BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees

[hod]

Here in Scotland we already have this, having to pay a GP fee for renewal/grant irrespective if you have some/many/no issues. 

 

The fee isn’t set. Pretty sure some GPs make it up. Mine was £45, different GPs locally charge up to £200(!). And pretty much you’ve no choice, you can’t go to another doctors practice, they’re all bursting at the seams. No doctors letter, no certificate.

 

I’ve no real problem in a doctor checking your medical records/this electronic marker (in fact I think both are a good idea) but there needs to be a standardised, reasonable, fee. 

[mossy835]

my doctor wanted £20. i never payed it.

[inthedark]

1 hour ago, toontastic said:

What would you suggest as a suitable cost.

Just had a very brief look at them, even the 'supporter' member fees are £35, which I assume is a cut down version without the insurance package or other membership benefits. How about starting with a 50% reduction and a drive to double the membership?

[Scully]

14 hours ago, panoma1 said:

I thought the hunting act was forced through by the government invoking the parliament act, in order to negate opposition from the Lords? Therefore I don't believe hunting lost the fight, I think the fight was fixed! The government were determined to ban fox hunting at any cost and were prepared to use all/every power, including a reported 700 hours of parliamentary time! (Compared with 7 hours to decide to go to war in Iraq!) available to them to achieve it!

Oh ! For those that think it's sour grapes, I didn't/don't hunt......I think the ban was an affront to democracy!

Seems like they are going down a similar road in regard to gun licensing? Using Imposition to achieve a desired position..... not democracy?

I quite agree the government was determined to ban fox hunting, I just don't believe fox hunters submitted a good enough case for their cause. It took seven years for the ban to come to fruition from the instigation of a private members bill introduced by Foster ....Forster (?) so plenty of time for both sides to get their act together in my opinion. 

It depends on which side of the fence you sit and what your agenda is, as to whether you regard the parliament act as an affront to democracy. It's a long time ago now admittedly, but I think that every vote which took part in parliament, from the introduction in 1997 of the proposed ban, was in favour of a ban. Each time the vote was overturned by the Lords. Politicians of any party are voted into governing office by the general public, so therefore have more to lose, whereas lords aren't, so haven't.  Politicians simply became frustrated.  If I recall, a Labour peer called for fox hunting to be strictly regulated rather than banned, but was shouted down by baroness Mallilulululu! ( can't remember her name either ) yet another Labour peer and fellow fox hunter! I think she was worried strict regulation was the precursor to a complete ban. Whatever. 

I'm of the opinion it had more to do with the class system and a resentful Labour government and general public, rather than animal welfare, and in light of this and still believing fox hunters did themselves no favours, I don't think anything fox hunters could have done would have influenced the eventual outcome. 

As for a similar fate for shooters? Probably. At this moment in time all I can see for shooting is the constant back footed fight against constant and persistent whittling away of freedoms by ever increasing biased agendas and legislation. Live quarry shooters ( and gun owners in general ) have to not only be squeaky clean, but seen to be squeaky clean, and that still isn't enough when you consider what we do. I can't ever see a time when this pressure will cease and what we live quarry shooters do is accepted to the point it is simply that, accepted.

Only yesterday on the BBC news was a report of how Scottish parliament was going to investigate a Scottish grouse moor following some 'keepers mountain hare cull. The report added that it was claimed high hare populations could have a detrimental effect on the numbers of grouse; so we have one cute and fluffy species being shot by men with guns in the employ of the landed gentry, for the benefit of another.....which is shot by 'toffs' for 'sport'. Those who oppose us don't give a fig about the fact that if the moors aren't managed then the grouse will suffer anyhow, or that the local economy could suffer, they just see rich people killing cute animals for enjoyment.  

We are constantly bombarded by people just itching to be offended and with social media they all have a voice which can be heard. 

So yes, as much as I'm loathe to admit it; I think our days are numbered. Get out there and enjoy them while you can. 

Edit: Sorry all for going off topic; turned into a bit of a rant! 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Scully
Unintentional rant!

[matone]

41 minutes ago, Scully said:

I quite agree the government was determined to ban fox hunting, I just don't believe fox hunters submitted a good enough case for their cause. It took seven years for the ban to come to fruition from the instigation of a private members bill introduced by Foster ....Forster (?) so plenty of time for both sides to get their act together in my opinion. 

It depends on which side of the fence you sit and what your agenda is, as to whether you regard the parliament act as an affront to democracy. It's a long time ago now admittedly, but I think that every vote which took part in parliament, from the introduction in 1997 of the proposed ban, was in favour of a ban. Each time the vote was overturned by the Lords. Politicians of any party are voted into governing office by the general public, so therefore have more to lose, whereas lords aren't, so haven't.  Politicians simply became frustrated.  If I recall, a Labour peer called for fox hunting to be strictly regulated rather than banned, but was shouted down by baroness Mallilulululu! ( can't remember her name either ) yet another Labour peer and fellow fox hunter! I think she was worried strict regulation was the precursor to a complete ban. Whatever. 

I'm of the opinion it had more to do with the class system and a resentful Labour government and general public, rather than animal welfare, and in light of this and still believing fox hunters did themselves no favours, I don't think anything fox hunters could have done would have influenced the eventual outcome. 

As for a similar fate for shooters? Probably. At this moment in time all I can see for shooting is the constant back footed fight against constant and persistent whittling away of freedoms by ever increasing biased agendas and legislation. Live quarry shooters ( and gun owners in general ) have to not only be squeaky clean, but seen to be squeaky clean, and that still isn't enough when you consider what we do. I can't ever see a time when this pressure will cease and what we live quarry shooters do is accepted to the point it is simply that, accepted.

Only yesterday on the BBC news was a report of how Scottish parliament was going to investigate a Scottish grouse moor following some 'keepers mountain hare cull. The report added that it was claimed high hare populations could have a detrimental effect on the numbers of grouse; so we have one cute and fluffy species being shot by men with guns in the employ of the landed gentry, for the benefit of another.....which is shot by 'toffs' for 'sport'. Those who oppose us don't give a fig about the fact that if the moors aren't managed then the grouse will suffer anyhow, or that the local economy could suffer, they just see rich people killing cute animals for enjoyment.  

We are constantly bombarded by people just itching to be offended and with social media they all have a voice which can be heard. 

So yes, as much as I'm loathe to admit it; I think our days are numbered. Get out there and enjoy them while you can. 

Edit: Sorry all for going off topic; turned into a bit of a rant! 

An accurate and sensible rant nontheless !

[Dave-G]

Edited.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Dave-G
Got the wong end of the stick lol

[stagboy]

11 hours ago, inthedark said:

That'll be purely down to cost, £78 is too high

Really? Car insurance is about £700, on average. A single driven pheasant is £30-£40.A brace of driven grouse is £200. An hour with a solicitor is £150-£250. 

 

[old'un]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

I quite agree the government was determined to ban fox hunting, I just don't believe fox hunters submitted a good enough case for their cause. It took seven years for the ban to come to fruition from the instigation of a private members bill introduced by Foster ....Forster (?) so plenty of time for both sides to get their act together in my opinion. 

It depends on which side of the fence you sit and what your agenda is, as to whether you regard the parliament act as an affront to democracy. It's a long time ago now admittedly, but I think that every vote which took part in parliament, from the introduction in 1997 of the proposed ban, was in favour of a ban. Each time the vote was overturned by the Lords. Politicians of any party are voted into governing office by the general public, so therefore have more to lose, whereas lords aren't, so haven't.  Politicians simply became frustrated.  If I recall, a Labour peer called for fox hunting to be strictly regulated rather than banned, but was shouted down by baroness Mallilulululu! ( can't remember her name either ) yet another Labour peer and fellow fox hunter! I think she was worried strict regulation was the precursor to a complete ban. Whatever. 

I'm of the opinion it had more to do with the class system and a resentful Labour government and general public, rather than animal welfare, and in light of this and still believing fox hunters did themselves no favours, I don't think anything fox hunters could have done would have influenced the eventual outcome. 

As for a similar fate for shooters? Probably. At this moment in time all I can see for shooting is the constant back footed fight against constant and persistent whittling away of freedoms by ever increasing biased agendas and legislation. Live quarry shooters ( and gun owners in general ) have to not only be squeaky clean, but seen to be squeaky clean, and that still isn't enough when you consider what we do. I can't ever see a time when this pressure will cease and what we live quarry shooters do is accepted to the point it is simply that, accepted.

Only yesterday on the BBC news was a report of how Scottish parliament was going to investigate a Scottish grouse moor following some 'keepers mountain hare cull. The report added that it was claimed high hare populations could have a detrimental effect on the numbers of grouse; so we have one cute and fluffy species being shot by men with guns in the employ of the landed gentry, for the benefit of another.....which is shot by 'toffs' for 'sport'. Those who oppose us don't give a fig about the fact that if the moors aren't managed then the grouse will suffer anyhow, or that the local economy could suffer, they just see rich people killing cute animals for enjoyment.  

We are constantly bombarded by people just itching to be offended and with social media they all have a voice which can be heard. 

So yes, as much as I'm loathe to admit it; I think our days are numbered. Get out there and enjoy them while you can. 

Edit: Sorry all for going off topic; turned into a bit of a rant! 

I could not agree more with the above, especially the fact that our days are numbered.

I think there is an agenda somewhere to ban gun ownership by the backdoor by introducing more legislation, making it more difficult and costly to own and use guns, once they have reduced our numbers by the backdoor, it will just be a matter of time before they put a complete ban on gun ownership.   

[sportsbob]

21 minutes ago, stagboy said:

Really? Car insurance is about £700, on average. A single driven pheasant is £30-£40.A brace of driven grouse is £200. An hour with a solicitor is £150-£250. 

 

£700 wow , my car insurance is fully comp, with no voluntary excess,  all the extras, group 31 is less than £250

[Uilleachan]

13 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

£700 wow , my car insurance is fully comp, with no voluntary excess,  all the extras, group 31 is less than £250

Stagboy does say "average", Kids I know are paying £1500+ pa fully comp. I can well believe the average would be around £700, as in, the cost of all policies summed then divided by the number of policies.  

Edited March 30, 2018 by Uilleachan

[panoma1]

Just a thought, I'm no legal expert, but when negotiations take place, and agreement on a way forward is reached by all parties, do the terms of an agreement not form a contract? If it does, it follows that one party reneging on the terms of said agreement constitutes breach of contract and potentially makes the agreement null and void............doesn't it?............Worth exploring BASC?

Edited March 30, 2018 by panoma1

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Fair point.

[sportsbob]

53 minutes ago, Uilleachan said:

Stagboy does say "average", Kids I know are paying £1500+ pa fully comp. I can well believe the average would be around £700, as in, the cost of all policies summed then divided by the number of policies.  

The average car insurance premium in the UK for comprehensive cover costs £485 a year, according to Association of British Insurers (ABI) data for the third quarter of 2017 so over 30% less than 700

 

More on topic though is the fact that our local GP`s earn over £105.000 per year whereas the average income for the year ending was £27.600 so perhaps when they come up with the figure they wish to charge us they should divide it by four.

Edited March 30, 2018 by sportsbob

[matone]

50 minutes ago, Uilleachan said:

Stagboy does say "average", Kids I know are paying £1500+ pa fully comp. I can well believe the average would be around £700, as in, the cost of all policies summed then divided by the number of policies.  

All bye the bye ,if you shoot ,you cannot afford NOT to be a member !

1 hour ago, stagboy said:

Really? Car insurance is about £700, on average. A single driven pheasant is £30-£40.A brace of driven grouse is £200. An hour with a solicitor is £150-£250. 

 

Exactly !

It`ll be death by a thousand cuts,the same way sport in the Netherlands was killed off years ago.That was a good blueprint for the antis to use.

Edited March 30, 2018 by matone

[scutt]

If a gun licence holder goes of the rails and kills someone its has been the case that the media will go after the police and dig up anything that even suggest that they may in someway have slipped up and even contributed to the event .The media don't go after the people who provide the references on the application form .What I am trying to say is if the Docs take a fee for the provision of a professional opinion will the police deflect any blame onto the doctors and if this was to happen  would it  influence  doctors to avoid giving positive references to gun owners.

Not expressing myself very well but hope you get the gist. 

[Uilleachan]

30 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

The average car insurance premium in the UK for comprehensive cover costs £485 a year, according to Association of British Insurers (ABI) data for the third quarter of 2017 so over 30% less than 700

 

More on topic though is the fact that our local GP`s earn over £105.000 per year whereas the average income for the year ending was £27.600 so perhaps when they come up with the figure they wish to charge us they should divide it by four.

So circa £500. Still a lot more than £76 for insurance and membership.

Yeah, doctors do earn well, although they do do 7 years earning now't accruing circa £50k - £60k+ of student debt into the bargain, and starting rates ain't £105k.  

However it's not their pay that determines any potential charge, rather it's their time including overhead. No idea what the typical Doctors surgery charges out overhead cost at, but the old contractors labour charge out rate was 3 x what was paid, which included total overhead and profit. 

So a doctor earning £105k PA divided by 48 x 40 hour weeks works out at a rounded off £55 per hour, x 3 we have £165 per hour which = £27.50 for a 10min appointment slot. How long does a doctor need to make a medical assessment of a patient? I'd say 10 to 20 mins, time to receive and address the request, a squint at the records and a letter/e-mail back. 

Not saying I agree with the idea of a medical charge, but nor do I don't think doctors' surgeries should wave charges for time they can't recover cost on. I don't like working for free, so why should doctors?

[panoma1]

28 minutes ago, Uilleachan said:

So circa £500. Still a lot more than £76 for insurance and membership.

Yeah, doctors do earn well, although they do do 7 years earning now't accruing circa £50k - £60k+ of student debt into the bargain, and starting rates ain't £105k.  

However it's not their pay that determines any potential charge, rather it's their time including overhead. No idea what the typical Doctors surgery charges out overhead cost at, but the old contractors labour charge out rate was 3 x what was paid, which included total overhead and profit. 

So a doctor earning £105k PA divided by 48 x 40 hour weeks works out at a rounded off £55 per hour, x 3 we have £165 per hour which = £27.50 for a 10min appointment slot. How long does a doctor need to make a medical assessment of a patient? I'd say 10 to 20 mins, time to receive and address the request, a squint at the records and a letter/e-mail back. 

Not saying I agree with the idea of a medical charge, but nor do I don't think doctors' surgeries should wave charges for time they can't recover cost on. I don't like working for free, so why should doctors?

It ain't about charging, or even the charge! that is between the authorities and GP's......it was decided to go down this route as a public safety measure!..........So why should gun owners pay for something they didn't ask for, don't require and don't benefit from? 

[sportsbob]

37 minutes ago, Uilleachan said:

Not saying I agree with the idea of a medical charge, but nor do I don't think doctors' surgeries should wave charges for time they can't recover cost on. I don't like working for free, so why should doctors?

Because the NHS is already paying them for this time or do you think they will do overtime or work in their lunch break to actually earn these fees

[CharlieT]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Just a thought, I'm no legal expert, but when negotiations take place, and agreement on a way forward is reached by all parties, do the terms of an agreement not form a contract? If it does, it follows that one party reneging on the terms of said agreement constitutes breach of contract and potentially makes the agreement null and void............doesn't it?............Worth exploring BASC?

The problem being the negotiation was between the BMA and the HO and the BMA did not have authority to negotiate on behalf of all GP's.

 

[andrewluke]

15 minutes ago, sportsbob said:

Because the NHS is already paying them for this time or do you think they will do overtime or work in their lunch break to actually earn these fees

my GP gets paid for me being on his list but for some reason i cannot get an appointment to see him when needed??

[Scully]

1 hour ago, scutt said:

If a gun licence holder goes of the rails and kills someone its has been the case that the media will go after the police and dig up anything that even suggest that they may in someway have slipped up and even contributed to the event .The media don't go after the people who provide the references on the application form .What I am trying to say is if the Docs take a fee for the provision of a professional opinion will the police deflect any blame onto the doctors and if this was to happen  would it  influence  doctors to avoid giving positive references to gun owners.

Not expressing myself very well but hope you get the gist. 

I think it was made pretty clear from the offset that GP's could not be held responsible for the acts of an applicant. Although I'm pretty sure GP's can express an opinion, it can only be based on an applicants medical history. I don't think GP's are expected to state whether or not an applicant should be allowed to own firearms, nor should the decision be down to them, as personal opinions could influence their decision. They can only inform licensing that patient such and such is suffering from depression, chronic anxiety etc etc. 

All this depends of course, whether the applicant visits their GP; I'm not aware of one in the UK who has prior to shooting anyone. 

[panoma1]

9 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

The problem being the negotiation was between the BMA and the HO and the BMA did not have authority to negotiate on behalf of all GP's.

 

 In employment law certain representative bodies (are the BMA not a representative body?) are recognised for the purpose of "collective bargaining" on behalf of their members.......every member doesn't have to accept the terms, for agreement to be reached, if a majority accept the terms on offer!

[CharlieT]

7 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

 In employment law certain representative bodies (are the BMA not a representative body?) are recognised for the purpose of "collective bargaining" on behalf of their members.......every member doesn't have to accept the terms, for agreement to be reached, if a majority accept the terms on offer!

You've got me there.

However, I do worry when the BMA lead on the mater comes out with statements like this..............

Any expectation that a doctor will provide this service free of charge represents a de facto transfer of NHS resources from the sick to shotgun owners. The BMA cannot agree to that principle and I believe that the British public support our stance. I do not believe that the average person on the Clapham omnibus supports a reduction in health services in order to provide financial assistance to reduce the cost of pheasant shooting.

[panoma1]

9 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

You've got me there.

However, I do worry when the BMA lead on the mater comes out with statements like this..............

Any expectation that a doctor will provide this service free of charge represents a de facto transfer of NHS resources from the sick to shotgun owners. The BMA cannot agree to that principle and I believe that the British public support our stance. I do not believe that the average person on the Clapham omnibus supports a reduction in health services in order to provide financial assistance to reduce the cost of pheasant shooting.

CharlieT it would be hard to argue with the above statement....but if you read my comment a few postings ago, I was not suggesting the NHS stand the cost, but equally why should gun owners? The measure in question was suggested as a public safety issue, and as such accepted by all present at the negotiations (the BMA were present!) it is of no benefit to gun owners (except as members of the public) that I can identify! Public safety is the responsibility of the government, they do this via the police (and other agencies) so the police should pay for these "GP reports" (as they were only proposed in order to enhance public safety!) funding for this process should be provided by the government from the public purse!

If the BMA are not recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining on behalf of GP's? What exactly do they do? And why were they present at negotiations? So GP's can collectively accept any thing positive the BMA come away with, but individual GP'S don't have to accept anything negative they come out of the meeting with?..........Talk about a loaded dice!

[oowee]

At 70 driving licences have to be renewed which I guess is a matter of public safety? Is there a cost to that? I think it also includes an OK from the doctor so should not the same process or costs be applied?