The Saudis Ban Govt Doctors

krizon

krizon

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
16,263
Location
Dahn sarf
Starting with the new Hijrah (Muslim) Year on January 20, the Arab News has reported that both Saudi and expatriate doctors employed in government hospitals will be banned from also holding private practices. They feel that patients in their 2,000 Primary Health Trusts and 200 hospitals are being neglected at the expense of the doctors' private work. Doctors will be able to work solely for private hospitals and practise privately, but no longer combine receiving government salaries as well as their own private fees.

I wonder if this would solve our NHS waiting list crisis? (As if I don't think the answer is a loud 'yes!') It bugs the hell out of me that doctors clock off just after lunch to rake in tens of thousands of pounds for an afternoon's work, yet maintain their NHS jobs - which are essentially part-time - on what I assume are full-time salaries.

As a case in point, my Mother was told years ago she'd have to wait 18-24 months for a hip replacement. When the pain became too much to bear, she was told she could get the op within weeks if she coughed up several thousands of pounds to go private. Which she did. She spent time in the Nuffield Hospital and was then seen at the NHS hospital by the same surgeon for her check-up. So she was able to leapfrog her NHS waiting time because she had the money, but was seen in NHS time, following a private op.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Jan 15 2007, 01:36 AM
Starting with the new Hijrah (Muslim) Year on January 20, the Arab News has reported that both Saudi and expatriate doctors employed in government hospitals will be banned from also holding private practices. They feel that patients in their 2,000 Primary Health Trusts and 200 hospitals are being neglected at the expense of the doctors' private work. Doctors will be able to work solely for private hospitals and practise privately, but no longer combine receiving government salaries as well as their own private fees.

I wonder if this would solve our NHS waiting list crisis? (As if I don't think the answer is a loud 'yes!') It bugs the hell out of me that doctors clock off just after lunch to rake in tens of thousands of pounds for an afternoon's work, yet maintain their NHS jobs - which are essentially part-time - on what I assume are full-time salaries.

As a case in point, my Mother was told years ago she'd have to wait 18-24 months for a hip replacement. When the pain became too much to bear, she was told she could get the op within weeks if she coughed up several thousands of pounds to go private. Which she did. She spent time in the Nuffield Hospital and was then seen at the NHS hospital by the same surgeon for her check-up. So she was able to leapfrog her NHS waiting time because she had the money, but was seen in NHS time, following a private op.
Click to expand...
My worry is that if we were to go down the same path more doctors would just do private work, much to the detriment of the NHS.
 
I caught about half of the last piece, Ven, and it looked as if you could sack all the so-called managers, because the consultants were determining what got done and when, and maintaining a hierarchy of deference. Yes, cricketfan, I wondered about that possibility happening, too. It may be interesting to see how the Saudi model fares long-term.
 
Don't forget, there are many consultants within the NHS who won't touch private practice - there IS another side to the coin.

A friend of mine has been poorly diagnosed with a deteriorating nerve/muscle disease (now thought to be myasthenia gravis but originally treated as epilepsy!) and the two top specialists in our area will not take private patients, which means that the waiting list is extensive.

So it's not always the case that money buys you immediate top treatment.
 
A friend and my mother needed to see the same bowel specialist. Both were told they had to wait at least 8 weeks for an appointment. My friend who had private medical cover was told that if she paid she could see him the next day, which she did. My mother who didn't have private medical cover and couldn't afford to pay, but who had paid into the NHS since its' inception, had to wait 8 weeks.
 
I see no obvious reason why medical care should differ that dramatically from everything else, in that the more you pay the better service you should get. To a large extent those with private medical insurance are subsidising those relying on Public Health Care, so one would assume that it would be appreciably worse all round if everybody was "equal".
 
Based on that argument, my mother should have been since first as I am sure she had paid more since 1946 than my friend who was only 24 and had been working for 3 years!
 
Your friend is paying taxes towards keeping the public health going and is paying privately to avoid using some of the facilities he/she is contributing towards.
 
So, Mel, provided you're able to hold down a well-paid job and are relatively fit (!), you'd model on the American system, where society's poor can languish unattended and untreated, but if you have the dough, you can get whatever you can afford? Well, I guess that's capitalism in action...
 
No. There should be a "reasonable" level of care provided for all. Where you draw the line at "reasonableness" depends on the wealth of the state you are talking about and I'm not going to argue that Public Health in Britain (or Ireland) is of a reasonable standard, I just don't believe it is being compromised by those funding their own private medical care.
 
Melendez, you said "the more you pay the better service you should get". My mother worked and paid national insurance, from which the NHS is supposedly funded, not 'taxes' as income tax, from 1946 until 1983 when she retired. She worked all this time apart from a few months for each pregnancy she had, so I would argue that she had paid far more in actual terms than someone who had been working for 3 years. So did my father. I won't bore you with their social history before 1946 but suffice to say both their families fell foul of being poor where health matters were concerned, and it wasn't because they didn't work, it was because they were poor. I do not think it is fair that working a 6 day week for most of your life doesn't qualify you for having the same rights as someone who doesn't have to work but has a lot of money, or someone does work and is paid a higher salary. Who gets to judge who is more 'deserving' and should be treated 'first'?
 
So how do you decide what should be provided on the NHS and what shouldn't? If we were all prepared to be a lot more ruthless and pared down the 'free' treatment provided by the State to more basic levels - ie ruled out any form of cosmetic surgery, fertility treatment, raised the limit for legal terminations again, stopped funding trying to keep babies born prior to, say, 30 weeks, stopped offering free hip replacements after the first one, yada yada yada, then maybe we would have a less over-burdened NHS.

I don't begrudge a penny of the very considerable NI contributions I make not only personally, but as a owner of a Limited Company - I believe we are all probably not paying enough in tax either BUT I would only support bigger tax/NI increases if I felt that it was being spent wisely and it clearly isn't. The majority of us should pay for private dental care for a start - only children, those on benefits and pensioners should automatically qualify for free dental care. If you're working, then you should be prepared to set aside some money to look after your knashers and not expect the State to do it for you.

Same goes for any minor, routine medical treatment - we should pay at least some contribution for our doctor's visit if we are able to.
 
She's dead....if she had got in to see the bowel specialist earlier, she may not be. There again she may well still have died when she did but the delay didn't help her cause one little bit.
 
I didn't know cosmetic surgery and abortions were available through the NHS, to be honest. :blink: I suppose that's cosmetic surgery following accidents or burns, though, rather than having a hooter transformed into a cute li'l button?
 
Thank you but no need - it's wasn't/isn't your fault!

I was offered 'cosmetic' surgery on a scar on my back which hadn't healed probably as a result of a procedure, but it really isn't a big deal so I declined it. I would hope that cosmetic surgery is not available without a medical/physcological reason being the cause as opposed to a issue of pure vanity.
 
Yes, Etta, that's the sort of cosmetic procedure which should be given free. Very sorry to hear about the outcome for your Mother, too. It leaves an unpleasant question mark over things, I'm afraid.
 
Back
Top