I would love to agree, indeed I made that very point in the contribution that was selected as highlighting the point of contention, as shown below.

Quote:

When there is so much important stuff going on that is relevant to the campaign (as covered by my recent postings), this forum shows itself to be so out of touch by focussing so much of its energies on nothing more that trying to understand and agree on what it is that we are campaigning for. This is not unimportant, but we have little hope of being a centre for making progress if we cannot advance to the point where we are able to address the actual current issues in our discussions. I am lucky, I am not sure that many other campaigners can afford to use so much of their energy on what must look to most readers as silly internal squabbles.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 1:45am:


Quote:
The highlighted portion is at the center of the campaign and I fail to see why it should be contentious. I would go further, as reflected by some of my recent contributions, and while others may disagree, and indeed may well have valid opposing arguments, my own position is that, generally, the cost of handling everyday general-purpose telephone calls (banks, transportation, utilities etc) should fall on the recipient and not on the originator unless there is some significant added-value element. As happens here. As used to happen in the UK.

Dave wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:13am:

I understand that the ban in the "nations" is a simple prohibition on NHS bodies raising money from car parking charges. Perhaps our friends from the relevant campaign can enlighten us. I am also very keen to hear comments on how far the changes that will be introduced in England are seen to meet the campaign objectives.

Dave wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:13am:

The "internal market" whereby money flows around within the NHS, giving managers lots to do whilst making the system more efficient (!) was introduced in the 80s, long before devolution. Some of its effects have been corrected.

The "fine" is not an actually penalty, but a demand that further necessary treatment carried out after discharge is effectively done under a 30-day warranty, without further payment as if for a fresh admission. We must remember that these payments only come from PCT budgets, so this is probably just an explanation for why PCT budgets will have to be cut, whilst the overall NHS budget is protected.

Dave wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:13am:
Those who have been following this thread closely know who will have to fill this "hole". It is "taxpayers", or as some would say, "patients".

idb wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 2:55am:

As a regular patient at Charing Cross Hospital (now in Hammersmith) I can offer some direct experience. It was built in the 70s with a sizable underground car park. That is no longer big enough to accommodate more than the senior staff for whom it is now reserved (I do not believe that it has actually shrunk in size.)

The roads within the hospital site are used for pay and display parking, at roughly the same rate as in those parts of the surrounding streets where this is possible. Getting a space is not in any way guaranteed and there are no discounts for patients or visitors. The hospital admits that it cannot offer car parking, discouraging use of what little there is by strongly urging use of public transport, which is generously available.

I did once overstay my pay and display time and got caught. I was served with a civil enforcement order for a penalty charge. This was followed up by the agency engaged by the hospital. I enquired about the appeal process and was invited to send an email to the hospital (not the agency) explaining (as was the case) that my outpatient appointment had been unexpectedly delayed and I was unable to come out and move the car. Without any need for specific proof of the appointment, the penalty charge was waived. I expect that others may have had different and less happy experiences.

The one thing I know for certain is that if Charing Cross is prohibited from charging then this will do nothing more than perhaps release some free parking public spaces onto the local market, as I suspect that further areas will be marked off for junior staff parking. The few areas reserved for junior staff cars are presently "crush parked". It would do nothing to help patients or visitors, except those who were lucky enough to grab a vacated space in a lottery with much worse odds than those which apply at present.

I will offer one other personal experience. My father was a patient governor of a Foundation Hospital in Birmingham. They had a large open car park on land adjoining the hospital that had been acquired and was scheduled for building on at some unspecified point in the future. It was however conveniently located near to a local railway station from which a new frequent service into the city centre was introduced. Parking charges had to be set fairly high to discourage commuters and shoppers, so as to ensure space for patients and visitors. They devised a clever scheme which allowed outpatients to park for free, but only if they, or perhaps their driving companion, left the car park immediately after their appointment (an alternative system had been widely abused). Regular, or long term, visitors had the option of purchasing a heavily discounted "season ticket" with a note from the ward that they were visiting. These are just some of many complex features of a scheme that suited that particular situation; the point is that it worked and was seen to be reasonably fair. In fact, when I visited there in the evenings there was usually quite enough space to park outside on the street, which was not subject to restrictions after 6:00. I am sure that every other hospital faces similar tricky problems, to which there are no easy answers. In this case, the hospital would have probably had to let the developer buy the land to operate the car park if it had been prohibited from charging. (If anyone remembers the Labour party manifesto launch on "non-NHS" property, it was the same Trust, but a different site.)

As this thread seems to have been taken over by car parking, perhaps other members have examples to give.

sherbert wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 7:45am:

From the way the situation is described, I can see every good reason not to charge patients or visitors for parking at this hospital.

The provision of a mini-bus to the hospital for access from a nearly point which is more accessible by public transport would seem to be essential, especially if perhaps parking charges had to be generally applied to discourage parking by those not using the hospital. This would also be a issue for the local transport authority. I would be very interested to know why the hospital trust decided to charge in this case, and why the mini-bus was stopped. I assume that there is local campaign on the topic. From what I know, I would be delighted to offer my support.

I do however see this as a local issue (perhaps one of many), rather than the basis for a change in general NHS policy on car parking.

sherbert wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 7:45am:
Thanks. Indeed it can't be right, and reflects what I said earlier - the implementation of parking schemes appears to be poor. I can't see why there isn't a concessionary arrangement that provides discounted fees for those patients and their visitors who need repeated visits for chronic conditions or multiple extended visits. Perhaps these do exist in some circumstances - I simply do not know. But yes, the headline £60 per week is not, I suggest, acceptable to many people.

idb wrote on Jun 12^th, 2010 at 12:51pm:



idb....what happens in Miami and other places in America?