On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:44:25 +0100, Clive George wrote
(in article ):

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless, I buy almost all of my
medical care (except primary doctor) and all of my dental care privately
either through insurance or out of pocket.

It seems quite good from my POV - and I speak as a regular user of their
services.

cheers,
clive


I am afraid that I have a very high level of expectation of a service for
which I pay through the nose.

The NHS is nowhere close to being able to deliver what I consider to be a
reasonable level of service.

Specifically, this means

- waiting times in days or certainly under a month

- appointments at a time to suit me

- not being referred back to the GP if a second consultant referral is needed
- not being given excuses regarding non delivery

- clean facilities with modern and adequate equipment

- not being expected to feel grateful for what I get

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these, I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't
see a problem.

Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a
third world service.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:50:58 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

How come you know so much about all this? (I did ask if you were a
dentist in another thread but you came back with the reply 'are you?'


Simple.

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,
I tend to disagree. Having no money; having it wasted by some
management staff or not having enough support from the powers that be is
not, IMNSHO, the same thing as being 'totally and utterly worthless'.

the budget for this thing is absolutely colossal. Do you realise that they
are the third largest employer in the world. A total nonsense.



I buy almost all of my
medical care (except primary doctor) and all of my dental care privately
either through insurance or out of pocket.
I have to pay for dental care through Denplan, (no choice), which works
well but is expensive. I used to have private healthcare but no longer
subscribe to it. A friend of mine is in long-term National Health care.
Her only gripe over the past few years is the lack of funds and the
snobby, inefficient attitude of the reception staff in the doctor's
surgery, which is the very service you say you still use. (I believe
this attitude to patients by doctors' receptionists is universal).

I think you are right in that respect. Unfortunately it is still in the
British psyche that doctors are exalted members of society and should be
placed on a pedestal and never questioned. I suppose that that may change
when the pre-NHS generation departs the mortal coil.

The receptionists certainly use that to advantage and seem to believe that
they can be the labrador laying across the entrance to the surgery.

My strategy on that is pretty simple and is to basically ignore it,
assertively insisting on access to the appropriate doctor.

After that, it has to be realised that GPs are generalists. As I said, I
research any medical issue that I have. On two in particular, my GP has
openly admitted that I know more than he does, and is quite comfortable with
that.

Unfortunately, most patients just show up and expect him to fix their
problems by their popping a pill once a day. Frankly it's demoralising for
them because the whole NHS has become highly politicised under successive
governments with clinically inappropriate targets. Some GPs are happy to
sit back an play that game, while others are refreshed by somebody willing to
involve themselves in their treatment.




This is an expensive activity obviously.

Secondly, I also firmly believe that I am in the driving seat as far as
decision and choice of treatments are concerned and the doctor/dentist is a
professional adviser, not ultimate decision maker. In order to make
informed
decisions, I take a lot of trouble to research any medical condition and any
treatment before agreeing to it.


I would have thought we would all do that, time permitting.

It's not always easy to do, unfortunately. For a lot of issues, especially
clinical studies, one at least needs to have a scientific background and some
awareness of statistical information.

However, I
am not sure your opinions about amalgam are all correct.


I was sufficiently persuaded of their problems and limitations that I was
pleased o be rid of them all

"The Reid" wrote in message
...
Following up to Frank Erskine

do you like picked cocoa?

I don't like _anything_ pickled, but I was referring to the title of
the thread.

cant say I'm keen, but on fdm we tend to drift around from food
to food.

Oh - I wondered what you were doing in uk.d-i-y!

Mary

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from June Hughes contains these words:

Next morning, finding
that his singing was effected by the gap, he chopped the end off a bone
toothbrush, filed it to shape and rammed it between the adjacent two
front teeth. It was still there when he died.

You don't say how long it was between fitting the prosthesis and his
demise. Could have been ten minutes from prophylactic[1] shock!

[1] Yes, I know I mean anaphylactic, but what one bit of my brain thinks
is not always the same as what another bit tells my fingers to type.
I imagine prophylactic shock is what carries away popes.

I'd have thought it prevented shock ...

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"The Reid" wrote in message
...
Following up to Andy Hall

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,

tell that to someone who has long term illness or isn't affluent.

Indeed. I'm still here - tough! - because of the NHS.

Mary

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:32:58 +0100, Guy King wrote
(in article ):

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,

My mum, who's in her eighties and has had MS for the last thirty five
years might disagree with you.



She might well.

I didn't say that there should not be funding for healthcare for people
needing it, or that that shouldn't be through central taxation.

My point is that the government should not be involved in provisioning and
delivery of healthcare itself. It can't do that efficiently or effectively
and shouldn't deceive all of us by pretending that it can.

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes for healthcare so that people like your mum
are able to get what they need. Removal of the government middle man would
mean that more of that would arrive at the point of delivery.

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless, I buy almost all of my
medical care (except primary doctor) and all of my dental care
privately
either through insurance or out of pocket.

It seems quite good from my POV - and I speak as a regular user of their
services.

Mine too.

cheers,
clive


I am afraid that I have a very high level of expectation of a service for
which I pay through the nose.

The NHS is nowhere close to being able to deliver what I consider to be a
reasonable level of service.

Perhaps your attitude has influenced what you've received.

Specifically, this means

- waiting times in days or certainly under a month

I have that.

- appointments at a time to suit me

I have that.

- not being referred back to the GP if a second consultant referral is
needed

You mean if you think a second opinion is needed? I've never had a problem
with my first consultants' opinions.

- not being given excuses regarding non delivery

eh?

- clean facilities with modern and adequate equipment

I get that.

- not being expected to feel grateful for what I get

You mean you're NOT grateful for what you get? I've not experienced
expectations of gratitude but I always have been.

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs

I've had Rolls Royce treatment, no parsimony.

All my experience has been in NHS.

Nothing is perfect, I know that when Spouse had private treatment on the
whole it was superb but there were exceptions which spoilt the lot.
Exceptions are due to individuals, not systems.


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these,
I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't
see a problem.

Don't worry, the NHS doesn't need you.

Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a
third world service.

Oh don't be silly!

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:53:11 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
My point is that the government should not be involved in provisioning and
delivery of healthcare itself. It can't do that efficiently or effectively
and shouldn't deceive all of us by pretending that it can.

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes for healthcare so that people like your
mum
are able to get what they need. Removal of the government middle man would
mean that more of that would arrive at the point of delivery.

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

The government would still have to decide what it was prepared to fund and how
much money it would make available. IMHO this would lead to two things:

1. The providers following the money: there was a bit of research re private
hospitals in Melbourne Australia a while back. When asked whether they could
take an older person who needed little more than extended bed care quite a few
claimed to be full. When the enquiry was re someone who would need lots of
extra services they suddenly had room. You see this now with universities
closing departments (science esp) that are expensive to run and expanding the
more 'profitable' ones.

2. Anyone who has ever had a car repaired post-accident will know the "is it
an insurance job?" scenario. Somehow the cost of treatment would always rise
to meet the funds that could be extracted from the system. How much will your
local undertaker charge for a DHSS-funded funeral: the amount the DHSS pays.
IIRC BUPA had problems with hospitals trying to rip them off. You'd lose the
current bureaucracy but just substitute another one .

I have just been at a conference in the USA and the most horrific story was
from someone who had been in a good IT job and was made redundant. Healthcare
went with the job. His wife was diagnosed with cancer just before the work
cover ran out and she was treated. But now no company will cover any future
because of a pre-existing condition provision. Should it come back they are
probably broke. Fortunately we don't have to face this sort of possibility.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:32:58 +0100, Guy King wrote
(in article ):

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,

My mum, who's in her eighties and has had MS for the last thirty five
years might disagree with you.



She might well.

I didn't say that there should not be funding for healthcare for people
needing it, or that that shouldn't be through central taxation.

My point is that the government should not be involved in provisioning and
delivery of healthcare itself. It can't do that efficiently or
effectively
and shouldn't deceive all of us by pretending that it can.

Judging by the USAian experience, private enterprise can't either.

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

What about funding several smaller megaliths which together add up to the
same size? Coz that's all that will happen in your privatised healthcare
model.

cheers,
clive

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:36:44 +0100, Tony Bryer wrote
(in article ):

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:53:11 +0100 Andy Hall wrote :
My point is that the government should not be involved in provisioning and
delivery of healthcare itself. It can't do that efficiently or
effectively
and shouldn't deceive all of us by pretending that it can.

I am perfectly happy to pay taxes for healthcare so that people like your
mum
are able to get what they need. Removal of the government middle man
would
mean that more of that would arrive at the point of delivery.

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

The government would still have to decide what it was prepared to fund and
how
much money it would make available. IMHO this would lead to two things:

1. The providers following the money: there was a bit of research re private
hospitals in Melbourne Australia a while back. When asked whether they could
take an older person who needed little more than extended bed care quite a
few
claimed to be full. When the enquiry was re someone who would need lots of
extra services they suddenly had room. You see this now with universities
closing departments (science esp) that are expensive to run and expanding the

more 'profitable' ones.

That will always be an issue, and government provisioned services are not
immune from it either.




2. Anyone who has ever had a car repaired post-accident will know the "is it
an insurance job?" scenario. Somehow the cost of treatment would always rise
to meet the funds that could be extracted from the system. How much will your

local undertaker charge for a DHSS-funded funeral: the amount the DHSS pays.
IIRC BUPA had problems with hospitals trying to rip them off. You'd lose the
current bureaucracy but just substitute another one .

I have just been at a conference in the USA and the most horrific story was
from someone who had been in a good IT job and was made redundant. Healthcare

went with the job. His wife was diagnosed with cancer just before the work
cover ran out and she was treated. But now no company will cover any future
because of a pre-existing condition provision. Should it come back they are
probably broke. Fortunately we don't have to face this sort of possibility.



That can easily be addressed by having a cover continuity arrangement and not
allowing actuarial exclusions like this. It would of course affect
premiums, but would still be a more effective way of provisioning.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:50:33 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

|
|"The Reid" wrote in message
.. .
| Following up to Andy Hall
|
|Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,
|
| tell that to someone who has long term illness or isn't affluent.
|
|Indeed. I'm still here - tough! - because of the NHS.

Since I became an OAP prescriptions and eye tests are *free*, not to
mention the GP and hospitals. Good old NHS.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:48:51 +0100, Clive George wrote
(in article ):

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:32:58 +0100, Guy King wrote
(in article ):

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,

My mum, who's in her eighties and has had MS for the last thirty five
years might disagree with you.



She might well.

I didn't say that there should not be funding for healthcare for people
needing it, or that that shouldn't be through central taxation.

My point is that the government should not be involved in provisioning and
delivery of healthcare itself. It can't do that efficiently or
effectively
and shouldn't deceive all of us by pretending that it can.

Judging by the USAian experience, private enterprise can't either.

That's the opposite situation and I'm not suggesting it. Certainly there
should be government in funding - simply not in delivery.


However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

What about funding several smaller megaliths which together add up to the
same size? Coz that's all that will happen in your privatised healthcare
model.


Microliths would be better - i.e. each hospital and GP practice running
itself. There is no need for central administration or of PCTs etc. and
there is no need for central ownership.


There may be some value in having a small central purchasing function in
order to negotiate good medication prices.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:06:49 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

|Microliths would be better - i.e. each hospital and GP practice running
|itself. There is no need for central administration or of PCTs etc. and
|there is no need for central ownership.

So when I was on holiday in Scotland, I needed a test, and just walked in
to the local health centre, booked a test, got it and they phoned me back
with the results. All free on the NHS. Your want me to have to fill in
forms as well?
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs

I've had Rolls Royce treatment, no parsimony.

All my experience has been in NHS.

So how do you know when you have nothing to compare with


Nothing is perfect, I know that when Spouse had private treatment on the
whole it was superb but there were exceptions which spoilt the lot.
Exceptions are due to individuals, not systems.


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these,
I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't
see a problem.

Don't worry, the NHS doesn't need you.

It's not an attitude which is going to help improve things, is it ?


Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a
third world service.

Oh don't be silly!

I would say that I've had better service in the "third world"

--
geoff

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:36:58 +0100, The Reid wrote
(in article ):

Following up to Andy Hall

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,

tell that to someone who has long term illness or isn't affluent.


Wrong thinking.

The UK NHS is the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese army
and the Indian railways. This inevitably leads to colossal waste and has
done since the inception of it.

I am not saying that there should not be a means of obtaining medical care
for people unable to pay themselves. In a civilised society, that should be
there but via a voucher system that people can spend on healthcare where they
choose to do so.

The mistake is that the government is involved in the *delivery* of it.
That isn't necessary.


Where exactly do you think our NICS go?
--
June Hughes

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:44:25 +0100, Clive George wrote
(in article ):

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless, I buy almost all of my
medical care (except primary doctor) and all of my dental care privately
either through insurance or out of pocket.

It seems quite good from my POV - and I speak as a regular user of their
services.

cheers,
clive


I am afraid that I have a very high level of expectation of a service for
which I pay through the nose.

The NHS is nowhere close to being able to deliver what I consider to be a
reasonable level of service.

Specifically, this means

- waiting times in days or certainly under a month

- appointments at a time to suit me

- not being referred back to the GP if a second consultant referral is needed
- not being given excuses regarding non delivery

- clean facilities with modern and adequate equipment

- not being expected to feel grateful for what I get

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these, I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't
see a problem.

Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a
third world service.



Have you tried moving to the USA?
--
June Hughes

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

Would you if it were the fouth?

Or the twenty fourth?

Or the seventy sixth?

Where do you draw the line?

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary Fisher
writes

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs

I've had Rolls Royce treatment, no parsimony.

All my experience has been in NHS.

So how do you know when you have nothing to compare with


Nothing is perfect, I know that when Spouse had private treatment on the
whole it was superb but there were exceptions which spoilt the lot.
Exceptions are due to individuals, not systems.


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of
these,
I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it
don't
see a problem.

Don't worry, the NHS doesn't need you.

It's not an attitude which is going to help improve things, is it ?


Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be
an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for
a
third world service.

Oh don't be silly!

I would say that I've had better service in the "third world"


geoff, I can see you *think* ))))



O

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 07:50:58 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

How come you know so much about all this? (I did ask if you were a
dentist in another thread but you came back with the reply 'are you?'


Simple.

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,
I tend to disagree. Having no money; having it wasted by some
management staff or not having enough support from the powers that be is
not, IMNSHO, the same thing as being 'totally and utterly worthless'.

the budget for this thing is absolutely colossal. Do you realise that they
are the third largest employer in the world. A total nonsense.

Can you prove that?


I buy almost all of my
medical care (except primary doctor) and all of my dental care privately
either through insurance or out of pocket.
I have to pay for dental care through Denplan, (no choice), which works
well but is expensive. I used to have private healthcare but no longer
subscribe to it. A friend of mine is in long-term National Health care.
Her only gripe over the past few years is the lack of funds and the
snobby, inefficient attitude of the reception staff in the doctor's
surgery, which is the very service you say you still use. (I believe
this attitude to patients by doctors' receptionists is universal).

I think you are right in that respect. Unfortunately it is still in the
British psyche that doctors are exalted members of society and should be
placed on a pedestal and never questioned. I suppose that that may change
when the pre-NHS generation departs the mortal coil.

The receptionists certainly use that to advantage and seem to believe that
they can be the labrador laying across the entrance to the surgery.

Eh?
My strategy on that is pretty simple and is to basically ignore it,
assertively insisting on access to the appropriate doctor.

After that, it has to be realised that GPs are generalists.
Snip.

Erm - most of us here are intelligent enough to know that already.
Unfortunately, most patients just show up and expect him to fix their
problems by their popping a pill once a day. Frankly it's demoralising for
them because the whole NHS has become highly politicised under successive
governments with clinically inappropriate targets. Some GPs are happy to
sit back an play that game, while others are refreshed by somebody willing to
involve themselves in their treatment.


Snip rest of post, which is simply unsnipped by you.


--
June Hughes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:16:01 +0100, Dave Fawthrop wrote
(in article ):

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:06:49 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

Microliths would be better - i.e. each hospital and GP practice running
itself. There is no need for central administration or of PCTs etc. and
there is no need for central ownership.

So when I was on holiday in Scotland, I needed a test, and just walked in
to the local health centre, booked a test, got it and they phoned me back
with the results. All free on the NHS. Your want me to have to fill in
forms as well?


Definitely not. That's how it should be. Always. It isn't.
I don't want to waste time wondering whether it is or not or having to have a
discussion with the receptionist on the results.

For example, the nonsense that I had from the GP surgery after a
comprehensive set of blood tests was a note of "tell patient OK" from the
doctor. The alternative would be "make appointment" if there had been an
issue. I don't consider that acceptable and so there was a "discussion" with
the practice manager after which all the results were faxed to me 5 minutes
later. Then I made the appointment with the doctor. He doesn't make notes
like that on my test results any longer.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:14:42 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote
(in article ):


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

Would you if it were the fouth?

Or the twenty fourth?

Or the seventy sixth?

Where do you draw the line?


At the point where it didn't even figure in the stats and there was no
government involvement whatsoever.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:11:00 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:36:58 +0100, The Reid wrote
(in article ):

Following up to Andy Hall

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless,

tell that to someone who has long term illness or isn't affluent.


Wrong thinking.

The UK NHS is the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese army
and the Indian railways. This inevitably leads to colossal waste and has
done since the inception of it.

I am not saying that there should not be a means of obtaining medical care
for people unable to pay themselves. In a civilised society, that should be
there but via a voucher system that people can spend on healthcare where
they
choose to do so.

The mistake is that the government is involved in the *delivery* of it.
That isn't necessary.


Where exactly do you think our NICS go?


I don't differentiate. It's a tax wrapped up with a different name. I am
over the upper earnings limit. However, my company pays an unlimited
percentage.

As I said, I don't have an issue with contributing a reasonable sum via
taxation towards the funding of healthcare.

I strongly object to government involvement in delivering it.

I object even more strongly to the government propaganda that it's free at
the point of delivery and is a good service. It isn't either, and I don't
appreciate being lied to by suppliers.

The icing on the cake is being told that I should be grateful for it. What
kind of nonsense is that?

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:15:23 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes


the budget for this thing is absolutely colossal. Do you realise that they
are the third largest employer in the world. A total nonsense.

Can you prove that?

Yes. They even say it themselves and are actually *proud* of it as though
it's some measure of excellence and investment; when really it's a measure of
bureaucracy and incompetence.

http://www.nhs.uk/nhsmagazine/archive/sep04/feat12.asp

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:14:42 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote
(in article ):


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

Would you if it were the fouth?

Or the twenty fourth?

Or the seventy sixth?

Where do you draw the line?


At the point where it didn't even figure in the stats and there was no
government involvement whatsoever.


So who do you suggest we pay our NICS to?
--
June Hughes

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:06:37 +0100, raden wrote
(in article ):

In message , Mary Fisher
writes

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs

I've had Rolls Royce treatment, no parsimony.

All my experience has been in NHS.

So how do you know when you have nothing to compare with


Nothing is perfect, I know that when Spouse had private treatment on the
whole it was superb but there were exceptions which spoilt the lot.
Exceptions are due to individuals, not systems.


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these,
I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't
see a problem.

Don't worry, the NHS doesn't need you.


That would be fine if I didn't have to pay through the nose to fund it.



It's not an attitude which is going to help improve things, is it ?

Exactly. The answer is always to throw more good money after bad, never to
carry out the major surgery that is actually required.




Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a
third world service.

Oh don't be silly!

I would say that I've had better service in the "third world"



I have definitely had better care in the 3rd world.

In message , Ophelia
writes

"raden" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary Fisher
writes

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs

I've had Rolls Royce treatment, no parsimony.

All my experience has been in NHS.

So how do you know when you have nothing to compare with


Nothing is perfect, I know that when Spouse had private treatment on the
whole it was superb but there were exceptions which spoilt the lot.
Exceptions are due to individuals, not systems.


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of
these,
I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it
don't
see a problem.

Don't worry, the NHS doesn't need you.

It's not an attitude which is going to help improve things, is it ?


Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be
an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for
a
third world service.

Oh don't be silly!

I would say that I've had better service in the "third world"


geoff, I can see you *think* ))))

Well, certainly the A&E dept of my local hospital in Indonesia was
significantly faster

And I doubt my father would have caught both MRSA and gangrene IN
HOSPITAL as he did the year before last in Shrewsbury hospital

As for my knee operation last year, in BUPA Bushey it was when would you
like to come in? Two weeks? Fine

It would have been more than 4 months just to see the specialist here at
Watford

--
geoff

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:11:49 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:44:25 +0100, Clive George wrote
(in article ):

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

Because the NHS is totally and utterly worthless, I buy almost all of my
medical care (except primary doctor) and all of my dental care privately
either through insurance or out of pocket.

It seems quite good from my POV - and I speak as a regular user of their
services.

cheers,
clive


I am afraid that I have a very high level of expectation of a service for
which I pay through the nose.

The NHS is nowhere close to being able to deliver what I consider to be a
reasonable level of service.

Specifically, this means

- waiting times in days or certainly under a month

- appointments at a time to suit me

- not being referred back to the GP if a second consultant referral is
needed
- not being given excuses regarding non delivery

- clean facilities with modern and adequate equipment

- not being expected to feel grateful for what I get

- not being nickel and dimed over selection of therapies and drugs


At the point that the NHS would care to deliver most or even any of these, I
might look again, but it doesn't and worse yet, those involved in it don't
see a problem.

Until that culture and pretence ends, I don't think that there will be an
improvement and we as a nation will continue paying through the nose for a
third world service.



Have you tried moving to the USA?


I have spent a lot of time in the USA and am quite acquainted with the
various healthcare options there.

People seem to automatically assume that anything which proposes reduction or
elimination of the NHS means moving to a U.S. type system. It doesn't.

I am simply saying that the government shouldn't be involved in *delivery* of
healthcare not that it shouldn't be providing funding for it.

Even other countries with socialised medicine manage to do a far better job
of it than the UK NHS.

It is the delivery vehicle that is long overdue for retirement not the
principle that there should be access to quality healthcare.

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:11:40 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:14:42 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote
(in article ):


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

Would you if it were the fouth?

Or the twenty fourth?

Or the seventy sixth?

Where do you draw the line?


At the point where it didn't even figure in the stats and there was no
government involvement whatsoever.


So who do you suggest we pay our NICS to?


You can send them to me June.

I am quite sure that I could do a much better job than the government does.

It wouldn't be that difficult.....

In message , Andy Hall
writes
snip

The icing on the cake is being told that I should be grateful for it. What
kind of nonsense is that?


Who has told you that?
--
June Hughes

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:11:40 +0100, June Hughes wrote
(in article ):

In message , Andy Hall
writes
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:14:42 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote
(in article ):


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

However, I don't want to pay taxes to fund a megalith of bureaucracy that
is
the 3rd largest employer in the world. That makes no sense at all.

Would you if it were the fouth?

Or the twenty fourth?

Or the seventy sixth?

Where do you draw the line?


At the point where it didn't even figure in the stats and there was no
government involvement whatsoever.


So who do you suggest we pay our NICS to?


You can send them to me June.

Very glib.

--
June Hughes

raden wrote:

As for my knee operation last year, in BUPA Bushey it was when would
you like to come in? Two weeks? Fine

It would have been more than 4 months just to see the specialist here
at Watford

Within the last couple of years I have had two knee replacements and both
eyes operated on for cataract. Without Bupa I am sure I would be blind and
in a wheelchair. The waiting time up here was about a year. As it is, I
am
back at work and enjoying life.

The other week my Doctor asked how much we paid for our BUPA. She has been
impressed how quickly I get my medical problems sorted out. She told me she
didn't agree with it. When I asked why, she said it ought not to be
necessary. As I pointed out.... if you need it quickly you don't have an
option. I don't think anyone should see that taking this option as wrong in
any way. After all, we are still paying our dues to the NHS so we are
paying twice for the privelage.

Following up to Mary Fisher

cant say I'm keen, but on fdm we tend to drift around from food
to food.

Oh - I wondered what you were doing in uk.d-i-y!

Hello Mary, hows things? I'm always on DIY but I lurk until I
have a problem, which might be today as the gas fitter cometh.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Andy Hall

This inevitably leads to colossal waste and has
done since the inception of it.

heard of economies of scale? There is no "inevitable" correlation
between size and efficiency.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Andy Hall

I object even more strongly to the government propaganda that it's free at
the point of delivery and is a good service. It isn't either, and I don't
appreciate being lied to by suppliers.

why isn't it free at point of delivery (minor prescription
charges aside)?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Andy Hall

the budget for this thing is absolutely colossal. Do you realise that they
are the third largest employer in the world. A total nonsense.

Can you prove that?

Yes. They even say it themselves and are actually *proud* of it as though
it's some measure of excellence and investment; when really it's a measure of
bureaucracy and incompetence.

can you prove its a "total nonsense"?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Andy Hall

Removal of the government middle man would
mean that more of that would arrive at the point of delivery.

to be replaced by the business middle man in a nice suit creaming
off the money, like the privatised water companies. Some things
are done better by the public sector.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Clive George

Judging by the USAian experience, private enterprise can't either.

it can, but its expensive there. The insurance companies are not
going broke! Neither are the companies that deliver other
privatised services here.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Andy Hall

I am quite sure that I could do a much better job than the government does.

It wouldn't be that difficult.....

so you think.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Ophelia

After all, we are still paying our dues to the NHS so we are
paying twice for the privelage.

these are the problems of lack of commitment to the NHS, for
years we have wanted low taxes and more low taxes, something has
to give. It was NHS waiting lists. We are now putting a lot more
money in, if we scrapped the internal market, brought in to keep
the right wing happy, we cut cut out a lot of pointless
administration and management. (I dont need to know how much your
ops cost if I dont regard it as an option not to do them).
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Clive George

Judging by the USAian experience, private enterprise can't either.


The US health care system is the sick giant of the world. It is
disgraceful that the rich white old guys at the top can't see that they
are creating a sick population. What can they do with that in the end?
Bigger bombs?

it can, but its expensive there. The insurance companies are not
going broke! Neither are the companies that deliver other
privatised services here.

You can pay an enormous sum for insurance in the USA and get denied
necessary care. You can bleed to death in emergency services because
the staff is taken up with care for kids who have no insurance coverage
and therefore are brought into emergency care. They have no
alternative.

Of all the schemes, I look at Australia's national insurance as
attractive. I am not up to date and it may not be what it once was.
Italy isn't bad, but there are some bad doctors hired because of
nepotism. You do get to choose your primary physician-- if he isn't
already full.
I have worked as simultaneous translator for British businessmen who
come here to buy NHS covered products. They are always looking for
lower, ever lower, prices because the allowed price of something has
been reduced. That often means leaving off some things to increase the
order for others to bring up the economy of scale and get the price
right. It is interesting to me to see the wide range of things
covered, such as nutrients for sensitive or allergic patients, and
packed protein IV fluids. Many are made in Germany but sell for lower
prices here. Many of these products are covered here only while you
are in hospital. It is an entire world, all to itself.