bbsrs wrote: » Is it going to happen or not ?
MamaBee92 wrote: » I asked my GP this last week. She said at the moment, its not looking like its going to happen any time soon, but if it does happen we will all be informed of it. I think it was another case of broken promises from our government. Who's surprised? Unfortunately, no one
Roger_007 wrote: » It won't happen unless the GPs get a truckload of cash to implement it, ( just like they did when the over 70s got medical cards as of right). GPs make a lot of money on young children of families without medical cards. They are hardly likely to throw away that nice little earner without a big fight and a big payoff. The GPs, of course, will come up with all sorts of reasons why it is not a good idea until the real issue, (the cash), is sorted to their satisfaction.
Roger_007 wrote: » It won't happen unless the GPs get a truckload of cash to implement it, ( just like they did when the over 70s got medical cards as of right).
Roger_007 wrote: » ( just like they did when the over 70s got medical cards as of right)
Roger_007 wrote: » GPs make a lot of money on young children of families without medical cards.
Banjo String wrote: » Being charged to see the doctor was very alien to me coming from the north. I'm always sceptical when a doctor tells me to come back next week for another check up. Ok.... Another 50 quid so....... If my mechanic thought he fixed my car, but asked me to call back next week again to check it, and charged me twice I'd be right pissed off tbh.
user2012 wrote: » It would be great if it did come in but I can see it being abused. They should offer maybe 5 free visits a year & anything after that should be charged. Or even charge a smaller amount for kids under 5. At the end of the day GP's are trying to run a business so if its not feasible financially for them then they are dead right not to agree to it.
Hotfail.com wrote: » Or allow 5 free visits that "aren't so serious" where the doctor may suspect they wouldn't have brought the child under the previous system even if they could have afforded it, then if the child is genuinely ill just down count it against the five. Thinking about it now that doesn't sound like a great idea.
user2012 wrote: » No, sure you would have kids being brought in with a runny nose!
fedor.2. wrote: » All healthcare should be free
Fuzzy wrote: » At 52% nominal tax rate, we should have free GP care for everybody. We are paying Scandanavian standards of tax but get crappy American standards of public services.
ScumLord wrote: » So free health care for those that need it, subsidised prices for everyone else. It's also not fair to over charge people that can afford it, it just drives them out of the market.
Cantremember wrote: » The nub of the issue in this country is there. Who are those who need it? There are swathes of the population who live subsidised lives and swathes who do not.
The row over discretionary medical cards revealed a fundamental truth about the country: we expect a level of service without thinking of how it is to be paid for.
ScumLord wrote: » Well medical care isn't like welfare or job seekers allowance, it doesn't matter to me if you're a scrounge you still deserve medical care and it shouldn't be withheld for any reason.
Lucas Castroman wrote: » Nonsense. Everybody should be expected to contribute something to their own healthcare costs. I know it's a wacky alien concept in this society that people should be accountable for their own existence. Why should I care about somebody's health if they themselves don't?
ScumLord wrote: » Because you're not a heartless bastard. Some people aren't able to look after themselves, it still doesn't mean we should watch them die. They can not care about their health all they like but in a decent society you don't just ignore someone and let them die.
comongethappy wrote: » Asking for some people to contribute slightly is hardly unreasonable. Your overreacting.
ScumLord wrote: » What is it that's an overreaction?
Lucas Castroman wrote: » The percentage of the population who are incapacitated to such a degree that they can't provide for themselves is minute. The people I refer to are those who drink, smoke, gamble, go on sun holidays, have sky tv and then look sadly for hard-working people to pay for their healthcare when they inevitably get sick. I know you're a liberal, socialist, cannabis smoking dogooder who cares too much but just making you aware that a great many don't agree with your "healthcare for all irregardless" mantra.
ScumLord wrote: » Would you like to be the one that tells someone they can't have medical treatment and will just have to go home and die? ......... It's all too easy to sentence people to death ............ stepping over the dead bodies of homeless people that don't deserve medical care anymore.
comongethappy wrote: » I don't feel heartless at all that that on average I pay €1,100 each year for someone else to have free healthcare before I pay for any for my family.
I think asking some of the 1.92 million medical card holders to contribute a very small sum is reasonable to offset the costs of expanding the scheme to cover all infants (half of whom are already covered).
ScumLord wrote: » So if people don't meet your moral standards and financial ideals they should have healthcare withheld? Would you like to be the one that tells someone they can't have medical treatment and will just have to go home and die? I think people who make these kinds of requests should be the ones that have to carry it out. It's all too easy to sentence people to death from behind a keyboard, it's a different story when you have to look a person in the eye and I don't think you'd have the stomach for it, but you expect a public servant to carry out this act so that you don't have to deal with the outcome, other than stepping over the dead bodies of homeless people that don't deserve medical care anymore.
