The answer to the first question is 'yes they are', practices are run as businesses by the partners who control their own budgets. What they don't spend they keep.
In the 'good old days' people died shortly after receiving their old age pension. Now they clog up GP surgeries waiting to be prescribed pills to counteract the negative side effects of the pills that they are already taking. Also when something is 'free' it is no longer valued and demanded as a 'right'.
Don't we have any Ducati-riding doctors on this forum who can clear some of this up? I'm not, so all I can add is that: - Of course the NHS as a whole is not a business with shareholders, although it can be argued that it is something of a "state monopoly" - I don't understand exactly how NHS hospital Trusts work, but they all have "Chief Executives", and highly paid they are too. - Most GP practices are very definitely partnerships, putting GPs (those who are partners, which is a lot of them, although some are salaried and employed by partnerships) in the interesting position of running a business but having something of a captive market (the NHS pays them per patient they have registered with them) and a state guaranteed defined benefit pension arrangement. A lot of this dates back to the deal done with GPs by the post-WWII givernment when the NHS was devised.
Giving control of budgets to GP's was done by the last Labour government, at the same time as they massively increased their salary to in the region of £130k. No wonder that many GP's now work part time and refuse to work weekends.
Of course they aren't a business........what you describe is just an institution / licence to print money and no responsiblity to anyone..... ...and if they are examined it will be 'look at me and how good I am, I didn't spend all my budget' In fact the majority of the UK exists on 'fake industries' now eg - call centres as middle men just taking messages that achieve nothing........
For once I agree........When I had my asthma / pneumonia attack at the beginning of 2012, I was put on steroids and other medication - ignoring the damage the steroids has done to my skin and teeth (for a second); one of the drugs causes heart attacks.......Quelle surprise...... Following my heart attack, I have been whacked with the highest dose of statins to control cholesterol (which isn't that high by some standards - and anyone would think that I was a fat little ba****d - Huh, try me....) which can cause diabetes. Just had second lot of special blood tests today for diabetes....... ...........and on Christmas Eve, off to the hospital for a consultation about the specialist removal of a tooth that has shattered (steroids, remember?)......... I'm effing glad its free for me - do you really think I want to pay for being f****d around like this?? If it was a business doing it, I would probably sue.........but contrary to popular belief it ain't that easy to sue the NHS. Merry Christmas everyone ----- :biggrin:
What I have posted is what I believe to be true, it doesn't mean that I endorse it. I avoid all medication unless there is a clearly understood reason why it should be taken. But then so far, touch wood, I have had good health. I sincerely hope you get your condition sorted.
OK...Work this one out............ "It's better to have diabetes than it is to have the heart condition"....... (even though there is possibility of both being caused by the medications)............ .............and people think I'm waspy........... I wonder why???
I don't know, I am not a doctor, although I can understand the principle of the lesser of two evils. Have you though about second opinions ? My sister, who is in her early 60's and a member of the RCN, has symptoms that indicate a 10% probability of bladder cancer, she has elected not to undergo further investigation. The logic is that those investigations are invasive and unpleasant, if she does have bladder cancer the treatment is also unpleasant and although her life could probably be extended by that treatment the quality of life would not be good. She would rather just get on with her life and hope she is one of the 90%.
Please, please ask your sister to get at least one more opinion. I know two people (both men) who have had bladder cancer diagnosed and treated, and they are both still alive and fit. Yes, treatment is unpleasant, but as one of them pointed out to me, in his case the chemical part of the treatment could be administered into the bladder, rather than via the bloodstream, meaning much less impact from side-effects. With cancers, it's failure to diagnose and treat early that often accounts for poor outcome, which is something that the NHS has been criticised for, hence the focus on improvements in that area. As for investigation being an ordeal, well, it's worse for a man (urethra being longer and having bends in it!). It's also worth noting that even though some may object, if the NHS does not offer a second opinion, or delays investigation, you can ask a GP for a referral to a specialist privately, then take the results back to the GP. The costs of investigation are often going to be no worse (or indeed less) than a Ducati breakdown, and the difference could be a life-or-death one in some cases.
She knows that, she is a member of the RCN, she is intelligent and has made her decision from a position of knowledge. It is her decision.
Because Jeremy Hunt is an arrogant twat. Check out 38.degrees.org for some of the stunts he has tried.
Which is why countries with higher taxes have lower rates of tax evasion and a greater social of responsibility within the population.
Eh ? It is generally considered that reducing and simplifying tax also reduces both tax evasion and tax avoidance. The rest of your sentence doesn't seem to make any sense.
I have a dear friend in her 60's who had bladder cancer back 6 years ago She had all the treatments and has come through looks fantastic gets on with her life has a bag to deal with and pain but she is a fighter and nothing gets in her way I hope this is a bit of inspiration
Adjusted to make sense now. in practice, in countries such as Sweden, tax evasion is considered to be a bit like drink driving. Socially unacceptable. In this country a lot of people view it is as Me 1 HMRC 0 a victory. the Swedish way if thinking is 1) you pay high taxes (upper rate of 57%) 2) you get world class public services 3) because of the above, people value those services and don't miss doctors appointments etc. there is less wastage. in the UK large sections of the population don't value our public services highly enough: mainly because they are considered to be barely adequate and we resent paying for them. of course this requires a very high degree of trust in those who administer these services. This we don't have in the UK, mainly because we have the following. 1) blue tory 2) red tory 3) yellow tory As a consequence, the public feels that politicians will say whatever they think will get them into power, which is a centre right agenda at the moment, and no one trusts the politicians. Political parties have abandoned their true beliefs, in order to get elected. IMHO this is due to our first past the post electoral system. If we had PR we would be much likely to get political parties with more varied policies, and the public would be more trusting of them. We would also move away fron the never ending cycle of reorganising public services. Has there ever been a time when the NHS, education systems etc have had a steady period of just doing there job without being reorganised? no amount of reform will compensate for insufficient funds. good luck to Recidivists sister. I hope your family has a positive outcome.
Apologies if I am wrong, but a quick read in Wikipedia etc indicates that in Sweden you do have to pay to visit a GP. Not much, but sufficient no doubt to stop people missing appointments, or making unecessary ones. Also, all is not sweetness in Sweden these days: BBC News - Sweden riots spread beyond Stockholm despite extra police Unless Wikipedia is misleading, the Swedes spend only marginally more than the British on healthcare (approx 9% GDP vs 8.4% for us, so if their system is "world class" and ours isn't than it's something to do with the way the different systems are run; the Swedish system includes private healthcare providers, it is not a state monopoly. That said, it is terribly diffcult to make sense of how different healthcare systems compare, and how they work: Healthcare in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia At least within Europe, most of us are lucky enough to have access to reasonable healthcare.
well I suppose if UK GDP = Swedish GDP, then the Swedes would only be spending 7% more. however, Swedish GDP is 19% more than UK GDP, so that translates into about 20% more, which surely is a lot? We do like to think that the UK is a big fish, UN Security Council etc, but we are incredibly unproductive. 17th placed in terms of GDP per head. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, even Ireland, which is supposed to be broke, is more productive.
+1 But 749er doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good argument :wink: Comparing health care systems across europe is difficult but what isn't difficult is comparing outcomes, and by all accounts the UK is well down the tables for heart disease and cancer treatment.
