Charlie Gard

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, kilbowie2002 said:

They can in some circumstances earn £100k p/a as the senior partner in a very busy practice with few partners. I'd say the average wage is around £60-£70k which is fine but not what is publicised in the many articles branding gp's etc as lazy and greedy. From this they have to pay medical indemnity insurance which can cost 10k per year, GMC fees, BMA fees, RCGP fees, paying for courses, all mounts up. We looked at the possibility of moving to Canada recently and GP's in both rural and urban areas there can earn approx $3-400k per year in far better conditions and actually be respected for the work they do, not vilified by the onesie at tesco brigade of arseholes who got their medical degree from the university of google.

You could be a Mountie.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

Just now, welshbairn said:

You could be a Mountie.

I've heard he likes having 15 hands between his legs.

[whiskychimp]

Charlie Gard

     a lie

 

Conspiacy? I think so

[sjc]

1 hour ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

Most doctors, or at least consultants are egotistical c***s.

You've been watching too much Holby City.....

[Cyclizine]

25 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

They can in some circumstances earn £100k p/a as the senior partner in a very busy practice with few partners. I'd say the average wage is around £60-£70k which is fine but not what is publicised in the many articles branding gp's etc as lazy and greedy. From this they have to pay medical indemnity insurance which can cost 10k per year, GMC fees, BMA fees, RCGP fees, paying for courses, all mounts up. We looked at the possibility of moving to Canada recently and GP's in both rural and urban areas there can earn approx $3-400k per year in far better conditions and actually be respected for the work they do, not vilified by the onesie at tesco brigade of arseholes who got their medical degree from the university of google.

What people forget, is that when the Daily Heil says "Lazy GPs earn £200,000 a year", is the way they arrive at this figure is by dividing a year's national GP funding by the number of GPs, forgetting that GPs have to pay for their premises, staff, pensions, equipment etc out of this. It's like saying Tesco turned over £30 billion last year and employs 300,000 people so everyone who works for Tesco earns £100,000.

[Jacksgranda]

1 minute ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Yes exactly. I actually think the NHS should take over every GP practice, removing the need for GP's to act as business managers and instead focus on patient care, this would cut down on the non medical paperwork etc that they have to deal with, could allow them to be paid a really decent competitive wage and still save the NHS an awful lot of money (why duplicate the bureaucracy all over the place).

1/ Would they not need to pay compensation for taking over the GPs' assets?

2/ Do you really think that? The GPs/staff will get "decent competitive wages", but someone is still going to have to do the bureaucracy and get paid for it, which is currently being done by the GP/his staff.

[sjc]

12 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said:

 

Yup.

 

Wid

[Cyclizine]

9 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Yes exactly. I actually think the NHS should take over every GP practice, removing the need for GP's to act as business managers and instead focus on patient care, this would cut down on the non medical paperwork etc that they have to deal with, could allow them to be paid a really decent competitive wage and still save the NHS an awful lot of money (why duplicate the bureaucracy all over the place).

I think the other issue is that the general public don't realise how little funding GPs actually get - in Scotland total GP funding is just over £750 million a year: that's almost under £175/year per head of population - it costs £120/year to insure the dog!

A private GP appointment in Edinburgh is £100 for 15 minutes, and that's not including prescriptions or referrals

[sjc]

2 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

I think the other issue is that the general public don't realise how little funding GPs actually get - in Scotland total GP funding is just over £750 million a year: that's almost under £175/year per head of population - it costs £120/year to insure the dog!

Given the cost of running the NHS all things included, it makes you wonder how feasible it is in the long run with an increasing populous that increases in longevity? 

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

3 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

1) Yes, but thats an outgoing which would return a profit in the longterm.
2) yes, a nationally agreed GP salary with a commitment to resourcing say 1/2 out of hours shifts a month (which is a struggle just now trust me) would lead to less staff going sick due to stress, doctors able to focus entirely on patient care rather than running a business and much of the eliminated bureaucracy ie payroll, admin functions which are reproduced at every single practice could be done in regional offices instead, save a fortune.

I'm not convinced, never seen any government departments returning the benefits promised, but we'll never know, because it will never happen.

And the eliminated bureaucracy would never happen.

[Mark Connolly]

An interesting opinion piece in the Guardian today

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/thank-you-doctors-and-nurses-who-cared-for-our-daughter?CMP=fb_gu

 

[WILLIEA]

57 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

.
In terms of GP retention the next generation of GP's don't have the expectation that they will remain a private concern, in fact many practices are failing not only due to the brexit effect on foreign doctors but also that running a practice is stress that they simply dont want. Her current boss and many like him have seen marriages fail, heart attacks, not able to retire because there's no one to take on the practice etc. I know of a GP who runs a practice just outside Glasgow in a single handed surgery who can't even get time off for his daughters wedding. Yet they are continually vilified, no wonder no one wants to go into medicine in the UK.

It can be a tough gig for some.

Years ago a friend of mine took himself off into the hills with a bottle of whisky and a pack of diazepam. This was in February and he just lay down to die.

Apart from the usual bitching nobody knew he was so down.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Has anybody mentioned that being a GP is pish easy? They just look stuff up on the internet. If not, consider it done.

[WILLIEA]

5 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

I think I may have been a patient at the health centre he worked at.

Hmm! SW Scotland. Although I know he is not the only one to take this course.

[chomp my root]

8 hours ago, kilbowie2002 said:

I wouldnt fancy being a Mountie as you've got to do a rural posting, but I had looked at some of the metro depts like in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver and they get paid far better too. Ultimately though my Mrs doesnt want to leave the NHS .

You need to have a watch of this, it sounds right up your boulevard.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

21 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Has anybody mentioned that being a GP is pish easy? They just look stuff up on the internet. If not, consider it done.

It's the fact that they Google it right in front of you that boils my piss.

Then they type 'boiling piss' into fucking Google!

[Boghead ranter]

58 minutes ago, kilbowie2002 said:

Bowling is quite nice

Apart from the fact that if you miss the train home, it's another week before the next one stops at the station.

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 10:50, ICTChris said:

Melanie Phillips has written the best article I've read about this.  

http://www.melaniephillips.com/cruel-ignorant-campaign/

 

So, I mostly ignored this story beyond clicking on two different stories. Obviously it was all over the news here. I read your article. It was nonsense.

First this:

Quote

This was another thing the American commentators seemed incapable of grasping. In the US, the courts are highly politicised with judicial figures appointed by the state. But in Britain the courts are truly independent, representing law and justice. The state does not tell the British courts what to do; the British courts in fact hold the state to account. So the idea that the courts were enforcing state diktat in this case was totally ridiculous.

Uh, so what would happen if the parents hired people to come into the hospital and remove their child? The police would come and enforce the hospital (the state in the UK) decision that was backed up by the courts. That's the state.

I then went and read some of the American articles she referenced. They seem to be objecting to the basic relationship between the British state and British citizens that exists under the NHS. It was baffling over here how a hospital could order parents not to seek alternative treatment that was available. My personal opinion after reading all these articles is that the parents were horribly in the wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to argue that in the absence of a legal will it's best to put the next of kin in charge of medical decisions rather than the state.

[RH33]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/it-was-our-agonising-job-as-charlie-gard-care-team-to-say-enough?CMP=fb_gu

[Hillonearth]

The parents did come across like a couple of bampots sometimes, but I reckon it was mostly down to their profound denial of the reality of the situation, which wasn't helped by "expert" opinion that seemed to have little idea of what was the real state of affairs coupled with right-to-life cheerleading from the other side of the Atlantic.

The courts and especially the hospital came out of it with great dignity considering some of the shite they've clearly had to deal with under incredibly trying circumstances.

As usual, the ones that came out of it looking worst were the hard-of-thinking "Charlie's Army" types on social media - that c**t Zuckerberg's got a lot to answer for.