rendelharris

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Sue Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > The issue about existing GP surgeries > becoming > > > under resourced is a separate one about > > funding, > > > which surely could be sorted out. > > > > Well yes, if the NHS could suddenly find an > extra > > 25% to cover the loss of surgeries' most > > profitable (for want of a better word) > demographic > > that would certainly make things much easier, > but > > I haven't noticed the system being exactly > awash > > with extra cash recently. > > > Let's hope for a general election then, eh? Yep!

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This guy is good > https://www.patrickholford.com/advice/how-to-lower > -your-cholesterol-without-drugs This guy claims that Vitamin C is more effective for treating HIV than AZT, that autism is caused by MMR vaccines and that he can "cure" autism with vitamins and diet. He has been the subject of much criticism by actual real health and science professionals (his only formal qualification is a degree in experimental psychology), and has been censured numerous times for false advertising for the vitamin products he flogs off the back of his books and website. Take anything he advises with a sackful of salt. His Wiki page tells you all you need to know about him (even though he employs PR people to delete critical content):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Holford#HIV

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The issue about existing GP surgeries becoming > under resourced is a separate one about funding, > which surely could be sorted out. Well yes, if the NHS could suddenly find an extra 25% to cover the loss of surgeries' most profitable (for want of a better word) demographic that would certainly make things much easier, but I haven't noticed the system being exactly awash with extra cash recently.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Given the potential real advantages of this to > many people, I think it would be a pity if some > solution wasn't found. > > The "two tier" thing is a bit emotive. It is > reasonable not to use this service for things it > couldn't easily handle, surely? The point is, Sue, that this service is aimed at taking away patients who generally cost little to a GP practice - the relatively young and healthy - and leaving those patients who take up the majority of resources. Thus in a simplistic model, a practice could lose 50% of its patients (and therefore 50% of its revenue) but be left with those patients who used 75% of its resources, resulting in a 25% shortfall. One way round this would be to provide payment per patient on a weighted basis, based on the statistical likelihood of them requiring care on the basis of age, socioeconomic status, gender etc. This would make the system fairer but it would certainly cut into GP at Hand's profits, in fact it might threaten their viability. I don't think it's emotive to call it a two-tier system at all. As it stands, with the way GP at Hand have been recruiting patients, young, mobile, generally healthy patients will be able to access instant GP consultations while the elderly and those suffering serious chronic illness will be left with the old GP surgery model, only it'll be even more underresourced.

Google "DIY plant watering systems", loads of weird, wonderful and effective (and flatmate-proof) cheap/free ideas out there.

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are they actually vetting who they take on though, > eg because of age or existing illnesses? That > isn't at all clear. Up until the middle of last month they were rejecting: Women who are or may be pregnant; Adults with a safeguarding need; People living with complex mental health conditions; People with complex physical, psychological and social needs; People living with dementia; Older people with conditions related to frailty; People requiring end of life care; Parents of children who are on the ?Child at risk? protection register; People with learning difficulties; People with drug dependence. So in other words most of the patients who cost GP practices the most. Now they say they'll accept anyone "but we still may advise certain patients that our services do not suit them." Hmm. To an extent the list will be self-selecting anyway - over half the people I know aged 70+ don't own a smartphone, plus you have to be mobile enough to get to one of their clinics if an in-person consult is needed - the nearest one to ED is in Westminster. Thus far over 75% of their signups are from the 20-34 age group, knock out those who are pregnant, drug dependent or have mental health issues and you've got a pretty economical cohort, while standard GPs lose that funding for dealing with the care-intensive patients they have left. It also seems extremely dubious to me the way one is told one can easily return to one's GP practice; apart from the extra expense and hassle involved for GP practices having to deregister then reregister patients, one can easily imagine a scenario where one stays with GP at Hand until one's diagnosed with a serious condition when one would then be informed one would be better off with a local GP practice for more intensive supervision and care than GP at Hand can offer. The virtual consultation model definitely has some merit (AI's a different matter, that also has great potential but I don't think Babylon (interesting name!) are planning on using it for GP at Hand at present, may be wrong), but as always with privatised services one has to question why this isn't trialled by the NHS, rather than contract it out to a private company who are paid per patient enrolled, like any other GP practice, and so clearly have a vested interest in keeping those who require the most care off their books. One wouldn't imagine the capital costs of establishing this sort of scheme are excessive.

There's an awful lot wrong with the GP at Hand model, starting with the fact that it's not an arm of the NHS as one would think from looking at their website but a private company contracted by the NHS (creeping privatisation), moving onto the fact that it strips resources from GP surgeries to the detriment of older patients who are less likely to be able to/want to sign up...this article sums up the worries about it pretty well. https://www.digitalhealth.net/2018/03/gp-at-hand-protests-east-london/ When I first saw it I thought great, but just realising that it would mean permanently signing off from my (very good) GP surgery was enough to put me off.

Fair point.

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The quote is an interesting summary, and one that > assumes much prior knowledge: > > "To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the > Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the > basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did > not rule on the legal position regarding its > revocability. > > ?Once again, I am grateful to this House for the > opportunity to make a statement. I recognise that > my comments have caused confusion and I apologise > to the House.? > > > This is true because, on day two of the High Court > hearing, the court agreed to proceed on the > (untested) basis that Article 50 was irreversible > because neither side chose to argue the point, > despite the judge asking them to do so. > > So the case proceeded, from day two, on a false > premise. But you're presupposing that had the government introduced the reversibility argument the Supreme Court would have accepted that reversibility was sufficient to allow A50 to be passed without consulting parliament, and that's in no way guaranteed. Effectively the government would have been saying OK, we still want the right to abolish sovereign UK legislation without consulting parliament but we would retain the right to change our minds. Several legal opinions I've seen have said that would not have been regarded as sufficient.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Shaggy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > Of course, if the UK government had accepted > > this > > > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina > > Miller > > > would have lost her case. > > > > Why do you say that? Her case was to establish > > the principle that the UK government could not > > implement Article 50 without final approval > from > > the UK parliament; this ruling states that the > UK > > government may abandon Article 50 without > approval > > from the EU parliament. Two entirely different > > cases, one related to internal UK procedures > and > > one to international EU law. > > Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last > November > > https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre > xit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irre > versible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065 > 591.html Exactly, the Supreme Court didn't pass any judgement on the current issue as it had no bearing on what Miller was asking.

Shaggy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course, if the UK government had accepted this > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina Miller > would have lost her case. Why do you say that? Her case was to establish the principle that the UK government could not implement Article 50 without final approval from the UK parliament; this ruling states that the UK government may abandon Article 50 without approval from the EU parliament. Two entirely different cases, one related to internal UK procedures and one to international EU law.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is illegal to squat residential properties So is using antisemitic/Islamaphobic hate speech but you don't let that bother you. You've managed, in your standard bright way, to completely miss the point and the joke of malumbu's post.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The numbers involved are not small The numbers are not, the proportions are. What would be better, saying right, we've rolled out to 10% and there are massive problems, let's roll it out to the other 90%, or let's keep the 90% on the old system until we fix the problems? As noted above, the old system is still there and running for 90% of claimants, it's not like it would have to be rebuilt from scratch.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what do you suggest they replace it with, if it > was stopped? And if it was stopped (extremely > unlikely with the amount invested in it's roll > out), how do you think people will cope?????? > > The whole idea of the benefit is that they are > paid jointly in arrears, the Government has > already said that where people experience > difficulties with this, they can be given an > advance that they can then repay over 12 months. Forcing people on the breadline to take on more debt, what could possibly go wrong with that? As for with what it would be replaced, the two systems (six individual benefits vs universal credit) are currently running alongside each other - many areas do not have universal credit, it only covers about 10% of claimants. So there is nothing to stop the rollout being paused, if necessary returning the small number already on UC back to the old system, while the issues with UC are properly considered and rectified.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What an odd post. Your comment was very unhelpful > and this further comment shows that you're quite > an unpleasant person and possibly quite a troubled > soul. My suspicion is that you've been here before > under a different name. Your days may be numbered > again.... Yep, looks like third time around for this one, the pomposity and needling style is quite distinctive.

se22cat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don't knock on peoples doors for charity donations > please. We are all quite capable of choosing which > charities to donate money/time to securely online > or in person at a bricks & mortar location without > being disturbed. This area has also been > repeatedly targeted by charity scams which you > should surely be aware of. > > Please don't harm the environment by pushing > unwanted dead trees through letterboxes either. Wholeheartedly seconded, working from home every day I'm disturbed so often by charity knockers that I'm seriously considering having a "Charity Collectors: all our giving is done online" sign made (which is true but you wouldn't think so from the way the doorsteppers look at one when one says it); and yes, any charity that wastes the money I've given it on junk mail/flyers asking for more gets crossed off the list.

Free trial on their website https://www.vectorworks.net/trial/form/step3

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not that you?ll ever see this and besides the post > will be deleted soon but do you get paid for > posting adverts like this? I'd guess they get paid per clickthrough.

Thank you, very interesting. Eleven people killed from my road alone, unimaginable.

Someone's really gone the extra mile on Peckham High Street.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a fair comment. There's a serious risk when > people touch shared food. Not everyone has good > hygiene standards. Yes there is. However hepatitis is not "rife" in south London and anyone who knows uncleglen's history knows the agenda he's pushing here. No evidence at all.

uncleglen Wrote: I know for a fact > that hepatitis is rife in south london And yet any internet search says nothing about it. Is this "fact" down to they immigrants again? You are so extraordinarily full of shit.

Captain Marvel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?250,000? What bollocks Uncleglen spouting ill-informed bollocks? Heaven forefend!

Seeing up to 15+ patients a day? I think GPs would give their right arm only to see 15 patients a day!

Fair 'nuff.