Too busy saving the world, apparently.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
How have the mighty fallen? OT.
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Be my guest. I really don't care
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Nobody else seems to have had any difficulty.....
If you can't figure out that the purpose of a Band Aid is in the treatment of the mildest of ailments then it's rather difficult to know what to suggest. Did you need it to be spelled out?
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Coming from somebody who doesn't understand the purpose of a Band Aid, that is a little surprising.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
"No purchase necessary."
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
No, I have diabetes.
Before you ask the next question..... yes I do know precisely what I require to provide an acceptable level of control of BG levels for me. It is an individual thing and each person responds to foods in different ways
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:54:42 +0100, Alan Holmes wrote (in article ):
Alan, let's be honest. You have difficulty in understanding the purpose of a Band Aid. It doesn't really give you a lot of credibility in terms of being able to read a dictionary, now does it?
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:50:25 +0100, Alan Holmes wrote (in article ):
Well she might. If you check on a national basis, you will find that this varies enormously regionally and from surgery to surgery.
Yes I am fully aware of the facts, so I suggest that you might like to do some research before assuming that you know everything on the subject.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:59:08 +0100, Alan Holmes wrote (in article ):
It is long overdue for shutting down. All of the palliatives have been tried, endless money thrown at it.
Like a Whitehall farce, it is time for the final curtain call.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:03:44 +0100, Alan Holmes wrote (in article ):
There is only one thing to do to improve the situation and that is closure of the present NHS and for the government to get out of the delivery of healthcare and into funding it only.
All of the "improvements" have been tried before. Many times. For more than
50 years. Enough is enough.- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:11:19 +0100, Alan Holmes wrote (in article ):
Like what a Band Aid is used for?
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:13:02 +0100, Alan Holmes wrote (in article ):
Who said anything about running out?
Vouchers are simply a means of exchange. The purpose is to use them instead of money to ensure that funding is used for healthcare and not other purposes.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:35:38 +0100, The Reid wrote (in article ):
Try to figure out how funding is allocated to individual patients' needs today. It is not done on an equitable basis of a fixed amount per head.
Nobody has suggested changing that principle. The voucher arrangement is simply a means of exchange. Another would be a defined scale of charges that the government is willing to fund for a give treatment.. The patient chooses the provider and the government pays according to the agreed figure. Perfectly simple.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
In article , Andy Hall writes
What do you think is so terrible about the NHS? It gives a fairly decent service to most people at a cost far below a US type system. It isn't pretty and any organisation that size will have areas of incompetence or waste - but it isn't there to make a profit for multi nationals - which is a plus point in my view, and a lot of the people involved give more for less because of that. If you look at parts of the system that have been "privatised", such as cleaning services, site maintenance, even PFI
- its a right old dog's breakfast as your preferred shiny companies try to drive costs (and quality) down in order to maximise profits - leading to more infections and hassles. I never used it at all until I was in my mid 40's - then it saved my life - so I'm pretty pleased with the service so far. I was at outpatients for a check up two weeks ago - I was seen on time, with courtesy, and details were clearly and patiently explained to me - I can't see how you can improve on that for the price.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Why? I'm paying for the one that you seem to be so pleased to receive.
I'd like to see better value for my investment.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Do you imagine that I particularly care what you read and what you don't?
On the contrary.......
>- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
I've done both!
Alan
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
Alan
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
No it doesn't. The service is not "fairly decent" it is diabolically bad.
That's blue sky thinking, and quite frankly morally bankrupt. The government, and for that matter users of public sector services should not expect more because they are sublic sector, and the employees should definitely not be expected to give more for less. That is exploitation of the worst kind.
I mentioned previously that the NHS ran a radio advertising campaign some while ago to try to encourage nurses back. There were voiced over anecdotes from nurses who were "grateful to the NHS" for looking after great aunt Nellie. What a crock of shit, quite frankly. This was among the worst pieces of moral blackmail that I have ever heard. Who the hell do these people think they are?
The population pays an absolute fortune for this rubbish and all we hear is constant bleating about lack of resources and then prevailing on people's good nature to prop up a relic that is 50 years past its sell-by date.
I certainly did not mention the use of multinationals as being the only alternative to a centralised megalith. There are plenty of different options.
The point is not about delivery but about the government not being involved in delivery. It is not competent to do so, and that is why the existing system should be dismantled and the only role of government should be in funding.
Delivery is a totally separate issue, and in that people should have a choice. That could be by *small* public sector organisations, not for profit foundations, charitable trusts, for profit organisations and many more.
As a customer who is paying for this through taxation, I should have the choice of which option I wish to go for, and so should everybody else.
Nobody said anything about preferring "shiny companies" The issue is one of lack of supervision and accountability for those responsible in administering the contracts. Increase in infection is also partly because of increased use of antibiotics and not segregating patients into individual rooms with disinfection equipment at each door.
Unfortunately this PFI stuff is really only another tinkering around the edge as opposed to fixing the real problem which is that the government should not be involved in healthcare delivery.
My experience is completely different, as is that of most people I know.
The price is frankly outrageous for what is offered.
- Vote on answer
- posted
17 years ago
The message from "Alan Holmes" contains these words:
I think that was irony.