "got with the program" after all. People feel helpless and are cowed by accusations of racism. And there is the irony that many, if not most, Muslim immigrants don't really want Britain to become Kashmir on Sea anyway.
From that point of view, there are two elephants in the room. One is the relative ease still (through family or marriage) of emigrating from Pakistan to the UK. The other is the birth rate. When this was a monocultural nation, which it was still considered to be until the 1980s, birth control was national policy. Since we've switched to multiculturalism, birth control is never mentioned, and yet it's one of the key ways of integrating into British society.
Other Muslim countries, including Iran, Yemen and Saudi, all an hour or two away by plane, are very different placed indeed, places that I would want to visit let alone live.
With regard to @SeanT's question, which is where I think you were leading me, I agree with him. I'd go with the option that left open the possibility that we could collectively kick the scumbags out in the future. Hi Nigel and Marine.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/everything-is-still-awesome-214554
Would you rather visit in Raqqa or go on a caravaning holiday around Northern Ireland with SeanT in the dead of winter?
Partners are paid out of the profits although they also employ non partner doctors on an hourly basis.
So the taxpayer is not directly paying GP salaries or pensions.
Any other business they would also be building other systems / services to increase efficiency. Blair had the right idea when he foresaw that the NHS needed a big IT overhaul, but the solution was a disaster.
Now a days there are loads of commercial products available, both for medical and ones that could be adapted for purposes of GP surgery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4077598/The-anti-Semitic-rants-Muslim-activists-won-PM-s-praise-Members-taxpayer-funded-anti-extremism-group-post-conspiracy-theories-Facebook-blame-Israel-Sandy-Hook-massacre.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2a1FwYEZS4
"People feel helpless and are cowed by accusations of racism."
Something that rarely seems to be mentioned on here, is that people feel helpless and are cowed by actual racism.
Whilst accusations of racism are sometimes wrongly used to excuse or cover up, there can be little doubt that racism does exist, and can significantly hurt peoples' lives and prospects.
Someone else has made the additional and generally unspoken point that roughly when one has a significantly higher number of women GPs we find that in practice they work in different ways but assume that the sexes behave the same.
I'd definitely pick Farage over shariah law.
But I'd happily live in a majority Muslim country again provided it was a democracy.
Ah, petitions. Can't recall one being started after Blair was astounded [or acting astounded] on Question Time (probably the 2005 election special) that some audience members had to wait weeks for an appointment.
Interesting hypothetical, Mr. T. I'd say the actual alternative, given the tin-ear, arrogance, complacency and intransigence amongst the political class, may end up being further to the right than that.
But, if it were a case of Farage or Shariah Law, I'd go for the one that doesn't punish women for adultery when they have the temerity to get raped.
My practice also operates the telephone triage system and it works well from my patient perspective.
October 2012: I attend appointment with nhs consultant for him to tell me whether I need a colonoscopy to look for cancer. he says not needed, case closed.
December 2012, just before Christmas: receive letter from consultant's secretary saying you are now booked in on [date in late January] for the colonoscopy arranged between you and Mr. consultant in your meeting of October.
January 2013: I telephone consultant's secretary about 8 times to say you have got this wrong, we agreed no colonoscopy. Each time goes to her voicemail and I get the same message "I can't talk to you because today is Christmas Eve, and I am off until 28th December".
At this stage I think: with any other organisation I would think I had done enough to advise them of their own fuckwitted incompetence, and would simply miss the appointment. However, I hate people who waste the resources of the NHS by not turning up for procedures out of laziness, and rather than appearing to be one of those people, I give in and undergo a completely unnecessary (as I think) colonoscopy, since cancelling it seems impossible.
end January 2013: colonoscopy finds tumour in sigmoid colon.
March 2013: resection of tumour plus 3 lymph nodes (so stage 3b cancer), followed by 6 months chemo, followed from then to date by clear CT scans and colonoscopies.
I never found out whether the consultant changed his mind or the secretary made a mistake. If the latter, and if I had managed to correct the mistake, that would have been the end of me.
As it is, I am pretty much cured.
Mr. X, glad you survived. There will be many stories like that, and the other way too.
This is without the streams of letters and results coming back in to be dealth with.
Matt does make the interesting point of there being quite a few people who never seem to miss the day their sick note is 'due' who always seem to get appointments. THere are also those that game the system and get into the emergency appointments needed to be kept back with coughs/colds.
Telephone triage can be the answer - but it heavily favours young professionals. Lots of people get miffed they aren't going to 'be seen', it is easier to miss things and have events, a lot of oppertunistic treatment is missed and a lot of docs really dislike it and would refuse to do it.
There have been some balls ups in pay re pensions from labour continued by the tories, however I genuinely do not think that I could be doing this job at this intensity at 60. I think it would kill me.
One final point is that GPs are vastly underfunded. We get a global sum per patient on the books and then boosted payouts through some targets and additional services provided. Every other sector of the NHS gets a payment per appointment/attendance. If there was a greater funding parity there wouldn't be as many issues.
It could have been anything from him not explaining it well or having a rethink and not telling you, to a simple clerical error. The IT system is a shambles.
With the system above I would imagine a couple of errors a day at least.
The sum per patient rather than appointment, I'd guess, would mean if you live in a healthier area things are rather easier, and much more difficult if you live in Bubonia-on-Syphilis.
If you go to the website and click on Register you will find out if your GP is signed up to this service. If they aren't I suggest you lobby them to join in!
12:51AM
DavidL said:
A GP's pension costs taxpayers something like £3m a head. They also cost us about £100K a year, plus staff, plus offices etc. And we get to pay for their training. How many more do we want to employ to meet this completely pointless target?
GPs are mostly private businesses. GP practices are paid on the number of payients on their books and for other extra procedures which they carry out.
Partners are paid out of the profits although they also employ non partner doctors on an hourly basis.
So the taxpayer is not directly paying GP salaries or pensions.
****
GPs are paid an average £136/y per patient, according to MD in Private Eye.
A consultation with a private doctor would cost you about £136, showing how cost-effective the NHS is compared to most healthcare systems.
Nevertheless, German doctors are paid about half as much, so why not reduce doctors' payments to about £65k/y, the same as an MP is paid, after reducing work stress.
I sympathise with Keiran's position but I don't think 2 days is necessary for a routine matter. I hear that many younger people visit GPs for routine matters for which I was taught 'don't bother the doctor'.
Your leafy suburb patient is generally rather more demanding for specialist referrals for minor things and comes festooned with questionable data, but on the whole yes your less well to do areas are at a huge disadvantage (like some payment targets are with monitoring BPs statin usage which can be difficult to get some patients in for)
Note with this reduction in funding there have been huge increases in appointments. Where GP practices fail (there have been many) the Health boards take them over and are grossly inefficient.
Anyway, why is this place turning into politicalcampaigning.com?
My Doctor of course refuses too unless I've been ill for more than 7 days. My employer still expects me to attempt to get someone at the surgery to sign a letter to show I've been there. (that depends on the kindness of the receptionist). I only get sick pay if I am signed off.
One Flu a few years ago cost me over £200 in lost pay.
It annoys me, If I have the flu, I need bed rest, I don't need to see the Dr unless I get a lung infection and need some antibiotics to clear it up. Luckily I've only had one bout of Norovirus over this year, which kept me off work for three days. Thats good considering I work at germ central at Heathrow Airport,
Don't get me wrong. Doctors work hard for their money. They have a very strong sense of entitlement which I think comes from the current crop being aware that they made the hardest subject to get into at University and did the best at school to achieve that. I am not getting at doctors per se, only the absurdity of this petition which completely ignores the massive financial implications of its demands and gives no thought at all to the alternatives that would have to be put aside to fund it.
100% agree with charges SquareRoot. Political suicide however! Like we need prescription charges here to prevent entitled idiots asking for minor ailment treatments.
Our GP surgery in Leeds has drop-in sessions 3 mornings each week. You just turn up, and wait your turn. Otherwise it can take far too long to get an appointment with one of the GPs.
"Why has this site allowed itself to get hijacked by nonsense political petitions and campaigns? Let's get back to betting I say!"
After a year like the last one where the civilized world turned into Sodom and Gomorrah this appeal to people's better nature is very welcome. Possibly the first green shoots after the ugliness of Brexit and Trump.
Like the 'Summer of Love' following the black days of McCarthy
There is very little evidence to show a material increase in the number prescriptions since they became free for everyone. The logical assumption is that if we went back to charging those that could afford it there would be very little saving in the number of prescriptions.
why is this place turning into politicalcampaigning.com?
At least it's better than brexitwars.com
The Scottish Neo-Nazi's onboard. There's a surprise!
Your target is all within two days so even more ambitious than an average.
Arguably plenty of people don't bother with GP because there is a wait.. they figure it will sort itself out. So demand might increase - meaning even harder to reach that target.
Even if it were possible... I can't really see that it would be desirable.
For many things waiting two days or more is fine.
Given the choice- I'd much rather spend the money on other things within the health sector.
Dadge - you dsay that birth control used to be national policy. Not in my lifetime - it's always been a matter of personal choice. You want to have zero kids, 2 kids, 10 kids? Up to you. Always has been. China's one-child policy is the unappealin counter-example.
And on that political bombshell, it's goodbye 2016. I have fog to drive through....
Imagine Pakistan became a major economy, and attractive for immigrants. Lets say those from the American rust belt who voted Trump moved en masse to Lahore and Karachi to the point where, in 2040, large parts of those cities were more like redneck America than an Islamic city; no one spoke the local language, there were no mosques, there were bars everywhere and people wore cowboy hats. Muslims were being put in jail for defacing photos of Dolly Parton, while every terrorist attack in the region was from 2nd generation American immigrants (being inspired by a group in America telling them to do it).
I reckon they'd vote for hardline Islamists. Of course the scenario I describe would never be allowed to happen, as it should not have here.
The former I see as a symptom of broader political issues that can be overcome in the medium term, establishing a Caliphate is a whole lot harder to reverse in any meaningful sense - and it'd change our country forever.
on a recent hospital visit accompanying my father in law we were told by that they have on average 3 "no shows" a day. Yes ...A DAY! Time to charge these people for wasting the valuable time and taking appointments others would willingly use. However that turns them into debt collectors though or refusing treatment.,it is education that's needed at an early stage not to waste appointments but how? Again on " no shows" I can't blame the government. The service was available and booked they just didn't turn up.
No amount of petitions will change these simple facts.
But proposing something that would be disastrous if a serious effort to implement was made is another.
It may well be that we need more GPs... But we do not need everyone to have an appointment in two days. There will be much more important places to put at least some f the money required to meet this target. And setting unachievable targets leads to gaming and other unintended adverse outcomes.
The Scottish Neo-Nazi's onboard. There's a surprise!
LOL, big jessie boy has got one of his minimum wage servants to post for him. Stick to putting your pigtails in
and playing with your dolls loser. As usual your insipid whining input is up to your usual pathetic standards.
I agree that people demanding antibiotics in particular is a menace in that it is reducing the efficacy of those antibiotics, it does no good and it does indeed cost money in wasted doctors' time. It is yet another reason why I am against this petition. Waiting for an appointment a significant number of people get better. In fact my wife claims that making a doctor's appointment is the best medicine known to man. As long as they remember to cancel the appointment when they do....
The finale sets up S2 perfectly - I can't wait for it next year.
LOL, big jessie boy has got one of his minimum wage servants to post for him. Stick to putting your pigtails in
and playing with your dolls loser. As usual your insipid whining input is up to your usual pathetic standards.
Either way that can happen with theatres, restaurants. I just don't see theatres and restaurants going back to phones because a few people complain all the seats have already gone.
"To answer the @SeanT hypothesis - I'd go for a far-right Christian over theocratic Muslim every time."
In 1933, German folk voted for a man who became the foremost Crusader of the last 500 years in his butchery of non-Christians - is that what you would advocate?
I would choose living in present day Iran over Germany post 1933.
As an aside, it seems to have been less a genuine hypothetical and more SeanT putting together a bogus question to give him an opportunity to propound his hobbyhorse agenda of anti-Muslim measures. Which no doubt is why he doesn't want to answer when he'd give up. He has no serious interest in his own question and the ethical questions it raises. He just wants to be unpleasant to Muslims.
And you're wrong about a Farage-led government. We've already seen senior kippers demand judges be sacked for issuing judgments that they disagree with. Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of their reactionary agenda.
When it does waste money is for (say) elective surgery, where expensive resources really have been booked and reserved for that patient. But most of the time no-shows are irrelevant and we should not be misled by innumerate doctors dividing the fixed costs of the surgery by the number of minutes in a day to declare that each appointment costs £xxx so a missed appointment loses £xxx.
The time to do anything about it was 40-50 odd years ago. It is impossible now without violence breaking out, so the solution is Islamic/Non Islamic marriage/kids
"Maybe because he is interesting , has interesting if sometimes divisive viewpoints rather than just whining like wimps and accusing people of being drunk as you are doing."
And sometims he's sober and he writes well. Why don't you try it?
I am in hospital practice, so a slightly set of problems, but we have a target system that prioritises new patients via an 18 week Referral to treatment target. There are no targets for follow up so follow up appointments are frequently cancelled to make way for new. There is a real problem with capacity, and when you give one patient priority another one gets sidelined.
There is a need for more capacity in General Practice, but the answer needs to involve issues of recruitment and retention. This is not primarily about money, but particularly about the total environment of postgraduate training and support, an increasingly impatient group of patients, onerous bureaucracy and a punitive approach to missed targets.
How would a GP be punished for missing this 48 hours target? Who is going to record compliance? how is it to be monitored? what is the reporting arrangement for the CCG to address it?
Surely this target would just distract Doctors from clinical work, and drive morale lower. This is not a solution, it is the problem.
It's easy to say that you would will a government that took measures to prevent a majority Muslim Britain under sharia law. But at what point do you give up?
" Routine " appointments are what you get if you ring up and politely ask for an appointment and say nothing else. It's a poor choice for statistic to reconstruct primary care around.
I'm sorry but this really looks like Daily Mail hobby horse fauxtrage from Keiran based on some poor personal experiences.
I'd oppose a far right government if the consequences of supporting it became worse than the consequences of opposing it, in the form of civil war or genocide. Speaking hypothetically, I'd oppose the kind of government that was led by Adolf Hitler, but could live with the type of government that was led by Salazar or Pinochet.
In short, we should publish a swathe of targets for various public services, all of which should indicate a well-functioning service. Much like for exams in schools and universities, we don't query every single target every time (otherwise each target is just a cheat-sheet inviting shenanigans or distorted priorities) but assess according to a random selection of these targets each year.
This would give us a better and more accurate measure of how the services are actually doing.
I would suggest there might have been other issues with personnel and internal systems.
The only hope is children being born to mixed heritage Muslim/non muslim parents. But that's not allowed... its just a disaster all round.
However, I do know one thing from those experiences that is it is by a country mile far easier to change or modify a government, even a very extreme one, than to even talk let alone attempt to do the same with some religions. Something that should be considered very very carefully before opting for one or the other in the context of the U.K.
I think it's worth noting (I missed before that it wasn't just Sharia/Farage but Muslim/le Pen) that there's not a single Muslim-majority type country. Leaving aside the war-torn examples of Iraq and Syria, there's Saudi Arabia and Iran on the one hand, and Indonesia/Malaysia on the other. Indonesia and Malaysia aren't ideal but they seem far more stable, tolerant and less theocratic.
However to play along of course I'd prefer Britain to become majority Muslim than Facistic. Sufism or the Third Riech ? The Red Cresent or Auchwitz ? Interfaith Iftars or Public Executions ? The works of the ' Golden Age ' or Book Burning ? Islamic finance or Hyper Inflation ? Zakat or Torture Chambers ?
Oh look @SeanT isn't the only one who can make fatuous false choices to make a rhetorical point.
I agree that the intolerant and misogynistic aspects of Islam should be discourraged, but this need not be coercive. It should start by dealing only with democratically chosen representatives, not self appinted community leaders, or clan elders. It should continue with active encouragement of female education, which is the most effective route to development for any community, as well as reducing fertility rates.
Want to bring down the Muslim theocracy? hire a Muslim girl.
However, as has been seen over the world, extreme governments of all types, whether theocratic, left-wing, or right-wing are difficult places to live. If you fit in with the desires of the leaders, you are fine. If you dissent, sometimes in small ways, then you're in trouble.
This is particularly odd given that we're on a website where there is often strong dissent from the government line. We call our politicians and leaders all sorts of names: we insult them, tell them they're wrong, and generally criticise. The fact we can do that fairly strongly without the law intervening in almost all cases is a sign of a healthy society.
However, in many authoritarian countries such comments might become a jail sentence or worse.
Can you honestly say that if you'd lived under Salazar or Pinochet, you would not have upset the regime in a way that would not cause you problems?
Logged on to PB to find myself agreeing with malc and Yellow Submarine.
This afternoon I'm going to see the Baggies at St Marys.
If this weirdness continues it'll be 11-1 to WBA!
2017 is looking up. Happy New Year to everyone!
How about paying GPs less so more of them work at least a 5 day week ?