Pay Or Not Pay?

To be seen in Casualty!

1 to 20 of 111 messages
04/01/2014 at 18:37

The NHS is free but is seriously overspent by billions of pounds.   Mr David Cameron PM says the 'NHS is first class'.  Others argue that Staffing levels are so low that it is impossible to provide top quality care.  But by charging it would help NHS financial  problems.

Accident and Emergency Departments sees  many patients every day and cost

NHS a great amount of money on a daily basis.

Others argue that there are certain type of people who do not need to to  go A&E Department for their treatment. 

800 GP were asked if patients should be charged £10.00 for their care in A&E Department just only one third of the Doctors said yes.

Should we pay or not pay to be treated in Casualty?

 

Edited: 04/01/2014 at 18:38
04/01/2014 at 18:47

I think the NHS is very good because it is free.  The problem is that the UK goverment

do not relies how short staff the NHS is.  If we the public had to pay to be treated in A&E Department people would think twice before going.

 

04/01/2014 at 18:59

It isn't "free", we all help pay for it out of our National Insurance contributions.

 

04/01/2014 at 19:08

Thanks again Karen 

05/01/2014 at 07:23
They could just charge extortionate amounts for parking at the hospital. That would put me off going unnecessarily.
05/01/2014 at 08:54
Don't they do that already?
05/01/2014 at 10:05

The answer is pefectly simple and is already being implemented - they just close the A&Es. My local one closed a few years ago. The two next nearest are not that far in terms of miles but if you had to get to one in an emergency (kind of the point really) in a hurry during rush hour you probably wouldn't make it in time...

05/01/2014 at 11:10

As pointed out above, it isn't 'free', we pay taxes to support the NHS.  The government are well aware of the staffing levels, yet they continue to support the 'manager led' structure that has seen secondary care staffing levels on the coal face be reduced to unmanageable and dangerous levels.  

And shame on the one third of GPs who said A&E care should be paid for (if indeed that stat is correct, which I find hard to believe).  GPs are independent businesses in their own right.  They're a money making exercise and as such, imo, shouldn't be consulted on whether or not any part of secondary care should be paid for.  

05/01/2014 at 11:16

I think it would be a good start if GPs operated a 7 day service. It's absolutely barmy that they don't.

 

05/01/2014 at 12:56

Agreed.  There are some who do six days and extended hours, but they're far too few.  Practices are generally run by partners, and partners tend not to want to pay out for the extra staff that would be required to provide a fuller, more up to date, service.  

Pudge    pirate
05/01/2014 at 14:06

For a moment there, Karen, I thought your post was going to be some sort of petition on behalf of poorly paid actors and actresses who were scratching round for exposure on second rate hospital dramas.

05/01/2014 at 20:53

Me too, Pudge!

05/01/2014 at 21:25

A small £10 charge would reduce the number of 'worried well' and frequent attenders/time wasters going to A&E and perhaps deter some of those people who do not take responsibility for their own health. This would relieve pressure on A& E departments a lot, but it would also deter old folks who would rather put up with their pain and save £10.  It's because of this group I suspect no fee will ever be charged.

05/01/2014 at 21:37

Just flown in from a place where you have to pay to see a GP.

As for drunks in casualty, they should incur a charge equivalent to the cost of the alcohol estimated to put them there.

 

 

05/01/2014 at 23:12

Just a little infor.,

The NHS Care is Outstanding says England Chief Inspector of Hospitals -

He is Professor Sir Mke Richards the man designated England 'Whistleblower in Chief'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited: 05/01/2014 at 23:12
06/01/2014 at 08:32

Call me cynical but the cat is now out of the bag, and this discussion has started, what will follow is

1) We must not charge the out of work

2) Obstacles now removed, good now lets screw the tax payer

This will only penalise the middle income again

Edited: 06/01/2014 at 08:35
06/01/2014 at 08:44

It's never going to happen.

For every 10 drunks and people with health anxiety that probably should pay there's always going to be that one person that is actually having a heart attack, doesn't go to casualty because of the charge and dies a a result.

Nobody is going to think that's an acceptable level of risk.

Edited: 06/01/2014 at 08:45
06/01/2014 at 08:47

If it were about fairness, I'd agree with you, but it is about raising money, you cannot raise money from the unemployed and poorest (without re-assessing benefit etc) but you can raise it from the wealthy and middle income groups.

06/01/2014 at 08:49

A problem with healthcare is there are are lot cof consequential impacts, so for example (this is off the top of my head so don't ask for evidence) people with drug or alcohol dependency issues place a greater burden on A&E services' people with mental health issues can greater general health needs.

Treat the cause rather than the symptom.

06/01/2014 at 09:25
Screamapillar wrote (see)

It's never going to happen.

For every 10 drunks and people with health anxiety that probably should pay there's always going to be that one person that is actually having a heart attack, doesn't go to casualty because of the charge and dies a a result.

Nobody is going to think that's an acceptable level of risk.

At least not until they put IDS in charge.

1 to 20 of 111 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums