£2 to see a gp

This will mark the begining of a Private NHS. It starts with £2, then small charges for missed appointment, before you know it people will be paying for their healthcare.

If they are for illustrative purposes only then they are absolutely useless for your argument if they don't reflect current benefits. Some people do get that much. Other people get a lot lot less. My mum for example lives on a little bit more than 8k a year. To you it may just be "a pack of biscuits" to my mum it's the difference between being able to afford travel costs to the GP or not.

With all due respect you are beyond ignorant.

"No incentive to work" ...if you actually did any research you'd know serial benefit claimants and work shy people and families (i.e families who generationally don't work) are very much not the norm. They make up less than 3% of benefit claimants.

Before you spout off nonsense about not "incentivize being poor" how about you actually research what on earth you are talking about.

And yes I will quote your silly figures, because they don't reflect the poorest in the country (regardless of whether or not they claim benefits...which you assume here they do). And the poorest in the country are the ones who would be penalised by this GP paying system. They would be the ones who suffer. Not to mention your figures meant essentially nothing, you were just talking about 2 people both living on about the same income...only difference is one is from benefits. That doesn't prove any argument at all, they literally didn't even make any sense in your argument.

youve misinterpreted what i was saying

i wasnt referring to people on benefits at the moment, i wasnt trying to state that anyone let alone more than 3% abuse the benefits system, i was saying that in the hypothetical scenario when everything was made so that poor people do not suffer then there is no disadvantage to being poor, obviously poor people do suffer

yes the negative of the idea is that the effect of a charge would be slightly more impacting on poorer people but the positives would outweigh this.

another stupid example for u, if the price of carrots go up, this diasadvantages the poor more than the rich, that doesnt mean its unethical for the prices of carrots to ever increase

Since poor people already suffer then why do you think it's okay to not take into account the poor when talking about a basic and fundamental human right that is the access to health care?

In your opinion the positives would outweigh this. I'm highly doubting £2 would drive anyone other than the very poor away to stop wasting GP time.

The prices of carrots are not remotely the same. The possibility of death isn't there if you don't have access to carrots. It is there if you cannot afford medical care. Not to mention carrots are not government provided, health care is.

food is a basic fundamental human right, thats not provided free to poor people

you would be surprised the number of people who make an appointment after a 1 day history of a sore throat

No, but we do in this country try to ensure people have access to food, water and shelter by providing benefits if they cannot afford it themselves. Because we in this country understand that food, water and shelter are basic human rights. System certainly isn't perfect though.

I wouldn't be surprised. I know people do that. But like you said to a lot of people "it's just £2" so the only ones who really will be negatively affected or put off going are going to be the ones who to them £2 can be a lot...so the the poorest of the country.

If you can't understand that then the discussion is pretty much over, because we're going in circles and you can't seem to understand this very very basic concept.

why is it ok to provide benefits to pay for food but not provide benefits to pay for healthcare

well i already said in the previous post that the poorest would be most affected which shows i do understand this very very basic concept

if people with income under £15000 were exempt from fees would u be happy

I'm surprised we don't already charge for missed appointments tbh. At one of the hospitals I attend, there's a notice up of how appointments were missed in at least one department last month. (which is a certain amount of hours) But I have been in the situation at least once where I've supposedly missed appointments that weren't made. And then there was that appointment I'd supposedly made which I actually hadn't. I only knew because I'd received a phone call that morning remidning me of it.

Would u pay £2 to see a gp? Fee only required if u request the appointment and not if its been arranged by the gp eg if they say come back in three weeks for review or for review of chronic conditions.

Would a £2 charge decrease how often u made an appointment or would it not affect this and u would still have made all the appointmwnts that u have made in the past.

youve misinterpreted what i was saying

i wasnt referring to people on benefits at the moment, i wasnt trying to state that anyone let alone more than 3% abuse the benefits system, i was saying that in the hypothetical scenario when everything was made so that poor people do not suffer then there is no disadvantage to being poor, obviously poor people do suffer

yes the negative of the idea is that the effect of a charge would be slightly more impacting on poorer people but the positives would outweigh this.

another stupid example for u, if the price of carrots go up, this diasadvantages the poor more than the rich, that doesnt mean its unethical for the prices of carrots to ever increase

OP - you really have no idea, do you? For some people, that £2 is the difference between having food on the table.

I've been in the situation several times in my life where I've had to have numerous GP appointments, either because they can't quite work out what's wrong or because I have been quite ill and have had to constantly see someone.

It sounds as though you have no idea of chronic conditions. I have a cousin whose child has chronic lung disease. He's now 15 months old and has had 6 hospital visits since being born. (apart from his heart surgery) He has a brother who is at school who appears to catch everything going. That means when one gets ill; so does the other. Because of his illness, a cold isn't a cold and can make him seriously ill. So, you're going to penalise people like their parents?

Even if you don't charge for chronic conditions, you're still penalising people. I, as a result of the medication I'm on, get nose infections and sinus problems quite often. Whilst not chronic, I do need to see someone.

equally for poor people the cost of food to eat for dinner can be the difference from having clothes to wear tommorow, that is the whole problem with being poor, hence why people dont want to be poor so that they dont have to be disadvantaged

again numerous gp appointments regarding the same problem would not be charged more than once i thought i had made this clear, and chronic conditions wouldnt be included so againsn o their parents would not be penalised

i know you are penalising someone, youd be penalised £2 for treatment for a sinus infection- not bad if u ask me

Why are you so determined that being poor should disadvantage people so much they can't afford healthcare? Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they should have to suffer.

what proportion of the population do you think could physically not afford healthcare if you were charged £2 for every new appointment (the average person has 6 appointments a year so as alot wouldnt be included it would be less than £12 a year on average)

if you dont suffer from being poor then everyone in the uk would be poor

We already pay taxes for these things.

The older child doesn't have a chronic medical condition. But the younger child passes his chest infections, etc. on to the older child fairly often. So, yeah, their parents would still be penalised.

In 2004, I discovered a lump which resulted in numerous GP, hospital and nurse appointments. I was being seen by someone every week at least 3 times a week for around 6 weeks. So, for you, that's just £2. But after a while, that turns out to be expensive.

I can only assume you're lucky enough that you don't need to see someone often?

Single people on JSA who don't live with their parents. They get just over £70 a week. So to them, £2 is a lot.

benefits calculator for them
Total Entitlements£8,858.94
what proportion of them would be unable to spare roughly £12 a year out of that to not have access to healthcare as they cannot afford healthcare as it was put

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.