Speedfit technique

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Badger writes

If you think the UK is a "tin pot" country, feel free to exercise your right of choice as a consumer and move elsewhere. Bet you won't.

[Andy Hall]

In the 21st century they still have shared wards in hospitals rather than individual rooms and are unable to maintain adequate hygiene. That is far from superb.

I wouldn't dream of using the NHS for dental care. The fees for dentists are so low that they can't economically provide an adequate standard of care. This is why most dentists do little or no NHS work. When I switched to private dental care some years ago, the difference is like chalk and cheese in terms of care taken and materials used (equals time, equals money) .

I was talking about paying for the consulting time.

No I don't because there are armies of bureaucrats to handle all of this.

Does it? I'm not sure about that.

[IMM]

Why should he leave? Because he is astute enough to recognise we are a tin-pot country, I say more a banana republic, dorks like you who can't see you are being ripped off, say leave. The reason Southern Ireland stayed backwards for so long, not the case now because the EU forced various laws on them, was that people left instead of staying and getting the place right. Irish people abroad have been very successful, yet in Ireland they would not have been because of the laws and attitudes they had.

[IMM]

So have I.

[Andy Hall]

You have to understand how the system operates in the U.S.

The drugs appear to have high prices but these are list prices.

A typical health insurance arrangement is where the insurer pays X% of the cost of treatment and the patient 100-X% or some amount. THis is similar to an excess except that a percentage basis is more common.

Most schemes have different levels of premium according to the copay.

Health insurers pay a discounted price to medical equipment and drugs suppliers. Taking an example - if the patient's deal is 10% co-pay then on a drug priced at $100 he will pay $10. However, the insurer's deal with the supplier may be 70% discount from list, so that he will only pay $30.

The insurers, health maintenance organisations and others are well able to negotiate deals with the vendors. It doesn't require the largest bureaucracy in Europe to do it.

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Capitol writes

Killfiling dIMMbulb will do wonders for your hard disc space and sanity.

[Andy Hall]

They were always in a poor state and were likely to remain so because of the poorly run state arrangements after nationalisation and lack of investment. One cannot blame private ownership and operation with such a poor legacy.

A very small number such as defence, policing, judiciary and emergency response, but not too many more.

[:::Jerry::::]

IMM has again missed the point to which he is replying to... :~(

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes

They do, to the dist boxes in the street. From there, it's coaxial copper to the subscriber.

Strange. I've just given in and bought a Daewoo Freeview STB for 39 quid so I have something to watch in the winter evenings. The picture quality is astounding and the sound is so much better (even I can tell the difference, and I wear a hearing aid. The TV has NICAM sound.) Channel 5 is now watchable (no snow, and subtitles now work), and the extra TV/radio channels are a bonus. There's no way I would put money into Murdoch's pocket for another 200 channels of the absolute s**te they show on Sky.

The Grauniad reported this week that 760,000 Freeview boxes have been sold.

Try the SCART output. At first I was disappointed with the picture quality from the STB, but the manual suggested trying the other SCART input on your TV if it had two, which mine has (I think it's composite video/YUV vs. RGB input.) The difference was like night and day.

[Andy Hall]

Taxation runs on a range of reasonable to outrageous.

I don't have a problem with paying tax to support the community because that is a the right thing in a civilised society, although frankly, the levels should be reduced in general by making the mechanisms of the state smaller. The benefits of so-doing are obvious in countries that operate lower tax environments and a smaller state.

My objection is paying for outmoded, bureaucratic machinery in terms of healthcare which I can't use because the standards are so poor and access is not available when required. Education has much the same issue - declining standards and 30+ kids to a class - unusable .

All that I have suggested is that users of healthcare and education should receive a voucher or equivalent arrangement adequate to pay for what they get today. Those who wish to spend it outside the state offering should be able to do so and should be able to supplement it. I haven't suggested reducing what people get.

As it is today, if I want to go for private healthcare I pay for the state system and get nothing in return, and then pay tax and NIC ( as does my employer) if he pays for the insurance. That is not reasonable.

If I want to use private education, I have to do so out of taxed income and still pay for the state system. Also unreasonable.

I'm not saying that I don't want to pay money to the state for these things - I simply want the same return as everybody else and be able to use and supplement it according to my choice and not based on the maladministration of the state.

[:::Jerry::::]

Assuming there is health insurance, and if not the patient qualify for Medicare...

Sorry but the private medical system in the US is a bureaucracy (although a private one) and a cartel on top.

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Andy Hall writes

The bureaucracy involved in dealing with the American health system is just as bad, if not worse. It's just moved further down the chain. Take a look at the back issues of the consumer action pages of the St Petersburg Times

and read some of the horror stories from people caught between their health care insurer and their provider, with many accounts going to collections before they are resolved.

My point about the cost of drugs in the US isn't just related to prescription drugs: look at the cost of off-the-shelf medication, for example. It's horrendously expensive: much more than you would pay for the same items here, with the exception of a very limited number of common generic medications (Tylenol, etc., which I buy while there because it is cheaper to buy in bulk.)

Why do you think spammers find it necessary to blast out so much crap about low-price "v1@gra" and "offshore Canadian pharmacies"? It's because many people in the US simply cannot afford the cost of drugs over the counter there.

I respect your point of view Andy, but do think the NHS (and state medical provision in other European countries) is the jewel in our crown. The Americans regard it with bitter envy. Sure, it's not perfect, nothing on this scale is going to be, but your suggested solution, abolition, smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Best regards Mike

[Andy Hall]

I did cover that. The point is that if the local loop was installed with state money (in effect), then there is an argument that BT should provide access to other operators through LLU.

The copper in the ground is only a part of the story. Investment in exchange equipment, as it stands today is all post privatisation.

Which service though? The cable operators are not providing anything that can't be provided by other means even in densely populated areas. TV can be obtained from satellite, internet connectivity is not implemented well on cable modem infrastructure and they have only brought fibre a bit closer to the end user than BT has.

[:::Jerry::::]

TOTAL ROLLOX ! You know less about the rail system and it's history than you do about why the NHS has problems ! The biggest modernisation of the railways was carried whilst under national control (1955 - 1968), not only that but you need to understand that government money is still being spent to modernise the system.

One cannot blame private ownership and operation with

Yes we can, they knew what needed to be done, they have not done it. Now HMG has had to give money to private companies so that modernisation is done - something that could have been done under state ownership. By all means let private companies run their own service, many companies were doing so before privatisation, but they were not using public money to make a private profit...

Public transport is an essential service and should be under central control, even more so if people are to be got out of their cars - the idea should be to move people, not make a profit.

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article , Andy Hall writes

[railways]

Now consider the amount of money thrown at consulting fees and lawyers to carry out the privatisation; the enormous amount of state subsidy that the private companies _still_ get, despite making record profits, the patchy record of maintenance companies like Jarvis, the disasters directly attributable to privatisation (Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar, Hatfield.)

Do you not think all that money and time and effort would have been better spent on improving the basic infrastructure, rather than fattening the wallets of consultants, shareholders, lawyers, and Richard frigging Beardie?

Look at the French, Dutch, German and Swiss railways for examples of what can be achieved with public investment in national infrastructure.

Had all that money spent since privatisation instead been spent on improving the railway system, we'd now have one we could be justifiably be proud of (okay, maybe that's a bit much. We'd probbaly be pleased with it.) British Rail were getting there despite decaded of chronic underinvestment when the Tories pulled the rug out from under their feet. It'll take us many, many years to recover.

I'm not against privatisation for the sake of it; despite some well- publicised disasters, I do think PFI has a role to play. It's a matter of making a sane and reasoned judgement as to which entities are suitable for privatisation, rather than the dogmatic application of it to every State-provided or State-sponsored activity.

[IMM]

Please killfile me.

[IMM]

You have to read the post. Duh!

[Andy Hall]

The main issue is not that but the cost of malpractice insurance for the clinicians. I know several in the U.S and it is not uncommon to pay up to 30-40% of gross earnings in insurance. Obviously that is reflected in fees and insurance costs. The situation is starting to reigned in with legislation on frivolous law suits and inappropriately large compensation payments.

I haven't found it so at all.

Those are prescription drugs and I already explained the list price issue.

It's a very tarnished crown, and I am afraid that the so called jewel is paste. The sooner that people realise that they are being had and the whole thing is scaled down the better.

They don't you know. I have a broad range of friends and contacts of every socio-economic group and political persuasion.

There are some who like the HMO idea, which is basically systemised private healthcare (e.g. Kaiser Permanente); but none would want the government to be operating it.

Most are very happy with their private healthcare arrangements and standard of care.

The scale is the main issue. It's simply not possible to operate this kind of thing effectively on that scale.

[Mike Tomlinson]

The same place dIMMbulb gets all his ideas from: Cloud 9. I think he's on drugs; nothing else could explain his complete dissociation from reality.

[Owain]

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote | The Tories thought privatisation and competition was the | answer for Britain's railways. Look at the state of them now.

Yes, they're so much better. Cleaner, more frequent, trains, new stations and lines being opened, and staff with some understanding that keeping their job depends on them doing it.

| Some services are best run by the state.

I can't think of many. Even private prisons run by Group 4 got better reports from the Prisons Inspectorate than Prison Service-run ones.

Scottish customers pay more for their water and sewerage from the nationalised Scottish Water than customers of the private sector down south.

But health is not an item that can be supplied on a metered, commodity basis.

Owain