Are we going to have an Election discussion?

7 Up, I'm obviously sorry that your Old Girl didn't get what she wanted pronto, maybe you could try ringing other local Docs (as I do when I'm not happy) I know some folk stick religiously to long term people, but that's another point, innit old Son.

Fritz Von Do you want Choice or quality or both ?

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
7 Up, I'm obviously sorry that your Old Girl didn't get what she wanted pronto, maybe you could try ringing other local Docs (as I do when I'm not happy) I know some folk stick religiously to long term people, but that's another point, innit old Son.

My mother (and I) are both quite happy with her current GP who has the knowledge of her conditions, her history, what adjustments are being made to the drugs she takes, which consultants she needs to see, etc.

The only issue was that I was unable to make an appointment for more than 48 hours in advance. It was no big deal and I only mentioned it to illustrate that this really does happen with UK GPs as a result of performance targets that have been inadequately thought through, imposed by an overlarge government who are far too keen to put their noses where they don't belong.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

My mother (and I) are both quite happy with her current GP who has the knowledge of her conditions, her history, what adjustments are being made to the drugs she takes, which consultants she needs to see, etc.

The only issue was that I was unable to make an appointment for more than 48 hours in advance. It was no big deal and I only mentioned it to illustrate that this really does happen with UK GPs as a result of performance targets that have been inadequately thought through, imposed by an overlarge government who are far too keen to put their noses where they don't belong.

Regards
Steve M

Steve that may be the case in your Mum's practice but it's not the case in every practice around the country. My wife's practice works differently in that respect.

They have something called "Telephone Triage" (she would be able to explain it better) which allows immediate access, or if the patient prefers an appointment at a time that suits them.

As far as the lady in question on Question Time goes, I'm afraid the public as usual don't get the whole facts, she wanted to see a certain GP who happened to be on annual leave and didn't want to see one of the other docs.

It does amaze me people used to complain about the eternity it took to see your GP, and now they complain because it's too quick

Downside for me is, I see a GP everyday

Regards
Clive

Clive

My GP operates a system and will not budge from it unless the condition is judged critical.

You can only telephone today to make an appointment for tomorrow. You cannot make an appoinment for today or in two days time.

I now understand why.

Regards

Mick

Mick
Each practice will manage how to meet targets in their own way, flexibility is there, it's a case of how it's done.

Regards
Clive

...- --- - . .-.. .- -... --- ..- .-.



Vote Labour from David Blunkett

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
...- --- - . .-.. .- -... --- ..- .-.



Vote Labour from David Blunkett

LOL!

Wouldn't vote for them if you paid me! (Well, I suppose I might but I'd cost you!)

Haven't decided but think I'll probably vote UKIP.

EW

quote:

It does amaze me people used to complain about the eternity it took to see your GP, and now they complain because it's too quick

Are you a Labour spin doctor?

Paul

I do so like that Mr. Brown; he'll look just like our dear Gough Whitlam one day.

quote:

Are you a Labour spin doctor?

Paul

No my wife is just a hard working GP! There's no spin in my statement it's just an observation.

Clive

Our surgery, which is generally very good, suffers this appointment problem. It's fine if you need to see a doctor today, but if you need to see one for routine stuff it's today or tomorrow... Tricky if you have other things in your life, like work.

It seems it would be an easy problem to fix, but it should never have occurred. And I think it's exemplary.

Paul

FWIW we have a combination of options, same day emergencies (any partner), bookable two days ahead with your choice of partner, plus 'routine' bookable in advance (up to 6 weeks). We alter the ratios of pre-bookable and emergency appointments according to season, half-term holidays, partner absences etc. We release more emergency appointments as the day proceeds. We also have continous telephone surgeries throughout the morning with each GP/nurse having a specific half hour 'phone-in' slot. We start early (8am) and we finish late (6.30) to help working people come more conveniently.

Sounds a perfect system. No! Despite such flexibility the only area we ever really get complaints is about appointments. 'I want an emergency appointment, but I want it tomorrow' is a frequent grumble. 'I need an urgent appoitment for my child, he is really sick, but after school when it would be much more convenient.' We've had moans that surgeries start too early ('I never get out of bed before 10') or that they run through people's lunch hour ('I missed my lunchbreak to come to the doctors'). Don't even get me started on those who book and fail to attend.

If we open more appointments they are always full. If we have a crisis and we are short of appointments we are always full, but we never seem to have any 'extras'.

Th truth is that however flexible we are people want more. Faster access/more convenience/more time/more access. This is the way of the world, health care demand expands to fill the time available. People have very different needs, and when we are sick, we are not always very rational.

Why post this? Merely to illustrate that running an appointments system is a balancing act that is guaranteed not to please all of the people, all of the time. At my surgery, and I'm sure at countless others a fairly sophisticated juggling act goes on to make a decent fist of things.

Oh, we also hit our access 'targets'. So that's fine then! I hope the above ilustrates just how facile this is as a performance target, along with so many of those in the NHS.

Bruce

One wonders if some fine couldn't be applied to those who fail to attend. Unless perhaps they are too senile to remember appointments. Too dazed from their drugs to remember (or care). Or too sick to attend on foot. All the rest should be asked to explain their non-attendance and made to wear pyjamas in public for a week to show they can't get up on time.

I simply cannot imagine a suitable reason for non-attendance without a phone call to the surgery offering profuse apologies for having been arrested on a capital offense or dragged off in an ambulance for emergency surgery.

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
I simply cannot imagine a suitable reason for non-attendance without a phone call to the surgery offering profuse apologies for having been arrested on a capital offense or dragged off in an ambulance for emergency surgery.

Well, if you think that's bad you might be shocked to hear that non attendance can also happen with OPERATIONS!

Yes, when my wife was a surgeon at Frenchay hosptial it was common for at least one of the normal 5 minor operations booked in to not show up.

It was worse around Xmas time (shopping?) - in fact one afternoon she came home at lunch time because either 2 or 3 of the 5 patients hadn't showed. And of course it wasn't just her time it was all the theatre staff and the theatre itself that was standing idle for several hours.

I find it astonishing - I mean, I can understand people forgetting to canel a GP appointment, especially if they've recovered in the meantime but how can you forget that you are supposed to be having SURGERY? Surely that should be in ones diary in big letters.

Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:

I find it astonishing - I mean, I can understand people forgetting to canel a GP appointment, especially if they've recovered in the meantime but how can you forget that you are supposed to be having SURGERY? Surely that should be in ones diary in big letters.

Matt.

Could it be that the surgeon's reputation preceded her.

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
Matt’s clearly miffed at having been targeted by IR35 and has taken it personally as many do when new legislation clobbers them or removes a relief. I have every sympathy and can empathize as governments of both shades have been equally vigilant in parting me from my cash. As I’ve said I have little or no time for Blair and his modus operandi, but to think however that Labour’s apparatchiks are sitting around seething, hatching plans borne out of envy at Matt the capitalist, jammy git with his towering piles of cash and all the understated cool of that flat earth audio system, is surely evidence that one is on the verge of great madness. IR35, amongst others, was under one of those stones. It’s not personal and it’s nothing to do with envy, it was a glaring loophole that any government would have been happy to close.

The thing is Mick, there is no loophole or relief to be closed. It's as simple as this - anyone in the UK (unless they've been banned) is allowed to establish a limited company and to start trading. When you do that and start making some profits then you can distribute that by salary and by dividends (the former attracting NI and the latter not).

What IR35 aims to do is to target certain Ltd Co and to force them to take 95% of their profits as salary - no reinvestment, no training, nothing!

What they argue is that certain people running Ltd Cos are in fact 'disguised employees', forgetting that contractors don't get any of the benefits employees so plus they have the costs and hassle of running a company.

And it's not just IT people - anyone could be caught - a plumber who gets a long term contract doing some work for another company - anyone.

It clearly came about because the government looked at (mainly) IT contractors and thought - wait a minute, these people are earning loads but aren't paying enough NI (forgetting that they pay loads more in tax than a permanent employee). So they brought in some crude legislation that forced lots of people back into permanent employment (reduced tax take) whilst the vast mejority of others took steps (contract wording etc) to ensure they fell outside the new legislation.

Whether that's politics of envy is debatable - what's for sure is that they wasted a lot of time and money on achieving very little.

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
... no amount of bad publicity or politicking from that rubber-lipped, Mockney, knob Oliver will stop them feeding lips and arseholes to schoolkids.

Now hold on, I thought most people now consider Oliver a Saint out to genuinely help the Nation's kids.

STOP PRESS - okay so he's just won a new £1M Sainsburys contract so perhaps there was something in it for him. Personally I've never had a problem with the bloke though and have always been a little suspicious of those who despise him and his success.

quote:

Originally posted by bigmick:
All this talk of bureaucracy being the big threat is a cute line but it’s just a vapid whinge, it means nothing.

Interestingly enough, I was reading that an NHS Consultant of 30 years experience in Plymouth is now standing as an independant candidate against Labour simply for the reason that he believes Labour's targets have meant him having to treat his cases according to targets and not to medical need i.e. some urgent cases have to wait (when they shouldn't) so that non urgent cases can be off the waiting list just before the target is breached.

Obviously this is only a one off case (and at odds with some other stories) but the consultant also said that in a quick non scientific poll of 20 random colleagues he asked, something like 16 of them said the NHS had got WORSE under Labour.

Matt.

I'm starting to glaze over but here is my prediction for the outcome of the election:

Labour win but with reduced majority.

The Lib-dems do quite well and the Tory's crash. Michael Howard gets the sack.

Tony steps down, sooner rather than later (will he be pushed or jump?), and Gordon Brown takes over.

Andy but what do I know...

I'm looking forward to John Redwood doing his usual back-stabbing straight after the Tory defeat. Sing John, sing!
Denis The Menace & Gnasher = Tony Blair & Gordon Brown.
The Softies = John Redwood, Theresa May, William Hague
Denis's Dad = Alistair Campbell
Teacher = Michael Howard

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:
Whether that's politics of envy is debatable - what's for sure is that they wasted a lot of time and money on achieving very little.

Part politics of envy, part politics of opportunism, part politics of ignorance.

My view is that the 'New' part of New Labour is a veneer which has been progressively slipping since 1997. Once Brown gets in, most pretence will have disappeared.

quote:

Obviously this is only a one off case (and at odds with some other stories) but the consultant also said that in a quick non scientific poll of 20 random colleagues he asked, something like 16 of them said the NHS had got WORSE under Labour.

I was under the impression that there had been slight improvements. However, if this is true it's horrendous, particularly since we're each spending so much more of our income on the NHS.

Regards
Steve M

Labour will NEVER wrap their minds around the fact that one has to do more than simply throw money at problems to solve them. Education is the best example. Millions are spent every year on these daft new "universities" teaching daft new subjects to third-rate students, millions is spent on filling schools with computers and internet gismos so the kids can play games and look at porn all day instead of learning to spell and count, teaching standards aren't worth a dog-fart... NO amount of expenditure is going to solve the problem.

And those brain-dead homunculi in the Lib Dems think a few MORE millions will solve the problems!!!

Preserve us.

Oh and that grinning TWAT thinks that letting a bunch of unelected paper pushing morons in Brussels tell us all what to do is some kind of achievement!!!

No wonder people don't see the point in voting.

EW

I'm not a supporter of Labour.


Shocked?

However, in the interest of fairness I'd like to urge all those who are planning to vote against Blair because of his Iraq policy to please read this first...

A message from Iraq

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by Earwicker:
Education is the best example. Millions are spent every year on these daft new "universities" teaching daft new subjects to third-rate students, millions is spent on filling schools with computers and internet gismos so the kids can play games and look at porn all day instead of learning to spell and count, teaching standards aren't worth a dog-fart...

Which subjects are daft? Why are our students third-rate? Why shouldn't children be introduced to computers and "internet gizmos" at school? Do you really think they can access porn at school? Whos teaching standards are bad? If no amount of expenditure will solve the problem, then you tell me what you think will. Actually...don't!

quote:

Originally posted by AndyFelin:
I'm starting to glaze over but here is my prediction for the outcome of the election:

Labour win but with reduced majority.

The Lib-dems do quite well and the Tory's crash. Michael Howard gets the sack.

Tony steps down, sooner rather than later (will he be pushed or jump?), and Gordon Brown takes over.

Andy but what do I know...

Andy,

That's the sort of outcome I've kind of expecting to see too, except I really don't think Blair deserves to get back in because of Iraq. However, I really can't imagine living under the Tories again any time soon so I'm voting Lib Dem as what would be ideal for me is if they hold the balance of power!

I think the only 'saving grace' re Blair is that if, as widely predicted, he gets back in then I reckon it'll be on the back of such a total lack of goodwill and respect that he'll be forced to resign sooner rather than later.

Cheers,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Which subjects are daft? Why are our students third-rate? Why shouldn't children be introduced to computers and "internet gizmos" at school? Do you really think they can access porn at school? Whos teaching standards are bad? If no amount of expenditure will solve the problem, then you tell me what you think will. Actually...don't!

I meant that students at these new universities are 3rd rate; I know, I went to one. I did traditional academic subjects (Biology and Chemistry) and even there standards were low because students lacked basic skills. So "difficult" aspects of the subject like physical chemistry (which requires good maths) and genetics (also good maths and logic) had to be pared down to the absolute minimum. That was a good few years ago, I gather things are even worse now.

As for daft subjects, how about pop music, media studies, golf course studies, all that social wot-not... just pick up a copy of a new university undergrad prospectus if you want a laugh.

Then use it to light the fire, or to wipe your bum on if it's sufficiently absorbent. Because that's about its level.

I gather kids have no bother accessing porn at school, and play computer games when they're not doing that. (Or taking drugs or fucking.)

Some of my fellow students at uni are now teaching the remnants of 'A'-level. God help us.

As for a solution, get rid of the bloody computers, instill some discipline, teach basic reading, writing and arithmetic, and make sure only the top fifth of academic achievers end up going to university - preferably a university which profers proper academic subjects.

Doing it properly won't cost more. It requires the right ethos though.

EW

Well Said Sir, Nail on the old preverbial Bonce, innit.


Fritz Von I thought NVQ's were a DIY Chain ?