On Sun 05 Apr, Ahmad Risk wrote:
> On 04/05/98 07:14:29, "Paul Attwood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone really have a serious argument against a ballot on this?
>
> The gauntlet is thrown.
>
> Let's hear it from all those who are quite happy to sit on their hands on
> this one.
>
> Specifically, I want to hear from all those embracing PCGs (line, hook
> and sinker) answer in public yes or no to the simple question:
>
> Do you support a national ballot of GPs over the PCGs issue?
>
> Yes [ ]
> No [ ]
>
> X marks the spot ;-)
I think Yes has to be the answer whether you are a believer or
an unbeliever. I believe it used to be called 'democracy'. This
would be in best Athenian tradition.
I know the Govt has a mandate from the people but if their manifesto
had said, " We don't like Fundholding because KC fat man invented it
on his hols so we are going to scrap it BUT we'll try something else
at a rush, with little consultation, and absolutley no guarantee that
the majority of the people who have to make it work feel exactly
enthusiastic about it, so it's another grand experiment."
Change MUST be piloted by people who believe in it. Fundholding worked
because people made it do so. It was the most God awful Kludge to
begin with with the rules being made up as it went along but after a
few years we saw some positive changes. This is worse.
By the way, anyone spot in Monitor that £500million waiting list cash
equals 10 hours operating time! Is this true?
--
Allan Harris, GP, Haxby, York YO3 3PH
tel 01904-768666
work 01904-760125, fax 750168
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|