£2 to see a gp

ok so say by charging £2 you cut 10% of appointments which are unnecessary for colds etc and would reduce missed appointments as charge would apply if appointment wasnt cancelled and didnt turn up etc then the crappy service your complaining of will improve and you wont have to wait as long for appointments

chronic conditions could be exempt from it however im not convinced people with chronic conditions need to be seen that often, i doubt u make more than one appointment for a new problem more than once a month which would result in only £24 a year to pay. Also frequent appointments for long term conditions is also just a sign of poor management, there are ways around this like giving supply of medications to use should things change

also long term medical conditions dont need to see a gp

the money raised can then be invested into the nhs to improve services also however i dont think you can argue that it would lead to paying £20 eventually as its main purpose is to prevent people from attending unneccesarily rather than for raising money

i also dont think a £2 charge would put someone off from making an appointment if it was something serious so outcomes wouldnt be worse

i would however make prescriptions and hospital parking free as is the case in scotland

I have not been to the doctors for a long time, probably like 2 years ago so, would not bother paying as most illnesses can be cured by water and exercise.

You have no idea about chronic conditions. I am at the doctors every month to get meds because 6 years after diagnosis I am still not on stable medication. And after several overdoses the GP isn't keen to give me more than that. When I change meds I go every fortnight to check on side effects etc and I need to go regularly to talk about how my symptoms are and about referrals etc.

Also, £2 may not seem much to you but for people on low incomes that could be the difference between being able to eat or get the bus into work or not. And lots of things don't seem serious but are and early diagnosis (for things like cancer for example) can make treatment easier and more effective.

i did say that the charge was for new appointments not for review appointments or for chronic conditions....

The occasional £2 the difference between being able to eat or not? really?

You have definitely lived a somewhat fortunate/ sheltered life if you can't comprehend that to some people £2 can mean a lot. Especially if they have to go to the doctors frequently. You are wrong that chronic conditions don't mean regular GP appointments, sometimes they do. Depending on the condition could need to go every 1-2 weeks.

Some people have just enough money to get by. Other people don't even have enough to get by.

of course sometimes they do, but the majority do not, and again only new appointments would carry a charge.

Ive lived purely off my student loan for 6 years, money can easily be saved

Just because the majority do not does not mean the minority should be disregarded.

Just because you did it does not mean everyone can. Not everyone does or even can lead the same life as you.

Just because the majority do not does not mean the minority should be disregarded.

Just because you did it does not mean everyone can. Not everyone does or even can lead the same life as you. It's very naive to think otherwise.

NO BODY IS BEING DISREGARDED it wouldnt apply for CHRONIC CONDITIONS

if i can do it why cant someone else?

The basis of public health insurance was to ensure universal coverage to begin with, to punish certain sections of the population seems quite contrary to the principle.

Ah, the caps locks really did show me! /s

Then you have to consider what counts as chronic conditions, what about people who need multiple appointments frequently before they even get a diagnosis. They're not technically always chronic conditions, do they count?

If you want to have a discussion don't get mad when other people see flaws in your system.

By the very nature of this topic the idea needs to be looked at and scrutinised from all angles. Because whether you believe it or understand it, this is very complicated not just to decide on rules and regulations but also to implement.

well the previous times it was said seemed to have been missed ha seems the caps worked

yes they would count as that would be a review appointment i said review appointments not just chronic conditions wouldnt be charged say for example you were seen for shoulder pain if i give you steroids cos i think it is polymyalgia rheumatica i want to see you in a little while to review the managemnt and to see if it is improving, this wouldnt have a charge and wouldnt be a chronic condition

..I was being sarcastic. Hence "/s".

And what of when the patient needs to make numerous appointments themselves (i.e not through the GP) because of continual misdiagnosis or the GP themselves not bothering to arrange check ups where necessary? These people under what you proposed would have to pay for each subsequent appointment. Which again may very well be okay for some, but could hit the poorest people the hardest. And as I'm sure you are aware the poorest people are also those the most likely to get ill and need to see a doctor. So this system would disadvantage and cost money mainly to the poor.

I know you were lol

if its regarding the same issue then it would classify as a review appointment

i dont think everything needs to be in the best interests of the poor, otherwise what is the disadvanatge of being poor

Even if it's with a different GP or at a different surgery? And how does this get logged to ensure the patient isn't being billed when they shouldn't be? Is it by an outside source so GPs can't unfairly bill patients in the interest of money?

Ah you know.....probably being poor.

yes the gp will know that it is a review appointment even if it is a different gp, but no not at a different surgery its not like people are changing surgeries every month

you can pay on arrival at your appointment, no GP is going to bill patients inappropraitely, the £2 aim isnt to raise money

exactly, being poor should be the disadvantage, if you give them benefits to so that they are not disadvantaged then that disadvantage doesnt exist

And how will they know? I've changed GPs enough time to know that communication within the NHS and between GPs is frankly abysmal.

And who monitors whether or not a patient pays? What happens if a patient doesn't pay, refuses to pay or claims they cannot afford to pay? Would the patient be turned away? That seems unethical...what if it's a serious problem they have come to the GP with? Just because the aim isn't to raise money does not mean some GPs won't see it that way. Which is why in my opinion if any money is to be paid it certainly shouldn't be directly to the surgery, but instead to an impartial body.

Nope...pretty sure they're still disadvantaged. They're still poor.

they can scroll down to see the previous consultation in ur notes and itll be obvious from the history when u say ive seen gp x and tried their suggestion but didnt work

a simple electronic account system that monitors whether fees have been paid, this is the 21st century lol, and no they wouldnt be turned away it would just be written as a debt in their account. thats fair an impartial body can get it

what im saying is if u get person x who is poor and you work it so in total they get £20000 in benefits in a year, and compare that to person y who gets no benefits and earns £20000 a year from working then they have no disadvantage of being poor, there should be a disadvantage of being poor such as having to not buy a packet of biscuits to insyead be able to afford to go their gp otherwise there is no incentive to earn money (and yes before u quote the figures they are for illustrative purposes only and not reflective of current benefits)