On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:01:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


Not at all, although I do object to paying tax to support an
arrangement that belongs in the 1940s.

Have people grown two heads since then?

Most people haven't but perhaps Zaphod Beeblebrox is an aquaintance of
yours.

The notion of universal state run healthcare, free at the point of
delivery is a nonsense in the 21st century. It's a huge waste of
money and resource to run it in this way. THe organisation is so
vast that it's impossible for it to be run effectively.


You perceive everyone is
ripping you off.

No, just state run operations that
are not delivering value for money.

You have this crazy notion that only profiteers give service and value. You
are in cloud cuckoo land with no idea of reality.

The reality is that economies based on the state running things are a
thing of the past. Cuba and North Korea are almost all that's left of
that era.

Unless there is something to drive a service organisation to success,
it becomes fat and lazy. Providing shareholder value through profit
is the most effective way to focus attention on what needs to be done
to achieve it. In a service business, that is providing what the
customer wants.


Look under the bed there might be a swindler under there.
Just look at history and how things are, the NHS is the only way.

Of course it isn't the only way.
There are a whole speectrum of
private and even public sector alternatives.

Which are not as good.

The service offered by the NHS is a disgrace. Have you actually
tried any of the alternatives?


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl