How have the mighty fallen? OT.

In message , Andy Hall writes

I don't imply things. It was a straight question - see above.

I said 'put your money where your mouth is' to which you replied that you already were. That was misleading, as well you must know.

Why make them here? I am beginning to think you are a troll and are just out to waste people's time. You are asked a question and you deliberately give a misleading answer. You have done that at least twice now. Alternatively, you use the politician's trick of answering a question with another question. You are posting about a very serious subject but do not appear to be taking it seriously. If you were, you would be posting elsewhere instead of wasting your time here.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:07:44 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ):

June, three things

Given that situation, it is perfectly reasonable to comment on that, as I have.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:09:12 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ):

This is a news medium. Do you imagine that people writing articles in newspapers expect every reader to read every article?

I somehow doubt it, so why would you assume a different situation in Usenet?

I didn't, but put it to you that you might be for suggesting the idea.

There's no campaign, and hence nothing to take anywhere.

As I've already explained to you - this is a news medium and you have the choice of reading any article or not.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:13:37 +0100, June Hughes wrote (in article ):

You got an answer that was as straight as your question.

It isn't misleading at all. In several posts I mentioned taxation and the large sums going into the NHS through it.

You raised the subject of campaigns and spending money on those - not me.

It's a news medium. The thread is marked as Off Topic. If you choose to read it, then you have no cause for complaint.

On a subject as important as healthcare, I think not.

No I don't.

No I haven't. Where you have asked a direct question, you have received a direct answer. Where you have asked a loaded question, you have received an answer appropriate to that.

I take it extremely seriously, believe me.

Even if I weren't, that would also be my choice.

How do you know that I am not?

As I've already explained to you, Usenet is a news medium and the thread is marked as off-topic.

Following up to Andy Hall

Ah, cant even keep it civil. A sure sign of those who cannot support their position with argument and resort to stock usenet retorts. You have an obsession, in the pursuit of which you exaggerate and distort, (I see your minimal "proofs" of why the NHS is not free have been pretty well disputed by those who have an interest in the issues concerned). Instead of a logical balanced approach, you assert that every single aspect of the NHS is wrong, you continually assert such a "monolith" cannot function, ignoring that it is not run as a monolith and ignoring the lessons of other recent privatisations too far (like hospital cleaning).

You ask if i'm stupid, no, i'm not and have the sense not to debate in a way I find unpleasant, useless and uninformative. So piss off.

Following up to Mary Fisher

mine is again, it hasnt always been excellent, but often is. I think the main reason it has fallen short on occasion has been long term underfunding by Thatcherite govts who wanted to keep the high earners money in the high earners pockets and were quite good at making it look respectable.

(I've never had to pay APOD beyonf prescriptions, which I think is the normal experience).

As to improvements in NHS management, I think much of the internal market is a waste of money, a hell of a lot of local govt accountants went to the NHS to count beans when the current system was set up, I dont see that producing much of use, even though those people are my friends (I got some consultancy pay out of it myself). The opposite extreme of systems is the US one, I believe what Judith says in that its unsatisfactory. What options does that leave us? Meddling with structures? Something govt does too much. We have now improved pay and improved funding. Somehow the govt has allowed this to result in trusts finding themselves in financial difficulties, this needs addressing, then give it a period of hands off to let things settle. If anything in the public sector needs reforming its the civil service, especially those parts run on an amateur basis by oxbridge arts graduates.

Our two Type 1 grandchildren (aged 11 and 13) test four times a day (before meals and bed), they understand their condition and are very well controlled, the younger one has since he was seven, the older one was only diagnosed last year.

The younger's mother has been Type one since she was 18 months old, she's now forty and only tests twice a day. She's also very well controlled and very knowledgeable about the condition - formally teaches other people who have it. I woldn't argue with her.

Mary

That needs self-discipline but isn't impossible.

Mary

" - Herceptin for cancer patients"

implies general cancer treatment.

It takes a great deal of administration to handle so many job losses.

They might even need to take on extra staff.

Owain

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

There is amongst right-thinking users.

The message from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

From a New Scientist article 4th March...

"Herceptin does have a small but significant positive effect on the absolute rate of recurrence in a minority of women with early stage breast cancer. But look closely at the causes of death. In one of the studies, there were 23 breast-cancer related deaths (1.4 per cent) in the Herceptin group compared with 34 (2.0 per cent) in the observation group. In terms of absolute risk, the Herceptin group achieved a very modest 0.6 per cent reduction in breast-cancer related deaths. This small gain has, however, to be weighed against the fact that Herceptin turns out to produce heart damage in 4.1 per cent of the early-stage breast cancer patients."

Of course there is the little problem that a large amount of what the test tells you what you should have done, not what you should do next.

What action do you take based on the test results? Change what you're about to eat? Do a quick run? (I generally have the option of injecting some more or eating something).

cheers, clive

The cycle of cutting back and re-hiring is very inefficient.

A great part of the NHS's financial problems is caused by hiring agency staff at about twice the rate of permanent staff. or even more.

DG

Yes - and more. That's not GENERAL CANCER treatment, which is my point.

Mary

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:21:46 +0100, The Reid wrote (in article ):

Actually I was quite restrained in the context of your last remark.

Not really. You asked for examples. You were given four which can easily be substantiated as being major health issues.

You chose to brush them all off as "exceptional cases" rather than at the very least doing some basic research.

The word "stupid" is quite a restrained way of describing that.

There's no obsession at all. If you don't like the exposure of realities because it doesn't suite you, that is your problem, and not mine.

I posted a set of well considered and logical arguments as to why this organisation is fundamentally broken and should be shut down.

It is perfectly possible to have private and mixed private and publicly funded healthcare. Other countries manage it perfectly adequately with organisations that are on a per-capita of population basis a lot smaller than the NHS.

At no point did I say that the delivery organisations should be in private hands as the only alternative option, so the issue of privatisation does not arise. there is space for private for-profit, not for profit, charitable trusts, etc. etc. I was not specific about that.

I think that you mean that you don't like to have a rather blinkered vision challenged. that is something quite different.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:29:13 +0100, Clive George wrote (in article ):

That depends on when you test. Generally I do so preprandially, and at 1 and

I do make choices of what I am about to eat based on preprandial test, but also the time of day.

My meter stores all values. Postprandially I will also note food/meals that result in an unacceptable peak (> 8mmol/l) If that does happen, then if at all possible, I will take a walk.

It is certainly a different situation. I don't have the options, although do not have the hypo risk issue to manage.

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:10:11 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote (in article ):

All of this is quite typical for T1 people, Mary. It is not at all for T2. There is a large variation between individuals because one is dealing with a control mechanism that is partly broken (works differently from day to day and certainly differently at different times of the day).

T1s have a different set of issues to deal with but have the means to make appropriate controls.

I am not suggesting that either has an easier or a harder life or set of issues to deal with, but one cannot apply the medication/test/exercise regime of one to the other.

I know that in order to maintain acceptable ranges of BG, I do need to test

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:11:37 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote (in article ):

It is almost so if one is travelling around and having to select what to eat from a provided list rather than unlimited choice.