Our darling New Labour government has been intent on centering health care entirely around the patient over the past ten years. There is a 'slight' problem with creating a patient-centred market based approach to running the NHS; this is based around the fact that the NHS is a nationalised system which has to ration healthcare and if this rationing is to be fair then it cannot be driven by patient demand. Unfortunately either New Labour didn't understand this simple little conundrum or they are deliberately trying to privatise the NHS, you can decide this for yourself.
As the NHS has rather limited funding, part of the system has to give; it is certainly not Gordon's purse string that relent under the pressure, they only relax to fund management consultants, QUANGOs and other hare brained centrally funded initiatives. Gordon would never release extra funds to pay for essential frontline services, he is modeling his regime on Kafka's castle after all; so if you have varicose veins, an inguinal hernia or a joint needing injection then you might as well forget it on the NHS. However if you want to complain about this situation then there is certainly no shortage of agencies who will listen long and hard, before telling you to f*ck off with you hernial sac between your legs. This is Gordon's brave new NHS.
So who do the patients vent their anger and frustration on when they have to wait unacceptable lengths of time for scans, operations or appointments? Who has to put up with untold rudeness, verbal abuse, racist abuse and physical abuse when they are trying pretty damn hard to do as good a job as possible for their patients?
The doctors, nurses and other health care workers on the frontline have to, that's who.
Undoubtedly society has changed since the NHS was founded, but care is now 'demanded' and 'an indisputable right'; whereas it used to be more appreciated and gratefully received. The current situation is clearly unworkable as the government loves to build up the public's expectations and demands for health care; but at the same time this very same government is enforcing crippling deficits on trusts up and down the country. The government's 'patient is always right' motto is creating an American style belief that they have a 'right' to whatever they want out of the NHS; and this only encourages a very selfish, obnoxious and unpleasant attitude in patients.
Symptomatic of this shift is the focus on 'patient led care' as opposed to 'physician led care'; this politically correct shift to one extreme lacks common sense, as it encourages patients to demand care and it reinforces their feeling that a strictly rationed state system must respect their 'right' over everyone else's 'rights'. There is clearly a happy medium between the two extremes, despite the government driving for votes with one politically correct extreme. However the government increasingly listens to the manufactured propaganda trotted out by various patient's organisations which echo their belief that 'the patient is always right'.
Bizarrely NHS staff who have to make these necessary rationing decisions are being regulated in an ever increasingly authoritarian manner by the state, which makes their situation over more unenviable. There is only a fixed amount of resources to go around and by allowing staff to be intimidated by patients into practising in an increasingly defensive manner, these resources will be used even more ineffectively.
The politicians have achieved exactly what they set out to. They take credit for any NHS successes which are put down to their expert leadership, while any blame is pinned locally at a nice safe distance from Whitehall. Meanwhile the government's ministries of propaganda spend millions of tax payer's cash trying to smear doctors as greedy money grabbers who want to exploit patients for cash when nothing could be further from the truth. Doctors and the NHS staff in general are trying to provide the best care possible with very limited resources; and these resources are limited because the government has placed artificial financial constraints on the trusts running frontline services, as part of quite deliberate and undemocratic attempt to privatise the NHS.
We have a government here that shells out billions of tax payer's cash on management consultants with nothing to show for it. We have a government that is constantly espousing the benefits of private equity and PFI despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. We have a government that thinks any combination of 'private' and 'competition' will improve our public services. We have a government that does not show its face in public and that does not respect the views of the electorate. We have a government that has repeatedly lied, deceived and cheated the people it claims to represent.
This government has gone back on pretty much every single promise that it made back in 1997. We now have a state infrastructure that is motivated solely by the pursuit of targets and the acquisition of dubious data, that can be used in the never ending propaganda campaign designed to suppress the real evidence and a proper open debate. Endless cliches about improvement are repeated ad infinitum, while any real evidence of failure is ignored e.g. literacy rates dropping, highest maternal mortality in the EU, science as a subject dying, rising inequality over the last ten years.
So please don't believe them when they pretend to give a monkeys for patients by harping on about a 'patient-led service' and 'patient choice'. They don't give a flying fuck about patients. They only care about one thing; themselves. The 'patient-led care' trick is yet another in a long line of cynical moves designed to catalyse their fast track privatisation of the NHS; while the undermining and disempowerment of the medical profession is all part of the same plan. The NHS is most definitely being led by the authoritarians at the top, do not let them try to convince you otherwise; as then you will be their unwitting instruments:
"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments."
Noam Chomsky
Dr Rant
Dr Cardigan
Dr Blue
Dr Brown
Rev Dr Green
Dr Mustard
Mr Orange
Dr Pink
Dr Purple
Mr Salmon
Dr White
Mr Beige
Ms Scarlet
Dr Informed
Posts
66 comments:
well from the patients point of view i have come across many nhs staff who have a definite attitude towards the patients of "we are doing you a favour", almost as if they were working for a charity doing us such a great favour for providing piss poor treatment
they have no concept that in some of our cases we have paid way more in tax than our own personal doctor and nurse following us around would have cost
it is true the system is unbalanced because the normal way of negotiating issues such as late appointments or speed of service, ie money, is not changing hands, so patients cannot pay extra to be seen when its more convinient and docs cannot get paid more for working more flexibly around patients needs
the biggest group of people the nhs routinely lets down these days are the ordinary working folk, as GP and hospital opening hours and appointments systems are all geared around the non workers who can fit in with the nhs
if you think im obnoxious you should try speaking to most GP receptionists in out major cities and trying to get an appointment, you will soon find out who is more obnoxious
Hello again. Same tune, still no blogger identity.
If you pay more tax than I cost what the fuck are you doing scumming it with us NHS types?
Didn't I provide you with an extensive list of private GPs up and down the country?
Mustard
not many private A & E depts are there?
anonymous,
the point is that there is a happy medium- both extremes are not a good idea ie a completely patient of physician centred situation is bad news
The happy medium involves a good relationship between doctor and patient, a mutual respect and understanding, with neither one dictating to the other
Do you not agree?
The NHS is a nationalised service and cannot be led by individual demands, care has to be sensibly rationed so as to get the most overall benefit for the health of the nation.
Re "the point is that there is a happy medium- both extremes are not a good idea i.e. a completely patient of physician centred situation is bad news" depends on the patient and on the physician, but broadly in sympathy with this view, but the patient is the customer and should be extended the normal civil relationship customers get in other service transactions - this is routinely not true at the moment as the average GP receptionist will talk to the patients like shit with impunity for example
Re "The happy medium involves a good relationship between doctor and patient, a mutual respect and understanding, with neither one dictating to the other" yes agree, but importantly if I don't agree with the docs approach, be it the docs opening hours, the cleanliness of his premises, his or his staffs attitude, or whatever, I expect to be able to take my business elsewhere, it is that dynamic which keeps all consumer focussed businesses on their feet which is missing from the nhs
Re "The NHS is a nationalised service" yes, for what its worth I think it should become a state insurance policy and all the providers should become free market competing for the patients cheque
Re "cannot be led by individual demands" disagree entirely, many other nations have state backed health care and do much better jobs, and mainly the patients get to choose the consultant, GP, etc
Re "care has to be sensibly rationed so as to get the most overall benefit for the health of the nation. " disagree, patients should be able to topup state payout with however much they want to get whatever level of care they want or access to more convenient hours of opening etc, rationing is a failed concept which is wide open to corrupt abuse and it is in meltdown, if you cannot afford to treat me tell me, don't put me on a list hoping I will die before I get to the front of the queue
Anonymous, you mention such aspects of healthcare as if it were a buisiness. Although there are repeated attempts made to make the NHS private, when did anyone willingly want to use the service other then because they required help of a doctor or required the assistance of a nurse? You cannot compare a vital need of society to Tesco.
Re: "we have paid way more in tax than our own personal doctor and nurse following us around would have cost"
I may point out the basic cost of an ICU bed is around the £11000 mark, per patient, per bad, per day. A basic hospital bed is £500, and to call an amblance costs the NHS £150. How much tax do you pay? The NHS is not perfect, though a look at the USA way of treatment relies on insurance, and often people forking out for their healthcare.
As for receptionists being rude, many I know are very polite. Imagine how they feel having to deal with people moaning and berating them, small wonder they become bruske and sharp.
I find your comments contradict. On one hand you wish to move your place of treatment, but also refuse to go on a waiting list. You say this idea of competition would keep the NHS on its toes. From who? The vast majority of people use the NHS. Private may be faster sometimes, but I do not imagine a private facility would handle as many patients as an NHS facility of the same nature. I am all for rights of the individual, but not when a right is twisted to nothing short of a demand
"they have no concept that in some of our cases we have paid way more in tax than our own personal doctor and nurse following us around would have cost"
Ho ho, titter titter, sob, cackle, titter.....
Assuming Anon/No-one is about 45 (ideal age for a a selfish I'm the only person that matters fuck), then that equates to £4,900,000 (including employers NI and pension contributions).
To pay £4.9m in tax would require an income of £14,700,000, or £980,000 per year (assuming 15 working years by the age of 35).
No wonder the sad right wing fuck can spend all day posting anonymously on other people's blogs - he's a fucking billionaire.
As Mustard asks, why the fuck are you using the NHS?
Or perhaps he's just a moronic twat who can't count and is talking out of his arse.
Sorry, Anon's age is 35 in the above example, not 45.
why oh why do you insist on having a pop at me
when really we all on here presumably want health care to get better for all in the uk, for docs and for patients?
you do have a rather blinkered perspective being a doc, and all i am doing is try to widen you horizon to how the patients mostly experience it
as for comparing the nhs with other nations approaches, you should do more of this, and more scientifically, not blinkered horror stories about the USA
i have lived in the USA, and been treated, and been with very folk being treated out there, and in all cases the care was a whole lot better than anything the nhs has to offer, but there are better examples go look at how belgium, italy, new zealand, australia etc etc provide treatment to their citizens... the nhs has a lot to learn it is so far behind these places
Most Doctors and other health professionals who are in the health service are passionate about providing good healthcare, and do it well. The problems with the NHS is the financial constraints which are affecting what we do. Read Dr Rants MMC posts, MTAS, NHS financial troubles, you soon realise the day to day problems faced by Doctors. There is an abundance of information which will show this elsewhere as well. Add to that the cuts in nursing posts and the low morale in the service, it shows where the NHS falls behind.
You mention "comparing the nhs with other nations approaches, you should do more of this, and more scientifically, not blinkered horror stories about the USA". Can you expand on that? Do you propose a qualitative study examining patients experience, or are you suggesting taking something as subjective as perceptions and try to make this into something objectively measurable? Trying to turn subjective into the rigidly marked and quantifiable objective is more pseudo-scientific, don’t you agree? I also would ask why we need this as out wonderful Patsy F**kwit has told us we had our best year ever.
nursing student, i really dont think the nhs melt down is a consequence of "financial constraints" i think new labour have well and truely disproved that theory, the nhs is not short of money going in, its how it spends it, and the lack of simple feedback mechanisms to encourage continual improvement from the bottom up (i.e. small patient decisions add up to big changes forced on the providers) rather than top down stalinist control which always fails which remains the dominant force for change at the moment
low morale with the staff is similar problem as piss poor service to the patient, the normal dynamics of patient and staff choice are artificially limited in the nhs, and this only serves to keep crap units open and starves the better units of cash and staff, staff like the patients would be a whole lot better off if they could genuinely walk with their feet to other providers where inovations could be encouraged from the ground up and success would quickly breed success
the framework of governance and mechanisms for change in the nhs are very much failed, and the nhs is in its death throws, suggest you think of whats best to replace it
i dont care how psuedo scientific the approach is, a little common sense walking around a few foreign health systems would make any decent person realise that the nhs is the wrong answer to a nations health care problem, why are we happy that the rich and poor of a country like australia or new zealand or belgium or so many other get so much better care than they do here? and i really dont think there is any disputing these places hand out much better care whichever dimenstion you want to measure it in
"i dont care how psuedo scientific the approach is"
Science is the search for truth. Scientific method screens out morons convinced of their own 'common sense'.
Anyone who does not care about finding the true path rather than simply following their own prejudice is an idiot and we should shun them.
Anon. It's morons like you that get people killed.
I think anonymous needs to read the article again!
There is a choice with healthcare anonymous-
we an have a nationalised service that has to be rationed and this means that everyone gets a decent standard of care. However you can't expect a consumer led service with a rationed nationalised service.
or you can have a privatised consumerist service, and this way the rich will get brilliant care while the poor are left to rot. With this the rich get treated like kings, but those who can't pay don't get treated at all!
You have to appreciate the basic concept that you cannot have a rationed nationalised service that is consumer led!
Read the piece again, if you still don't understand then go and read around the issue a bit more; your angry rants do not make much sense unfortunately
ps why don't you research about what happens to the millions in the US who don't have insurance- they get such great care.......
(you can't have it both ways and there is not a perfect solution)
Re "Scientific method" fine use some science to measure how far behind other democratic countries we are, and use some science to figure out the obvious reasons, and use some science to tell us how many state backed Stalinist organisations like the nhs have ever succeeded?
Re "we an have a nationalised service that has to be rationed and this means that everyone gets a decent standard of care. " Ah but everyone DOES NOT GET A DECENT STANDARD OF CARE and that is the problem
Re "or you can have a privatised consumerist service, and this way the rich will get brilliant care while the poor are left to rot" not necessarily, these are two extremes, there are many good models adopted in other liberal democracies which work a whole lot better than the nhs
Re "why don't you research about what happens to the millions in the US who don't have insurance" unlike most people who spout on about this topic, I have been with very poor folk (friends of mine) as they experienced the US healthcare system and its a whole lot better than the crap the nhs dishes out, don't believe the scare stories they are not true, or certainly not these days
Re "there is not a perfect solution" agreed, but there are a lot better than the nhs
anonymous,
your are missing the point, again.
If you want to look at evidence of the NHS' successes then you should look at how productive it has been until politicians spent millions creating the internal market.
Historically and even today we invest much less of our GDP in our health service than other European countries, so only a complete idiot would expect the NHS to be as good as these other countries' health systems!
For it's funding the NHS is actually very efficient. It's just a shame that billions get wasted on creating the market/PFI/CFISSA etc. It's also a shame that the goverment is wrecking the excellent medical training system in this country by cutting training budgets and creating a sub consultant grade. One thing that has held the NHS together is the excellent calibre of doctor here.
You are a more than a tad naive if you think that if something is 'state backed' it is therefore 'stalinist'.
Your love of the US healthcare system is deeply misplaced too. It is incredibly expensive, unsustainable and extremely bureaucratic ( yes much more so than the NHS- its the way payments are set up and arranged ).
Your inconsistent argument asks for scientific evidence but your own argument relies on baseless personal anecdotes and bigotry.
There is actually a lot of evidence out there that contradicts you, especially as regards the NHS productivity.
Your view of politics sees the NHS's failings due to its 'stalinist state control'. It's failings are actually down to the government starving the frontline of cash deliberately, so that it can privatise the services supplied. Thes are two quite different concepts. There is nothing wrong with state control in itself, as you would know if you knew a bit more about certain scandinavian countries with brilliant health care systems; you may find that they have a rather large amount of state control. It's more a question of what the state control does.
If you want some good evidence of how the US is failing, then look at the life expectancies of the poor in the US; it is equivalent to that of 3rd world countries. What a great system though.
Your bitter and twisted slant based on anecdote is hardly a convincing argument. You are very good at accusing others of being obnoxious, have you looked in the mirror recently?
no its you who is missing the point
you completely fail to see how crap the nhs is from the patients point of view
you completely fail to see that even in the great communist states they have given up on the organisational model the nhs adopts
at the moment the uk would be better off with a free market free for all in health care, and stop taxing us, cos at least then some of us would get decent treatment, the worst centres of crap treatment would shut
you are the one with crazy dogma blinding you from learnig from elsewhere
if i could encourage you to do anything it would be visit some of our inner cities and try and register with a GP, visit a GP and see how crap the service can be, visit some of the worst hospitals and try and figure out why they are so bad, visit a few of the best nations abroad and learn from how they run healthcare
the nhs is doomed, you may as well accept this, the question is how to replace it
'communist states'-hmmmmm that's of real relevance to us......
dogma! then you go about the wonders of the 'free market'!
your scientific argument grounded in dogma and personal anecdote is blowing us all away!
I suggest you go and educate yourself a little, there are many examples of where state run services are much better than privately run services. Private and public can both be good, it's just a question of context and arguably a sensible balance is the way forward.
However your idea of a completely free market as being the solution is utter tripe. Completely free markets lead to massive inequalities developing very very fast indeed, and also if you knew a little more about 'free markets' you may have understood that a massive problem with free markets is that they are fundamentally antidemocratic- and overtime a rather large amount of power is in the hands of a few select individuals. This comes to look remarkably similiar to the 'Stalinism' that you are so keen to mention.
Go and read a bit of political philosophy and you may learn to understand this concept.
In the wonderful free market i wonder where the poor from the inner cities ( as you put it) would magically get all the cash to pay for their health care with?
You didn't think of that did you.
some evidence for you:
"Not only are 47 million Americans uninsured (approximately 18.5 percent of the insurable market), 41 percent of Americans with incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, up from 28 percent in 2001; 53 percent with incomes under $20,000 lack health insurance."
"The number of people without health insurance rose 16.6 percent from 2001 to 2005; average health insurance premiums for a family of four are $10,880, which exceeds the annual gross income of $10,712 for a full-time, minimum-wage worker; lack of insurance causes 18,000 excess deaths a year; people without health insurance have 25 percent higher mortality rates; and, 59 percent of uninsured people with chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes skip medicine or go without care."
"The World Health Organization ranks healthcare systems based on objective measures of medical outcomes: The United States' healthcare system currently ranks 37th in the world, behind Colombia and Portugal; the United States ranks 44th in the world in infant mortality, behind many impoverished Latin American countries. While infant mortality in the United States is skewed toward poor people, who have rates double the wealthy, the top quintile of the U.S. population has infant mortality rates higher than Canadians in the lowest quintile of wealth.
Out of 30 developed nations, life expectancy in the United States ranks 21st; life expectancy in the United States is 4.6 years less than Japan, 2.1 years less than France and 2.6 years less than Canada. The United States has fewer physicians, nurses and hospital beds than most developed nations. In the United States, 28 percent say it is "difficult to get care"; in most European countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, 15 percent say that. In terms of continuity of care (i.e., five-plus years with the same doctor), the United States is the worst of all developed nations. By every objective measure, the United States has a second-rate healthcare system."
"The United States has the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. Even including the 47 million uninsured, the U.S. healthcare system costs almost double per capita what single-payer systems in Europe, Japan and Canada cost; in the United States, healthcare costs were $5,635 per person in 2005."
"In America's for-profit private insurance healthcare system, medical technicians must contend with hundreds of different forms, billing procedures, regulations and requirements from hundreds of insurance companies; U.S. healthcare companies spend money for advertising and marketing; and, the U.S. healthcare system is based on profit. Since 1970, the number of medical doctors in the United States has increased 40 percent, while the number of medical administrators has increased almost 3,000 percent."
The marvels of the free market eh!
anonymous
The plural of 'anecdote' is 'anecdotes', NOT DATA.
The majority of NHS patients get a very good service from their GP, and it costs them very very little in tax. Your experience is London may be different, but London isn't necessarily typical, and the World does not revolve around London.
You should be left in no doubt that the team here care very much about the service that our patients get - that's why we have a blog rather than spending time on the golf course.
Your preferred option is simply the opposite extreme to the stalinist model.
Thw decentralised patient/physician partnership model that we propose hasn't been tried yet. It excludes the politicians - that is why.
The majority of NHS patients get a very good service from their GP
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
(and the inner cities i have in mind are not london, at least in london you can go to medicare for nominal cost when the nhs cannot deliver)
yep there are some great docs around, in wonderful surgeries, i just wonder how qualified those docs are to comment on the crap treatment patients get from the worst docs as they have so little day to day experience of the realities of it
you wouldnt know any critical reasoning theory if it fell from the sky on your head
id prefer a tried and tested proven to work organisational model thanks
Hey anonymous, I now work less hard in the USA for twice my NHS consultant pay. Part of the reason I left is dickheads like you who generalise from individual experiences. My NHS unit was popular, provided an excellent standard of care, received regular freebies from ALL staff (including receptionists)in the form of unpaid work and raised considerable funds from the community. I got very pissed off when people like you told me how inefficient and bad people like me were. Goodbye
you assume im a dickhead
i always go out of my way to thank folk in the nhs when my family/friends get good service
i am not one of the dickheads who gives staff grief, i am more likely to walk away and seek private treatment
i am not generalising from individual experiences, i am generalising from a few hundred interactions my family have had with the nhs in the past few years, quite a broad sample for one person to have
how long you been in the US, you up to speed with how fast downhill the nhs is going?
anyways good luck out there
So you're now admitting you are using personal anecdote to slag off the whole NHS, great stuff,
I like it how you have ignored the serious arguments and the evidence pointed out to you....
the only serious argument and evidence i need is the crap service i come across in the vast majority of nhs interactions i see
it wouldnt continue in any other business cos the punters would walk
the sooner they can for health issues the better
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6500955.stm
"We are a good 30 to 40 years behind," he said.
As is the rest of the nhs shambles
do you actaully bother reading or answering anything put before you?
or are you a grade A fuckwit?
The privatised dental service and relative 'free market' is doing wonders isn't it?
think before you write any more of your ill thought out drivel,
please
Anonymous, you have yet to make any explicit examples of the sub standard of care which you perceive as having received. I doubt you work in the health service so you lack the insight of how the patients are perceived. I undertook a 2 week placement on an out patients department. I asked the doctor what tests they wanted me to do (such as urinalysis, BP, Weight). One consultant liked to have the BMI. As I was aiming to assist the Doctor and speed the patient, I did the extra work with the intention of helping both parties. Despite our best efforts of both Nurses and Doctors, clinics ran late. One was from planning which was impossible to keep to (I cite one clinic with times of 09:00,09:01, 09:02, 09:05 and 09:06 for appointments with only two doctors, a hark back to my time as an ambulance man on out patient driving duties). One day, a delay was because a consultant had to tell a patient they had 3 months left to live. Do you think other patients who were left 55 minutes behind would be right when knowing such information as that that they should walk out and find another hospital, or that we should give the patient a mere 3 minutes to break such news? NHS services may not be perfect, but Doctors train damn hard and have a vast knowledge base to work from. 10 plus years to be a consultant is something that commands a great deal of respect from me, and also after the training nurses receive through university, I believe also deserve respect.
You have yet to make a point with a basis on an explicit event, and this is why when you go off on a tangent calling the system Stalinist, assume the NHS is dead, and insult health professionals, want a scientific study but are content with pseudo science, that the strength and clarity of your point of view becomes somewhat clouded. I suggest you look at the choose and book section of the NHS when you refer to selecting your preferred place of care.
nursing student,
you're put that pretty damn well.
I wish I could see the wondrous NZ medical system you speak of.
The same one where I see third world diseases on the increase - TB, rheumatic fever, typhoid to name a few. I work in an incredibly under-privileged area and the constant refrain I hear from my patients is 'I couldn't afford to see the GP, so I just hoped I'd get better'. I'm incredibly restricted in the medications I am allowed to prescribe (for cost purposes), drugs I wouldn't have a second thought about giving out in the UK (like Lantus insulin, for example).
Even as a medical professional I have to think twice about paying to see the GP, let alone script charges.
A close family member has a serious, debilitating chronic illness (and is therefore not attractive to insurance companies). I can categorically state that she has paid far more in doctors' fees than I have in tax (our top marginal rate is more than the UK's if I recall correctly).
My relative has the 'choice' to see another GP (for the same extortionate rate). If she happened to have one of the 'diseases of the rich' she would have a dizzying array of private specialists to choose from (for a price). As her illness is not profitable, she's a bit stuck. Hooray the free market.
private docs tell patients they are going to die, rare to see the massive waits common at nhs facilties, me thinks this is an isolated occurance and not the underlying reason for crap service
TB is alive and well in the UK etc
yes but we pay top wack tax AND then have to buy private treatment as well cos the nhs fails to deliver, so new zealand is somewhat cheaper
i loved new zealand GP's never a queue, straight to consultant the same day, plenty of time for you, waiting rooms not full of drug dealers and unmarried mothers, wish it was like that here, for a few dollars a bargain, mostly UK docs cheesed off with the nhs as well
absolute f*ckwittery,
if you're not going to listen and respond to other people's arguments then I suggest you stop posting your vitriolic drivle.
the truth im afraid
Must not feed the troll....can't resist....
Single mothers generally can't afford to go to the GP in New Zealand, so no, you won't find them clogging up waiting rooms. I can't really comment on drug dealers, since I don't know any on a social basis.
It is possible to see a consultant same day in NZ, if you go privately. Which last time I checked, you do have to pay for on top of tax, just like the UK. I'll repeat, if one doesn't have a profitable illness, private health cover is simply not available in NZ.
I know simple fact won't change your fixed beliefs. Likewise, your comments are unlikely to influence me, fortunately, or many other people replying here.
Understandably, you care only about yourself and your family. I care for myself, my family and all my patients, even those wretched scum single mothers/other people who look dodgy in GP waiting rooms.
i actually want all types of folk to get access to good GP cover
however i think it is unreasonable that some honest decent hardworking folk are forced to register with an inner city GP who will typically have a waiting room full of the local criminals happily sitting their threatening people and shouting off, really there has to be a mechanism for the decent folk to get access to medical folk without such risks
as for unmarried mothers, they too should have good medical access, however it should generally be provided "off peak" and not when the working population most need access to medical services, one of the biggest problems with the nhs is that it is geared towards non workers who can attend at any time, and provides poor service to the very workers funding it through their taxes ie no lunchtime appointments, no evening/weekend appointments etc - all issues which do not feature where the patients have some buying power abroad
i saw quite a bit of the medical business in new zealand, and have done in other countries, and all would win my vote versus the nhs hands down
Oh deary me.........As a GP oj NZ for nearly 3 years I can confidently state it is NOT better: co-payment for GP consults is a significant barrier to many people as is prescription costs. Not allscripts are fully dfunded, some have no funding (so you pay FULL cost plus dispensing, plus GP consult for script)
As for Hospital referrals: no real difference, and no, if you have varicose veins or many other conditions you will not even get treatment.
So, anonymouse, go squeak your protests elsewhere.
Another "anonymous"
Interesting comments. My experience in the UK is that drs here have the "very selfish, obnoxious and unpleasant attitude" towards patients that you accuse them of. Who pays you? You live off the pubic purse and think it owes you ... pathetic. Why don't you just get on with your job or go and do something else.
Another anonymous ..made myself laugh there. Meant the "public purse"!!
Another anonymous
And you are arrogant and can't bear criticism!
Another anonymous
Reading up this thread ..
Actually many services are free in New Zealand if you live in a socially "deprived" area. And if you have an accident you get instant free service from ambulances/helicopters radiologists, hospitals, specialists, physios etc - even from the many many British "Dr" osteopaths with their BScs.....
Another anonymous
All the medics in NZ have private health cover - just like Dr Crippen and his family in the UK. Where do you think Mr Richards got his treatment after their concert when he fell out of the coconut tree .. Ascot hospital in Auckland.. very big and very private. Public servants get subsidised private health cover. It is "middle" New Zealand that misses out.
Good design!
Thanks for interesting article.
I like articles like this. Thanks!
Well done. Keep up the great work. Best regards!
I like it a lot! Nice site, I will bookmark!
Thanks to author! I like articles like this, very interesting.
nSKKI9 Very good blog! Thanks!
5yEoKv Please write anything else!
Nice Article.
Nice Article.
Wonderful blog.
Good job!
Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Please write anything else!
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Syk62p write more, thanks.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Hello all!
Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Magnific!
Wonderful blog.
Nice Article.
Good job!
Post a Comment