Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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)


    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    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.
    Pretty much this. Im cool with paying £2 myself, but as someone else posted they go pretty regularly

    Any how, it won't be long before £2 becomes £20
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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 never said one was okay and the other wasn't. But that's not the system we currently have, and this conversation has been under the guise of the current system.

    Then why do you think it is okay if you realise that the poorest are the ones who are going to suffer?

    A single person on 15k will likely be able to afford it, but what about families on 15k? How is it decided? On a household basis or an individual basis? This sounds in of itself costly to implement.

    And lol, this isn't about "making me happy". This isn;t about me because this doesn't negatively affect me, this is me steering the conversation towards the most vulnerable in society who throughout this post you have brushed off as if it doesn't matter. But if you're going to suggest something, be open to criticism and opposing views.

    Anyway it's late. I'm sure someone else will probably chime in and discuss this with you. Night.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    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.
    I've always wondered about this.
    From what I gather, GP reception staff routinely overbook appointments because they're often back to back without considering GPs have paperwork to do inbetween and people are longer than the allotted 10 or 15 minutes.
    As a consequence, I (and others) often wait around when at surgeries. Even if there is some leeway, the time the Dr will wait for a missed appointment will invariably be less than that of an actual appointment and yet there's still wait time.
    So I do wonder about the effect it causes. On the other hand, if the NHS pays the surgery per appointment (not sure how it works) then I appreciate there'll be money lost.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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.
    I live in America and I wish I paid as little for my doctor's appointments. Everytime I go to my doctor's they bill my insurance company $2,500.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmallTownGirl)
    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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    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?
    the charge is not for hospital appointments or for seeing a nurse but you certainly dont need seen 18 times in 6 weeks by a gp just for discovering a lump, if it is concerning it should be referred to hospital for investigation, however even still all 18 appointments would only cost £2 as it is a review appointment for the same problem
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by jooby92)
    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
    You're assuming they have just 6 appointments per year. Some may have many more.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I used to get American healthcare for free, it was awesome: best of both worlds! The higher quality of the US doctors along with being free.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 4, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.