Not being funny but any pro sportsman (or even faintly serious sportsman) in France, with a back problem, would have had 20 sessions of physio, instantly, first port of call (after intense anti-inflams to calm it down, if needed). And all covered by state medical insurance i.e. it;s a private physio, you can call and make an appointment for the next day or so, but it's reimbursed.
Mmm, I think what you mean is "covered by your fellow citizens". I think I prefer our system, thanks.
No. The individual pays it themselves unless you are on social welfare, or it is part of your job package. i.e. if it is not part of your job package or if your are self-employed then you pay it. But the point is that the medical charges are capped by law so that although it is private, the tariffs are set by the state so no one can charge more than x (or they can but then no one will use them). Hence, they are a fraction of private medical charges here.
Physio cuts medical bills overall. It prevents the need for operations. And time off work. Not to mention quality of life measurements.
So you can keep your NHS system where you, Ratty, pay your tax that covers tons of needless operations that would not have been necessary if far smaller medical bills had been paid up front, for physio, as a preventative, healthy measure.
The French healthcare system seems (reference, er, Wikipedia, sorry ... ) to be mostly paid for by the taxpayer, like ours. So I'm not really seeing any significant difference. (Although the French very sensibly reduce demand - and consequently waiting times - by charging people modest amounts to use medical services, but that would be political suicide for anyone trying to introduce it here.)
I don't doubt that physio increases quality of life for the patient. So would getting a free iPad. But that doesn't mean that one's fellow citizens should pay for it.
And I'm not convinced by the proposition: pay £1,000 now to maybe save £5,000 in 10 years' time. Because current money is more valuable than future money, and "maybe" is unquantifiable.
On a bit of a tangent, it's a common fallacy that smokers, drinkers and the obese cost their fellow-citizens far more than they contribute in VAT and excise duties. They don't, because the highest costs are imposed by the elderly - and an awful lot of unhealthy people never get that far.
__________________
"Where Ratty leads - the rest soon follow" (Professor Henry Brubaker - The Institute of Studies)
Impressed to see that Warwick's British Tour (men's) event has a Pre-Q draw of 23 (!) players AND a Q draw of 16 players (as well as the Main draw, obviously).
That seems a really good use of a Tour event - giving a lot of players the chance to compete and getting a lot of coverage. If it's still £21 per entry, that's a reasonable amount of dosh too.
Slightly better than the 6 qualifiers in the women's draw! So 39 men and 6 women...15% ratio of women, dear oh dear! Roughly 28 women and 45 men would equal 73 players @ £21 entry fees would be around £1500
Then expenses would include 7 days of venue hire, no idea what rate they pay but on the basis of £13.50/hour off peak, let's say £300/day = £2100
Tournament organiser/referee for 7 days, maybe £150/day = £1050
Prize Money = £1120
total expenses = £4270
Overall Loss = £2770
For the Grade 1's the prize money would quadruple to over £4k, so for each one of these British Tour events it's possibly a £3-6k loss. Ouch.
Yes I guess that could make a big difference, say 73 players all spend £10 on day 1, 35 players spend £10 on day 2 etc...that could be about £1500 cafe income.
In fact you could bump it up with cafe income from all the additional coaches, parents, spectators (if any)...could almost break even!
-- Edited by Born2WinTennis on Tuesday 24th of March 2015 11:45:57 AM
Clubs can or could find local businesses or keen businessmen to sponsor tournaments so helping to cover cost essentials. That's always the way to do it. Getting local media coverage (very difficult in the UK as we don't have properly local TV) elevates the event to a higher level again. People love seeing themselves or their business on TV even if it doesn't count for very much. Radio and Press offer some, but not the same impact as a TV mention.
There's little doubt that huge scope and underlying opportunity exists to improve tennis competition in the UK. We could potentially transform our whole situation this way.
An LTA that exercises a nanny-like control over everything neither inspires nor motivates. Where individuals and clubs are restricted in thinking or acting for themselves they end up doing little or nothing.