"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3 hours
of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required - and
then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if one is
needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the best use
of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local stuck behind
them though.

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

Presumably because it would be much more expensive
to have interpreters for all the languages they need in
every town they have a hospital etc. Much more practical
to have that done the way they have done it, particularly
when they can't just use one of the hospital staff that does
happen to speak that language when the patient doesn't
have a relative who can translate etc.