Quizzed about the Palace surgery by The Guardian newspaper, Vanessa Bourne, of
the Patients Association, suggests there is clear discrimination at play, saying: "We have been making representations on behalf of patients
registered with a single-handed practice in Mayfair."
"The primary care trust wanted to close it for being too small. It wasn’t just
for millionaires. It provided care for staff at the Park Lane hotels. Older
patients were told to switch to other practices across busy roads that were
unsafe to cross."
Concludes Ms Bourne: "How on earth can they justify a tiny practice exclusively
for Buckingham Palace staff?"
Labour MP
Andrew Mackinlay – a frequent critic of the royals – has now tabled a series of
questions about the funding of the Buckingham Palace to the government.
However, these questions are reported to have been blocked.
Debate about the monarchy is not allowed on the floor of the Houses of
Parliament.
In a separate written answer, the Health Minister, Ben Bradshaw, said: "The department is not aware of any special provision for
primary health care service to staff of the royal households."
Comment: Exploora, you can add obesity and malpractice lawsuits to that list...
Name: exploora
Comment: I think the huge contributors to the costs to the health care system have been automobile related air pollution, cigarette related air pollution, booze and industrial pollution. HM's household having a nice clinic is really a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Name: M-M
Comment: Seems it's another way for the RF to keep staff wages low - by having a health 'package ' - so actually it's a perk provided by the Royals but funded by National Health or the good old taxpayer .
Name: Jean Sue Libkind
Comment: Why not? They don't pay the staff very well.
Let's talk about the US Congress vs the average American instead.
Name: Joanne
Comment: That's very sweet of you, Colleen, although I have to say I can't take any credit for this particular piece as it was little more than a straight news story.
On a separate note, though, it's certainly not been the happiest week for the royal family on the PR front, has it?
Joanne
Name: colleen
Comment: Thanks Joanne for what I call investigative journalism to me this is rather a big step forward, It means we are starting to take the Royals to task, it seems to me they have been able to do their own thing without the UK citizens and taxpayers asking any questions, good stuff maybe articles like this will help keep them on their toes.Another thing I wonder about is how they get special priviledges legally I wonder if this has ever been challenged or anyone has looked at the actual laws concerning this or we are just taking their word. Sounds to me like the Royal household needs to be updated in more ways than one. I think darling Diana would be proud of us challenging them ( I know I get a bit sentimental when it comes to Diana)
Name: Emily Elizabeth Windsor-Cragg
Comment: I know from reading HRM's annual budget that her staff overhead is very low, almost impossibly low.
It is listed as L11,000 per year, on average in her financial pages of the Civil List, I believe.
I don't know how she keeps overhead per employee so low; so that getting some extra medical care would be great if the medical establishment doesn't just blow the money churning visits and tests, as they do here in the USSA.
What would make more sense in terms of propagating health and vitality would be for the Royal Purse to capitalize natural healing modalities that are not as high-tech and exclusively "after the fact," and adopt natural methods of the Kingdom of David -- mikvah, niddah and kashrut -- for optimizing public health in the Kingdom.
Unfortunately, most people do not realize that the Kingdom EVER propagated public health principles to strengthen and vitalize the people; just as most don't realize George III was an avid architect for the working classes.
EEWC
Name: valmae
Comment: The members of staff can hardly take half a day off to "go to the doctor's" (including a visit to Marks & Spencer) when the surgery is in their place of work. It might be harder to "skive" and get a sick note for, e.g. back pain.
Name: exploora
Comment: I think walk in clinics are great for urgent care, in my neck of the woods, GP's can say they are not taking new patients, and all kinds of people only have one option which is to go into a walk in clinic. If a person has a gp and able to go to a walk in clinic for urgent care, it probably saves money. I go to the walk in clinic all the time for my asthma, I have never gone to the hospital cause it is further away, and the clinic is much faster and has an asthma set up. And they get to know you.
Of course this set up described in the article doesn't sound fair or even efficient, and probably even promotes distance from the Royal world and the "other world", but how long will the monarchy last anyway? I wouldn't vote for the POW to be my head of state.
I understand that Harry said he didn't like Britain much, possibly due to the media hounding him, but look what he gets in return. He has gone to Eton, which may have been more difficult if he did not have the right connections, he is an officer in the military without a university degree, he gets to ride in a Chinook helicopter when he goes to his cousin's stack, he gets to share his brothers flight training experience, he can even possibly act like a jerk in a bar and have body guard protection paid for by the state.
It is sad they lost their mother. The problem is without funding to manage some health problems, the country will lose productivity, possibly the ones who are willing to work the hardes for the least money.
I always wonder what costs more the war in Iraq or funding a public health care insurance plan?
Name: Monika
Comment: One of the US presidential candidates has 'all' the answers for healthcare issues. Perhaps Britain could borrow her for the next several months. I realize it would be a major sacrifice, but I'd be willing to make it.
