It wouldn’t be a bad idea if we paid for GP appointments?

[Babybear260]

I’m no economist or politician but it occurred to be that if everyone (or the majority of the populn excluding students, under 18,s , pensioners and very low income households) paid, I don’t know ~£5 every time they saw a GP, could that improve the NHS?

I know many, many people that spend twice that a week on lattes and cappuccinos (including myself) so I wonder whether if the majority of the population could stump £5 per appointment it would help?? Because most people aren’t seeing GP’s weekly so surely people wouldn’t mind contributing?

sure people have thought of this before and there must be a reason why it wouldn’t work because obviously if if did, it would be an option.

Then people like me will be screwed due to having long term health conditions that are difficult to control and need to see the gp often to get it sort of under control

Pointless really because those who would be exempt from payment make up around 90% of GP attendances.

This and often are the most demanding of services!

I think it's a good idea. In France, you pay to see your GP and you pay into a "mutuelle santé " monthly. You then get some of your appointments and prescriptions reimbursed fully or in part.
As you said, people easily pay £5 to buy lottery tickets, vape or chocolate or beers or whatever.
I think most would be happy to pay this quite small price, to get the help they need.
It would take some getting used to, but like with the plastic bag levy , it would become the norm and people would stop moaning about it.

I think the same but for prescriptions, so £1 for every one rather than the exemption. If you've got a certain condition like diabetes all the meds and equipment are free even if you're a millionaire. A small contribution would help IMO.

The cost would creep up.

Remember when uni fees were £3k?

On the face of it, it seems a good idea. But in practice it discriminates against those living in poverty and those with chronic health problems.

I would prefer to charge for missed appointments. More than £5. More like £25. That would be fairer.

So the thought process goes like this, then...

Do I really need an appointment and/or would I fail to turn up?
No. Well, I won't book one then, and that won't be a drain on the service

OR

Do I really need an appointment and/or would I fail to turn up?
Yes, I certainly do, and I would of course definitely make sure that I turned up... but I can't afford it, so I'll have to miss out on essential healthcare.

It's common for people with diabetes to need numerous different items each time, so that could easily make it up to a tenner or more every time at £1 each.

If it's any consolation, a huge proportion of us - especially those who develop further unavoidable complications as a direct result - won't ever live long enough to claim a state pension; so that might be a comfort to those people who are so put out and see us as nothing but a huge drain on society and want to evaluate our lives on a purely cost/benefit basis...

Would this just be for GP appointments? What about appointments where you are asked to come in like blood tests? And any follow up appointments etc.

So the usual groups get the freebies regardless of actual ability to pay, and the penalty is imposed yet again on the same squeezed middle. Same for proposed charges for non attendance. Same for prescription charges.
My clinics are mostly full of pensioners.

I honestly think that a lot of people would prefer it if there were some kind of way to maintain a health service just for the people who are mainly well but have the odd (clear) check-up and occasional, easily-resolved health issue; and then all of these terrible parasites who have long-term conditions and/or are ill and require expensive medical treatment for a huge part of our lives should just be given up as a lost cause, blamed for being ill and then punished by being left to fend for ourselves.

Maybe there could be a special clause with the assisted dying bill when it comes in for us that we could be 'strongly encouraged' to opt for - to leave society clear for the infinitely more worthwhile people who never or very rarely get ill and thus provide much better overall 'value' to the country?

Surely you can understand that, for the poorest people, spending a fiver on vapes, beer or lottery tickets is absolutely not an option? It's a bit difficult to make a saving by giving up something that you could never afford in the first place.

It's nothing like the plastic bag levy: it's perfectly possible to ensure that you always have bags with you when you go shopping (although again, easier for people who have cars to leave the bags in); it's rather more difficult to magic money out of thin air.

The thing is, sadly the ‘you just want us to suffer and die!!’ Guilt trip is losing its power. People who are out working 45-50 hr weeks and getting told how lucky they are to do so, and they should be grateful to pay taxes and if they aren’t doing so with a song in their hearts, they are evil and on a par with eugenics supremacists… it’s not working anymore.

Or they book but their health is so variable they are too ill to attend, or the carer taking them doesn't turn up. There are so many legitimate reasons that someone who is most in need of an apt is unable to attend.

Everyone except children has to pay to make this work.

It's a brilliant idea though A&E and GP should operate the same as the dentist.

Referrals to specialist services free at the point of access.

Nobody is saying that people are lucky to have to work long hours and pay taxes.

But what is the answer if people are losing patience and wanting to stop having to subsidise those who have much poorer health than they do, chronic conditions and disabilities, and require extensive, expensive healthcare - and are often, as a direct result, far less able to earn a good enough income to pay for it themselves?

The dentist model. You have to be on a v low income to not pay.
I wasn’t entitled but I was at the stage where I was having to choose between petrol for work or food. So I didn’t go for a decade.

The thing with paying for stuff is that you don’t need anyone’s permission to do it. Literally no one is stopping you from paying.

www.gov.uk

there you go.

not on this thread no, but other threads people are talking about £3.5k monthly incomes, £16k in savings and saying how poor they are on UC and how awful others are for not subsidising their lifestyle!

Same here - I've had several occasions where I've had to put them off badgering me to book another check-up, or cancel one that's approaching, because I simply haven't had the 'only £27' available to pay for it.

If you have £16k in savings, you are no longer entitled to UC. UC money starts reducing when you have £6k in savings and stops completely at £16k.

Exactly the point. The poster was complaining that they weren’t entitled to Uc because of this level of savings.
how many working people have the capacity to save £6k!

Then I agree that they are mightily unreasonable and most unfair.

That said, I do think that there's a very big difference between paying for the same basics that everybody has to as a normal part of life, and considerable 'bad luck of the draw' medical costs that simply do not factor in most people's lives.

Many of us have accepted that we will never be able to leave the UK again, because the insurance premiums based on our medical circumstances are simply far in excess of what we could ever afford; but not being able to go abroad is far removed from the prospect of insurance schemes that could replace the NHS meaning that we can no longer afford to get treatment for long-term health conditions - as is the case for many insulin-dependent diabetics in the USA now.

To be fair, the majority on UC don't either.

Especially those who are unable to work due to disability/health conditions or care for their disabled child.