Wednesday, 23 October 2013

Hit GPs in their wallets

Whether our bloated, privileged GPs suckling deep at the public tit want to or not, they have a vital part to play in controlling public expenditure. Their views on whether they want to be part of our immigration control system are utterly irrelevant; whilst they're paid from the public purse, they'll do as they're told. 

This can be done by simple legislation making each of them personally liable for the un-recovered costs of health care given to illegal immigrants if they failed to exercise due diligence as the care path 'gateway'. 

Hit them in their own purses and wallets, and few of those heady principles will stand. Most GP opponents are only principled at others' expense.


DeeDee99 said...

Good idea. The Left love a tax levy on private companies which are charging too much and/or failing to provide good value for our money.

Our GPs certainly fall into the bottom category. Paid a small fortune, thanks to Labour's flawed negotiations, they now have pampered existences. If they're not prepared to do what is necessary to cut NHS costs by reducing health tourism, then levy a special "health tourists tax" on them.

lilith said...

They are already trying to save money..refusing xrays, referrals etc to anyone they deem over the hill. I see it every day.

Bill Quango MP said...

Employers, and that must include GPs, already have to police immigration.
It is illegal not to check documentation for a new employee. Records must be kept for every employee including photocopies of passports, ID cards and UK NI cards.

The fines for not checking are potentially huge.

The haulage industry has an even greater problem as they are liable for anyone sneaking across the border in, on or under their vehicles.

So, as you suggest, a hefty fine, for which legislation already exists,{labour's own legislation} will encourage compliance.

Doctors may claim its not their responsibility as they dish out expensive medical treatments and give their limited time.
But its more theirs than it is that of Mr Primark.

Johnm said...

In the real non-rant world, most of the costs are for emergency care. Which is free for all, no matter who/what/where.
Doctors are cutting-down on expensive drugs, because the health dept is not paying for some of the more expensive ones, and is only paying a fraction of the cost of others. The remaining fraction is paid by the local commissioning group (well, it isn't, they just do not prescribe those drugs. Irrespective of need).
Drugs coming out of patent are on hold waiting for generics to come along.
What treatment or drugs a doctor can give or prescribe is a matter, now, of local policy; within the framework allowed within NHS England and the DoH.

Mr Ecks said...

Also--much as I dislike the immigration situation, I don't want to live in a fucking police state where everybody is a coerced informer for the scum of the state. The useless border trash can't stop illegals (mainly 'cause they don't try)?. Tough shit--kick them up they arse--don't lay your tyrannical shite on the rest of us. Doctors are supposed to help the sick not rat them out (for any type of wrongdoing--once this kind of shit sets a precident it will be extended believe me)to the scummy state.

Budgie said...

JohnM and Mr Ecks right on this one, and Raedwald wrong.

Anonymous said...

Once you force GPs to do something it is only a matter of time when they ewill officially be compelled to decide whether your residual life span is justified.
Can you prove you are worth keeping alive ?

Johnm said...

The amount the state save from 20,000 not living through the winter is considerable. Not only that, but the amount of extra consumer activity generated through the liberation of the deceased estate, and the reduction of health care.
Don't forget, when the state pension was introduced the vast majority of the low classes never lived long enough to benefit, so the middle classes got the weekly shilling. So, we are now going back to that?
And if the greens ever get to government, we can expect no-births-and-legislated-death to be the policy. Gas chambers at the end of useful economic activity (unless you are in "the party", no doubt)

Matt said...

Bill Quango MP: In my understanding it is not illegal to "not check documentation for a new employee" although over-zealous and politically-correct HR departments would have you believe otherwise.

What the law states is that if an employer checks documentation prior to employing a person then this constitutes a "due diligence" defence if the person's eligibility for employment is subsequently questioned in court. Not making the checks leaves an employer open to subsequent legal problems but ONLY if the employee is actually illegal.

Also of note is that retrospectively making checks (after employment has begun) DOES NOT constitute a defence - and dismissing an employee based on failure to comply with this effectively constitutes admitting to having employed them illegally in the first place.

I know this because I had an argument with a previous employer over their demand for me to retrospectively submit documents for them to photocopy, having employed me (a British citizen) prior to their company policy requiring such checks. I wasn't happy with identity documents being copied by people in a HR office with high staff turnover (and a large proportion of foreign nationals), particularly when this was for a legally useless purpose. I won the argument after requesting from them the relevant Act of Parliament and returning it with the relevant clause highlighted.