In message 485c315a@qaanaaq, at 23:38:17 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
While it does take time for tea to brew, this does not imply waiting.

Which courier did you use to deliver your Tardis?
--
Roland Perry

On 2008-06-21 15:24:37 +0100, Eleanor Blair said:

Andy Hall wrote:

But this is pointless. They should just go into the general rubbish
along with all the other bottles, tins and plastic.

So you don't believe in recycling at all?

Where it makes sense, yes. However, this is a very long way from what
we are told makes sense and happens to coincide with the obligations
that were signed up for with the EU.

However, the local authorities are paid a great deal of money to
collect the rubbish and that's what they should do. If they would
like me to do some of the work, there should be a price discussion.

What should councils do with
all the landfill?

That is their issue. They are being paid to deal with it.



I don't, but I don't mind, the recipient gave me an address where
someone is in all day anyway, and it is not an urgent item (if it was
I'd have paid more for an appropriate delivery service).

That's different in that it is not comparing like for like.

In other words you're saying it's not possible to get the service I
bought other than from the Post Office, because other services add more
perks which I don't want or need and are correspondingly more expensive.

If you don't want the level of service then that's a different matter.
I wouldn't regard having something collected, knowing when it will be
or has been delivered, and redress if there is a screw up as a perk; I
would regard it as essential.


I don't see an issue there one way or another

I'm just confused why it's OK to wait in two hours for shopping but not
to spend an hour going to get it. If I spend that time doing something
else I am inevitably interrupted during whatever I'm doing. But somehow
this is OK when you're waiting for shopping and not OK when you're
waiting for a parcel.

This is consistent. If I arrange for deliveries in a certain time
window, I can plan my other activities before and after it. I can
plan my activities during the time window such that the very short time
to go to the door, check the delivery (accepting or rejecting it) and
signing for it has negligible effect on the other things that I am
doing. I avoid delivery time windows when there are things that can't
be interrupted such as phone and web conference calls.

On 2008-06-21 15:36:34 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message , at
13:57:37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, John Rumm
remarked:
That's more a symptom of a bad dentist.

It takes a great deal of time to do a root canal treatment properly.
This should not be governed by time and cost but by doing a proper job.
Like I said, if the treatment isn't done properly, that's a bad dentist.

So if the procedure takes two hours to do properly and with due care
but the NHS only provides adequate funding for 20 minutes, what do you
suggest the dentist does?

In the long term try to ensure that there's not such a big gap. There
must be some sort of trade association to deal with that. In the mean
time I'll take the view that while there may be some gap, one of the
size you postulate is simply a debating point rather than reality.

How on earth could a trade association deal with such a thing?
Improvements to measurements and technology might make a reduction in
the time taken but are going to cost money to implement. Having
had a root canal treatment done once, and having discussed it in
detail with the dentist and read around what's involved, it's a
complicated procedure to get right to make sure that there isn't
infection, mechanical damage to the bottom of the root canal (which is
extremely thin) plus other steps to maximise the probability that the
tooth, at least mechanically can be saved. It involves working
accurately to a fraction of a millimetre and and great care over the
use of fairly toxic chemicals to sterilise the work area in the tooth.
This procedure took over two hours and then there were follow up
visits for the work to implement a crown. That's the clinical
reality, and no trade association is going to be able to make a
difference to it.




Take the money and bodge it?
Decline that patient?
Do the job well enough and make a loss?

Most do the second (ie they decline all NHS patients).

As they should/

A conscientious one will do the third.

Why? Why should any dentist treat some patients at full price and
others at a loss - assuming that he does exactly the same for all?
It isn't reasonable for the patients who are paying full price to
subsidise those who are not.

And bad dentists the first.

Which is why one should clear of NHS dentists.

On 2008-06-21 15:42:20 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message , at
13:43:41 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, John Rumm
remarked:

Except that the government is not delivering on its commitments. It
isn't possible to get good quality dentistry via th NHS.
It's entirely possible to get the same quality work as the same
dentist would charge you private rates for. Whether getting "even
better" is value for money is something only an individual can decide.

My dentist gave up NHS work on the grounds that there came a point
where he was forced to cut so many corners he felt the quality of care
he could offer at the price was unacceptable.

He should examine his cost base.

That goes without saying, but must not be at the expense of equipment,
materials and facilities, and certainly not remuneration. In all
probability, little can be done about the cost of premises.

As I've said several times, there's a postcode lottery involved. Many
do quit the NHS.

As they should.



Again, that's not really the point. We are where we are and if you
happen to live in an area with cheap property and neighbours who don't
expect you to be running this year's model Mercedes, then a dentist's
fees can be plenty to make a living from NHS patients.

And for the majority not living in those areas?

Is that the majority of areas. This country is in a worse state than I
thought

Based on the level of complaint about the difficulty in finding NHS
dentists, it is clear that it's no longer viable. The issue is not
that the country is in a bad state, but that we are being lied to about
what we are supposed to be getting in return for the vast sums of money
being wasted with the NHS. The simple truth is that dentistry exposes
it very starkly. In the remaining areas it is obfuscated by
administration.

On 2008-06-21 15:47:48 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485c315a@qaanaaq, at 23:38:17 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
While it does take time for tea to brew, this does not imply waiting.

Which courier did you use to deliver your Tardis?

You seem to be very confused about the difference between waiting and
the use of time.

Obviously it takes time for tea to brew. This does not mean that one
has to wait. For example, I can make a couple of phone calls or
write a few emails during that time - it isn't waiting time. If
I'm lucky, someone else might make the tea for me. it doesn't make a
lot of difference.

To me, waiting means idle time where nothing else is being done.
Others may have a different definition. I may *choose* to have idle
time, but that's something else, not waiting.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "tims next home"
saying something like:

Hopefully the roll-out of 'instant' Bank Transfers will make this method of
payment more common.

Germany and Sweden have had this for many years and almost no-one (buyer or
seller) expects a remote payment to be made any other way.

ding!

It's a pleasure dealing with German sellers - a quick IBAN and goods in
the post. Unlike PP, you can be sure who you're dealing with via IBAN.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

In message 485d1c1e@qaanaaq, at 16:19:58 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
I may *choose* to have idle time, but that's something else, not
waiting.

Keep busy. Busy busy busy. Even when you are at home.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

In message op.uc27d0gc0v1caa@thedell, at 08:07:02 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008,
Brian L Johnson remarked:
Can anyone join in? I think I'm coming up to 40 years of computer
work now, although there have been gaps. I did much more at school
than when I was at University, for example.

Gosh! I did absolutely no computer work at school.

It wasn't on the syllabus, but we had a very active "club" that met at
lunchtime and after school. Programs were hand-punched onto cards, which
I dropped off (the whole club's efforts) at the Technical College on my
way home, picking up the previous day's output. This meant I had a good
relationship with the staff at the college and I sometimes went in
during the holidays and used their "teletype room".

My lunchtime activities were restricted to The Printing Club. Mind you,
that interest has lasted me through the years as well. (I'm a bit of a
typography nut.)

I went on to take A-level Computer Science the very first year that it
was offered (by Oxford Exam Board) entirely self-taught.

Alas, not offered by my school in Leeds: a few flavours of Maths were all
that was available. So I substituted one of them for Art History.

--
-blj-

On 2008-06-21 17:58:05 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485d1c1e@qaanaaq, at 16:19:58 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
I may *choose* to have idle time, but that's something else, not waiting.

Keep busy. Busy busy busy. Even when you are at home.

Especially when I'm at home.....

Tim Ward wrote:

But that was real computing - depending on how serious a mistake you made
you could get a 250v, 500v or 4,000v shock. Definitely
left-hand-in-pocket territory.

One of the analogue computers on which I worked offered the chance to lose
an arm should you get it caught in the mechanism. That's *both*
hands-in-pockets territory.

Youngsters today don't know the half of it. Etc, etc... g

--
-blj-

In message op.uc3y5tjn0v1caa@thedell, at 18:06:55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008,
Brian L Johnson remarked:
My lunchtime activities were restricted to The Printing Club.

We had a printing club too, and I was member. We used to print school
magazines, programmes for concerts, and lots of posters. Everything set
in lead (or wood for the bigger stuff). All this experience came in very
handy when using some very early microcomputers as front ends to
phototypesetters, and other printing escapades.

Mind you, that interest has lasted me through the years as well. (I'm
a bit of a typography nut.)

I went on to take A-level Computer Science the very first year that
it was offered (by Oxford Exam Board) entirely self-taught.

Alas, not offered by my school in Leeds

It wasn't "offered" - I said "can you enter me for this". And they did.
I don't know when it became an official option, if ever.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:45:49 on Sat, 21
Jun 2008, tims next home remarked:

Where they lead places like the UK is by giving you scanned copies of
all your cheques with your monthly statement.

You can ask your UK bank for this service.

I haven't come across one, although many people report being able to get
their old cheques back.

They will deduct a fee for it.

(and in case you think it is free in the US, in the US you have to pay
for your blank cheques, oops checks)

Yes, the checks cost money, but the scanning was in effect free. They
reduced them and printed about 12-up on the back of the statement pages.

Some people used "carbon copy" check-books in order to keep a copy
(rather than just having a counterfoil). I expect those cost more.
--
Roland Perry

In message 485c2ffa@qaanaaq, at 23:32:26 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Called consular agency who collected documents in the morning and
delivered the renewed passport in the afternoon of the same day.
This is just a "I can afford lots of dosh to get people to do things
at my beck and call" competition, isn't it?

Not really. It's a straightforward cost comparison between writing
off a day visiting the Passport Office and paying someone else to do so

It was a rush job then? My passport renewals have been by normal post,
even though I once worked half a mile from one of their offices. They
only did callers by appointment.
--
Roland Perry

In message 485c30df@qaanaaq, at 23:36:15 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

The sorting office is at the Post Office.
That's fairly unusual, but I do know of a few like that.

They may be seaparate organisations but have the same bad public
sector culture of the past.
Don't they have a separate queue for the sorting-office stuff?

Yes. Outside and wih no shelter or nearby parking.

How long is the queue normally? Parking's not too bad at my local
sorting office, and the man has an office indoors. I've never waited
more than a minute inside.

- Return of goods purchased on line. I now favour suppliers
who a have a return arrangement where the goods are collected.
Which they charge you for in the general price of their goods. But
if that's affordable for you, then who are we to criticise how you
spend your money.
This isn't the issue. If they sell defective goods, then they
should be dealing with that problem.
A lot of the time, so-called "defective" goods are people buying the
wrong thing, not being able to find out how it works etc. The cost of
sending all those back by super-courier affects all buyers.

So make a charge for such collections. It isn't hard.

So "dealing with the problem" of defective goods involves getting the
customer to pay for exotic courier services??

he product offerings are presented as something suitable for people
who haven't used them before - somewhat insulting to their
intelligence.
Not everyone is as clever as you.

I don't think it's a matter of being clever, simply avoiding being taken in.

It amounts to much the same thing.

I read some while ago that something like 95% of the population have
bought a Lottery ticket at least once. I was shocked. Why on earth
would people want to pay tax voluntarily?

Much the same as they pay tax when playing bingo, or at the races.
--
Roland Perry

In message 485c352a@qaanaaq, at 23:54:34 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
However, it would be surpring to hear of anyone wanting to go to London
willingly and spend most of the day hanging around while civil servants
do their stuff.

So realise your passport needs renewing before it's too late, and post
it! Also, London may not be your nearest office. Mine is probably still
the Peterborough one, only an hour away.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

It was a rush job then? My passport renewals have been by normal post,
even though I once worked half a mile from one of their offices. They only
did callers by appointment.

In theory. In practice if you turn up and you're desperate enough they might
deal with you.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

In message 485cb360@qaanaaq, at 08:53:04 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Leaving aside the financial aspect, there are much better uses of
time than trips to the post office to spend 20p posting a letter.

That merely shows how extremely narrow your experience is.

On the contrary, the boot is on the other foot. It's a limited view
to be thinking of the lowest financial expenditure to have the lowest
cost when all factors, including how time are taken into account.

The majority of people have a fixed income, in the sense that their
salary is the same however many hours they work. Only the self employed,
or those who own companies (which amounts to the same) have the luxury
of being able to make a real tradeoff between time and earning
potential.

For everyone else, an hour spent saving £5 is just as useful as an hour
spent earning £5.
--
Roland Perry

In message 485d19b0@qaanaaq, at 16:09:36 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
On 2008-06-21 15:36:34 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message , at
13:57:37 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, John Rumm
remarked:
That's more a symptom of a bad dentist.
It takes a great deal of time to do a root canal treatment
properly. This should not be governed by time and cost but by
doing a proper job.
Like I said, if the treatment isn't done properly, that's a bad dentist.
So if the procedure takes two hours to do properly and with due
care but the NHS only provides adequate funding for 20 minutes,
what do you suggest the dentist does?
In the long term try to ensure that there's not such a big gap.
There must be some sort of trade association to deal with that. In
the mean time I'll take the view that while there may be some gap,
one of the size you postulate is simply a debating point rather than
reality.

How on earth could a trade association deal with such a thing?

By negotiating with the "management" - the people setting the rates for
the job.

Improvements to measurements and technology might make a reduction in
the time taken but are going to cost money to implement. Having
had a root canal treatment done once, and having discussed it in
detail with the dentist and read around what's involved, it's a
complicated procedure to get right to make sure that there isn't
infection, mechanical damage to the bottom of the root canal (which is
extremely thin) plus other steps to maximise the probability that the
tooth, at least mechanically can be saved. It involves working
accurately to a fraction of a millimetre and and great care over the
use of fairly toxic chemicals to sterilise the work area in the tooth.
This procedure took over two hours and then there were follow up visits
for the work to implement a crown. That's the clinical reality, and
no trade association is going to be able to make a difference to it.

You have the wrong end of the stick. This isn't about helping the
dentist do the work quicker, but getting him paid a proper fee.

Take the money and bodge it?
Decline that patient?
Do the job well enough and make a loss?
Most do the second (ie they decline all NHS patients).

As they should/

A conscientious one will do the third.

Why? Why should any dentist treat some patients at full price and
others at a loss - assuming that he does exactly the same for all?

Because they have a pride in their work.

It isn't reasonable for the patients who are paying full price to
subsidise those who are not.

I suspect the dentists secretly believe that the mugs who are paying to
go private are paying a "voluntary subsidy" to the others.

And bad dentists the first.

Which is why one should clear of NHS dentists.

Of bad ones, yes.
--
Roland Perry

In message 485d1aea@qaanaaq, at 16:14:50 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

My dentist gave up NHS work on the grounds that there came a point
where he was forced to cut so many corners he felt the quality of
care he could offer at the price was unacceptable.
He should examine his cost base.

That goes without saying, but must not be at the expense of equipment,
materials and facilities, and certainly not remuneration. In all
probability, little can be done about the cost of premises.

But there are choices about what premises to use. I've had dentists in
the last decade with offices variously above a suburban shop, in a
massive Edwardian mansion in a City centre and in a glitzy purpose built
"health centre" type location. I'm sure the costs of those vary a lot.

Based on the level of complaint about the difficulty in finding NHS
dentists, it is clear that it's no longer viable.

If they stick to the Porsche and 5-bed executive house lifestyle that
dentists were accustomed to in the 70's, viability is certainly an
issue.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

So if the procedure takes two hours to do properly and with due care
but the NHS only provides adequate funding for 20 minutes, what do
you suggest the dentist does?

In the long term try to ensure that there's not such a big gap. There
must be some sort of trade association to deal with that. In the mean
time I'll take the view that while there may be some gap, one of the
size you postulate is simply a debating point rather than reality.

I can actually give you some figures, since I did discuss this with my
previous dentist. He said that a basic filling in a molar takes at least
40 mins to do properly - he would prefer an hour in some cases. The NHS
provides funding on the basis that the job takes 15 mins.

He said he could just about do a filling in that time, but only by
drilling directly after injecting analgesic, and skipping most of the
thermal insulation and nerve protecting layers of the filling. Basically
clean out the decay, and fill directly, with little time to tool a
decent surface on the filling. The result would be a filling that would
last at most five years, and would transmit even slight temperature
changes to the owner of the tooth quickly and painfully. He also said
that for every NHS job he took on there was about 10 to 15 mins of form
filling to go with it. He put up with doing NHS work for ten years (he
originally worked in Ireland), but then for the last 15 years or so
before retirement he gave up all NHS work as the stress was too much.

Take the money and bodge it?
Decline that patient?
Do the job well enough and make a loss?

Most do the second (ie they decline all NHS patients).

Indeed, which means the NHS is failing to provide any service at all in
most cases.

A conscientious one will do the third.

Perhaps, but you can only do that as an exception rather than a general
rule.

And bad dentists the first.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Roland Perry wrote:
The majority of people have a fixed income, in the sense that their
salary is the same however many hours they work. Only the self employed,
or those who own companies (which amounts to the same) have the luxury
of being able to make a real tradeoff between time and earning
potential.

Lots of people do paid overtime, and a fair number of people have the
option to take unpaid leave.

-M-

In message 485cea45@qaanaaq, at 12:47:17 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

It all depends what hourly rate the dentist needs to earn where he lives.
That would only set the bare minimum.
Minimum what?

Remuneration.

But for what lifestyle?

It would be perfectly possible for GP surgeries to offer a
comprehensive range of paid services which could be delivered far more
cost effectively to patients than via the current arrangements.

That may well be true, and quite a lot of work is being shoved in their
direction these days, that used be done in hospitals.

That's still not an answer to my question about you getting your NHS
contributions back.

So one more time. The NHS has the option to deliver viable dentistry
through three different means. It is currently failing to use any of
them. Ultimately it becomes a case of **** or get off the pot. I
would prefer that it gets off the pot. Should that situation arise,
the money thus saved could be redistributed for other healthcare
purposes, thus reducing the need to raise more funds from taxation.
That would probably require parliamentary intervention since there is
little or no customer control of NHS spending.

If it's redistributed like that, then you still aren't getting a refund.

There is no justification for paying for a service that not only is
one not receiving but which to a large extent isn't being delivered.
The same could be said for education. But there's no scheme for
refund of taxes there either.

No, and there should be. For example, tax relief on school fees.

Or a voucher system.

This leaves the NHS with the three choices mentioned above.
Dismantling of NHS dentistry would be a good place to begin as a way
to dismantle the rest of it.
NHS dentistry has a poor image, and is severely affected by the
"postcode lottery" effect.

The NHS and its customers waste far too much time fussing about
postcode lotteries and far too much resource in attempting to create an
equal for all system. Life isn't equal and never will be.

I wouldn't mind if people in London and the southeast had significantly
higher prescription charges and dental fees, to reflect the higher
delivery costs.

I've never been sure why there are fees at all though - you don't
pay fees when you visit your GP.

It's a matter of time taken. The average GP visit is 7 minutes or
twice that for a double appointment. It takes about an hour to do a
filling properly, much more for more complex work.

That's irrelevant. Time in hospital can be counted in days, but there's
no fee.

But I agree that filling in an insurance claim form for every £50, 7
minute, GP appointment is a really good way to waste time and money.

But they can break even as long as they don't have Mercs?
That's the sort of thing, yes. And as you agreed in your reply,
having the latest Merc when you can't afford it is very much a
self-inflicted injury.

Circular argument. Why shouldn't it be possible for a dentist to
afford a Merc if they want one?

Or a road sweeper. (Own a Merc, not a dentist own a road sweeper!)

It would be far better for the NHS to give up the pretence and for
patients to pay dentists directly. In that way, cost of treatment
would, as is quite reasonable, be linked to the local cost of living.
It is for virtually everything else that we buy.
Or scrap the fees entirely, which is the way the rest of the NHS
works.

Except that it doesn't. Note earlier point about prescription charges.

As you hinted, the vast majority (85%) are free. Another 5% are paid for
by "season tickets".

The insurer paid for all of it with no discussion at all.
It works at the moment because only a small number of people use
private medicine, and only for a few of their medical needs; and the
cost of the policies is largely covered by employers.

If there were more people using private healthcare, the market would
open for more professionals to work in it.

Ah, more cost.

If the huge drain of funds into the NHS were reduced, people would
have more disposable income and the insurance market would offer a
wider range of coverage than it does today.

Rubbish. The Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as it costs to
run the NHS. And that's before you allow for the fact that a large
proportion of the public can't afford healthcare at all (so aren't
spending anything).

The reason you see all that spam for buying "meds" is just as much to
avoid the fee for seeing the GP, as it is to avoid the vastly inflated
retail prices for prescription medications.

The cost of policies is not largely covered by employers. If they
fund the policy, they have to pay NI contributions on that. The
employee has to pay tax at his highest marginal rate and possibly NI as
well. There is insurance premium tax as well. Therefore for the
employee only half of the cost is covered and for the employer it is a
factor in his profitability which ultimately impacts on the price of
his goods and services or on his return to shareholders - i..e. money
taken out of the economy.

You make it sound soooo desirable to have this insurance.

Trying to scale it across the entire population, for every ailment
and treatment, when people are paying for their own insurance, is a
problem. People will skimp on the insurer who will then quibble over
the justification and cost of every procedure.

That is then their choice.

What, to have insurance and therefore need to quibble, or not have
insurance at all? I don't think anyone invented a no-quibbling insurance
company yet.

I have not said that the state should not contribute to *funding* basic
healthcare, only that it should not be in the *delivery* business. The
U.S. system provides for more choice. The missing component is the
addition of government funding to make basic healthcare affordable for
everybody.

The problem that would create, even though it sounds desirable at first,
is that a too-good "basic" and free healthcare system would end up
getting most of the business. Like it does in the UK.

It's only "no quibble" because it's too difficult to quibble, so
most patients are reduced to laying back and thinking of England.
It's far easier to quibble with the NHS than an American insurance
company.

Have you tried quibbling with the NHS? I've done it, and it has
involved considerable effort.

Have you tried quibbling with an American insurance company? I've done
both, and the NHS is easier every time. One aspect is that you can get
different answers from different doctors in the NHS, but you'll get the
same answer from every claims department in the USA.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:53 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message 485cb360@qaanaaq, at 08:53:04 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Leaving aside the financial aspect, there are much better uses of
time than trips to the post office to spend 20p posting a letter.

That merely shows how extremely narrow your experience is.

On the contrary, the boot is on the other foot. It's a limited view
to be thinking of the lowest financial expenditure to have the lowest
cost when all factors, including how time are taken into account.

The majority of people have a fixed income, in the sense that their
salary is the same however many hours they work.

Or people who receive 'overtime' payment.

--
Frank Erskine

In message 485cea9e@qaanaaq, at 12:48:46 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
That's more a symptom of a bad dentist.
It takes a great deal of time to do a root canal treatment
properly. This should not be governed by time and cost but by doing
a proper job.
Like I said, if the treatment isn't done properly, that's a bad
dentist.

So the choices are reduced to not doing the work at all or doing it at
a loss.

At less of a profit.

This is the precise reason why many dentists have packed in doing NHS
work rather than not doing a proper job.

I agree that a lot have packed it in.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

In message op.uc3y5tjn0v1caa@thedell, at 18:06:55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008,
Brian L Johnson remarked:
My lunchtime activities were restricted to The Printing Club.

We had a printing club too, and I was member. We used to print school
magazines, programmes for concerts, and lots of posters. Everything set
in lead (or wood for the bigger stuff).

Oh, the old grey cells are fading... what was the name of that press? The
little hand ones were usually made by Elana or someone, but the big
treadle-powered ones (we didn't have the electric motor attachment) were
called... sigh No. It's gone.

But I vividly remember pedalling like crazy in attempt to get the tickets
done before the end of lunch break for some function or other and those
gigantic jaws whipping back and forth and me reaching in, snatching a
newly printed card out -- not smudging it!! -- while matey by your side
slapped another into place and the jaws closed again and on and on and
on...

Oh, and there was a lock lever like the handbrake on a Chipmunk which you
could use to snap the press open by an inch or so if someone didn't quite
get their hand out in time.

Well... it kept me out of the rain on wet lunchtimes.

--
-blj-

Brian L Johnson laid this down on his screen :
Oh, the old grey cells are fading... what was the name of that press? The
little hand ones were usually made by Elana or someone, but the big
treadle-powered ones (we didn't have the electric motor attachment) were
called... sigh No. It's gone.

Gestetner, or something similar?

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:05:43 UTC, "Brian L Johnson"
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

In message op.uc3y5tjn0v1caa@thedell, at 18:06:55 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008,
Brian L Johnson remarked:
My lunchtime activities were restricted to The Printing Club.

We had a printing club too, and I was member. We used to print school
magazines, programmes for concerts, and lots of posters. Everything set
in lead (or wood for the bigger stuff).

Oh, the old grey cells are fading... what was the name of that press? The
little hand ones were usually made by Elana or someone, but the big
treadle-powered ones (we didn't have the electric motor attachment) were
called... sigh No. It's gone.

Adana. We had one at school....belonged to the Venture Scouts and they
did fund raising by doing private printing. I joined because it was a
better place to hang out than the sixth form common room (especially as
I made history by being the first pupil in the schools 100 year history
to be demoted from being a prefect!)

I saw and learned but did little printing myself.

But I vividly remember pedalling like crazy in attempt to get the tickets
done before the end of lunch break for some function or other and those
gigantic jaws whipping back and forth and me reaching in, snatching a
newly printed card out -- not smudging it!! -- while matey by your side
slapped another into place and the jaws closed again and on and on and
on...

Our was hand operated only.

Used a similar device for printing labels on radio valves! Anyone
remember a company that used to advertise on page three of Practical
Wireless (I think); big long list of valves and prices? The name was
Technical Trading...

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:16:37 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message 485c30df@qaanaaq, at 23:36:15 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

The sorting office is at the Post Office.
That's fairly unusual, but I do know of a few like that.

They may be seaparate organisations but have the same bad public
sector culture of the past.
Don't they have a separate queue for the sorting-office stuff?

Yes. Outside and wih no shelter or nearby parking.

How long is the queue normally? Parking's not too bad at my local
sorting office, and the man has an office indoors. I've never waited
more than a minute inside.

RM have a separate 'customer service' office here (well, in the city
centre). There's fairly expensive parking about 200 yds away, or you
can take the risk of 'parking' in a loading bay almost outside¹. The
office is almost exclusively for collection of items where the postman
has crept up to your door and left a card (insisting on waiting 48 hrs
before you can collect (why?)). In practice I've normally collected
the same day :-).
There's usually a few minutes' delay in there, but you can keep an eye
on the car whilst waiting (indoors!), and if you choose a quiet period
you can often get served straight away.
The sorting offices (there are separate I/C and O/G ones) are miles
away with no public interface.


¹Parking really isn't so bad now that the LA have taken back parking
control from NCP, who were really vicious - there was national
publicity a couple of years ago about their tactics...

--
Frank Erskine

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:09:35 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:45:49 on Sat, 21
Jun 2008, tims next home remarked:

Where they lead places like the UK is by giving you scanned copies of
all your cheques with your monthly statement.

You can ask your UK bank for this service.

I haven't come across one, although many people report being able to get
their old cheques back.

They will deduct a fee for it.

(and in case you think it is free in the US, in the US you have to pay
for your blank cheques, oops checks)

Yes, the checks cost money, but the scanning was in effect free. They
reduced them and printed about 12-up on the back of the statement pages.

Some people used "carbon copy" check-books in order to keep a copy
(rather than just having a counterfoil). I expect those cost more.

Cheques _are_ a rather old-fashioned way of moving money about, even
though as I said earlier I do still occasionally use them to pay
smallish traders medium amounts of dosh.
At one time, apparently, it was practice to attach a stamp (an
ordinary postage one?) to a cheque to pay some sort of duty (obviously
when the PO was a government department)..
The same, I think, applied to marriage certificates.

Long before my time though - I'm 60 in half an hour or so... :-(((

--
Frank Erskine

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:19:52 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message 485c352a@qaanaaq, at 23:54:34 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
However, it would be surpring to hear of anyone wanting to go to London
willingly and spend most of the day hanging around while civil servants
do their stuff.

So realise your passport needs renewing before it's too late, and post
it! Also, London may not be your nearest office. Mine is probably still
the Peterborough one, only an hour away.


Who are at least slightly quicker than they say. Although they have all
sorts of weird rules, e.g. you can't use a laptop in the waiting area. You
can take it in there though.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:53 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message 485cb360@qaanaaq, at 08:53:04 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Leaving aside the financial aspect, there are much better uses of
time than trips to the post office to spend 20p posting a letter.

That merely shows how extremely narrow your experience is.

On the contrary, the boot is on the other foot. It's a limited view
to be thinking of the lowest financial expenditure to have the lowest
cost when all factors, including how time are taken into account.

The majority of people have a fixed income, in the sense that their
salary is the same however many hours they work. Only the self employed,
or those who own companies (which amounts to the same) have the luxury
of being able to make a real tradeoff between time and earning potential.

For everyone else, an hour spent saving £5 is just as useful as an hour
spent earning £5.


Actually most of the people I've worked worked with in permanent
employment over the years have had some kind of overtime renumeration.

Brian L Johnson wrote:

Oh, the old grey cells are fading... what was the name of that press?
The little hand ones were usually made by Elana or someone,

Wasn't that Adana?

--
Andy

On 2008-06-21 22:55:03 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485cea45@qaanaaq, at 12:47:17 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

It all depends what hourly rate the dentist needs to earn where he lives.
That would only set the bare minimum.
Minimum what?

Remuneration.

But for what lifestyle?

For the one that the market will support.


So one more time. The NHS has the option to deliver viable dentistry
through three different means. It is currently failing to use any of
them. Ultimately it becomes a case of **** or get off the pot. I
would prefer that it gets off the pot. Should that situation arise,
the money thus saved could be redistributed for other healthcare
purposes, thus reducing the need to raise more funds from taxation.
That would probably require parliamentary intervention since there is
little or no customer control of NHS spending.

If it's redistributed like that, then you still aren't getting a refund.

Moot point. The implication would be a lower rate of growth of tax take.



There is no justification for paying for a service that not only is one
not receiving but which to a large extent isn't being delivered.
The same could be said for education. But there's no scheme for refund
of taxes there either.

No, and there should be. For example, tax relief on school fees.

Or a voucher system.

This leaves the NHS with the three choices mentioned above.
Dismantling of NHS dentistry would be a good place to begin as a way to
dismantle the rest of it.
NHS dentistry has a poor image, and is severely affected by the
"postcode lottery" effect.

The NHS and its customers waste far too much time fussing about
postcode lotteries and far too much resource in attempting to create an
equal for all system. Life isn't equal and never will be.

I wouldn't mind if people in London and the southeast had significantly
higher prescription charges and dental fees, to reflect the higher
delivery costs.

We already do. £7 for a prescription item is already £7 more than the
socialist promise of the 1940s. Some brave new world.......




I've never been sure why there are fees at all though - you don't pay
fees when you visit your GP.

It's a matter of time taken. The average GP visit is 7 minutes or
twice that for a double appointment. It takes about an hour to do a
filling properly, much more for more complex work.

That's irrelevant. Time in hospital can be counted in days, but there's no fee.

There's a huge fee, taken in tax, but you don't realise it.



But I agree that filling in an insurance claim form for every £50, 7
minute, GP appointment is a really good way to waste time and money.

I presume that you have never filled in a healthcare claim form or
initiated a claim.

All that I have to do is to pick up the phone, call the insurer and
give a description of the ailment. 30 seconds and there is approval
for three months. Done.




But they can break even as long as they don't have Mercs?
That's the sort of thing, yes. And as you agreed in your reply, having
the latest Merc when you can't afford it is very much a self-inflicted
injury.

Circular argument. Why shouldn't it be possible for a dentist to
afford a Merc if they want one?

Or a road sweeper. (Own a Merc, not a dentist own a road sweeper!)

Huh?



It would be far better for the NHS to give up the pretence and for
patients to pay dentists directly. In that way, cost of treatment
would, as is quite reasonable, be linked to the local cost of living.
It is for virtually everything else that we buy.
Or scrap the fees entirely, which is the way the rest of the NHS works.

Except that it doesn't. Note earlier point about prescription charges.

As you hinted, the vast majority (85%) are free. Another 5% are paid
for by "season tickets".

The insurer paid for all of it with no discussion at all.
It works at the moment because only a small number of people use
private medicine, and only for a few of their medical needs; and the
cost of the policies is largely covered by employers.

If there were more people using private healthcare, the market would
open for more professionals to work in it.

Ah, more cost.

If the huge drain of funds into the NHS were reduced, people would
have more disposable income and the insurance market would offer a
wider range of coverage than it does today.

Rubbish. The Americans spend twice as much on healthcare as it costs to
run the NHS.

Citation?


And that's before you allow for the fact that a large proportion of
the public can't afford healthcare at all (so aren't spending anything).

Reference?


The reason you see all that spam for buying "meds" is just as much to
avoid the fee for seeing the GP, as it is to avoid the vastly inflated
retail prices for prescription medications.

The cost of policies is not largely covered by employers. If they
fund the policy, they have to pay NI contributions on that. The
employee has to pay tax at his highest marginal rate and possibly NI as
well. There is insurance premium tax as well. Therefore for the
employee only half of the cost is covered and for the employer it is a
factor in his profitability which ultimately impacts on the price of
his goods and services or on his return to shareholders - i..e. money
taken out of the economy.

You make it sound soooo desirable to have this insurance.

It would be, if it weren't for the spiteful penalisation of it by the
government.




Trying to scale it across the entire population, for every ailment and
treatment, when people are paying for their own insurance, is a
problem. People will skimp on the insurer who will then quibble over
the justification and cost of every procedure.

That is then their choice.

What, to have insurance and therefore need to quibble, or not have
insurance at all? I don't think anyone invented a no-quibbling
insurance company yet.

I've had no issues with medical insurance companies at all. What is
your personal experience of them?



I have not said that the state should not contribute to *funding* basic
healthcare, only that it should not be in the *delivery* business. The
U.S. system provides for more choice. The missing component is the
addition of government funding to make basic healthcare affordable for
everybody.

The problem that would create, even though it sounds desirable at
first, is that a too-good "basic" and free healthcare system would end
up getting most of the business. Like it does in the UK.

That would depend on the level of funding and the ability of facilities
offering more to attract more patients.



It's only "no quibble" because it's too difficult to quibble, so most
patients are reduced to laying back and thinking of England.
It's far easier to quibble with the NHS than an American insurance company.

Have you tried quibbling with the NHS? I've done it, and it has
involved considerable effort.

Have you tried quibbling with an American insurance company? I've done
both, and the NHS is easier every time.

Have you tried claiming from a UK insurer?

On 2008-06-21 22:56:07 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485cea9e@qaanaaq, at 12:48:46 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
That's more a symptom of a bad dentist.
It takes a great deal of time to do a root canal treatment properly.
This should not be governed by time and cost but by doing a proper job.
Like I said, if the treatment isn't done properly, that's a bad dentist.

So the choices are reduced to not doing the work at all or doing it at a loss.

At less of a profit.

I suppose one could describe a loss as "less of a profit" That's
probably how Mr Blair's cronies would put it.



This is the precise reason why many dentists have packed in doing NHS
work rather than not doing a proper job.

I agree that a lot have packed it in.

Hmm.... I wonder why...

On 2008-06-21 22:27:46 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In the long term try to ensure that there's not such a big gap. There
must be some sort of trade association to deal with that. In the mean
time I'll take the view that while there may be some gap, one of the
size you postulate is simply a debating point rather than reality.

How on earth could a trade association deal with such a thing?

By negotiating with the "management" - the people setting the rates for
the job.

OMG!! Collective bargaining now. The next point will be about
squeezed differentials.



Improvements to measurements and technology might make a reduction in
the time taken but are going to cost money to implement. Having
had a root canal treatment done once, and having discussed it in
detail with the dentist and read around what's involved, it's a
complicated procedure to get right to make sure that there isn't
infection, mechanical damage to the bottom of the root canal (which is
extremely thin) plus other steps to maximise the probability that the
tooth, at least mechanically can be saved. It involves working
accurately to a fraction of a millimetre and and great care over the
use of fairly toxic chemicals to sterilise the work area in the tooth.
This procedure took over two hours and then there were follow up visits
for the work to implement a crown. That's the clinical reality, and
no trade association is going to be able to make a difference to it.

You have the wrong end of the stick. This isn't about helping the
dentist do the work quicker, but getting him paid a proper fee.

That would be another way. The NHS has been unable to achieve this in
over ten years of trying, so it's not likely that it will be managed in
the forseeable future.




Take the money and bodge it?
Decline that patient?
Do the job well enough and make a loss?
Most do the second (ie they decline all NHS patients).

As they should/

A conscientious one will do the third.

Why? Why should any dentist treat some patients at full price and
others at a loss - assuming that he does exactly the same for all?

Because they have a pride in their work.

ROTFLMAO!!!





It isn't reasonable for the patients who are paying full price to
subsidise those who are not.

I suspect the dentists secretly believe that the mugs who are paying to
go private are paying a "voluntary subsidy" to the others.

In your dreams.....


And bad dentists the first.

Which is why one should clear of NHS dentists.

Of bad ones, yes.

Well..... th good ones sure as hell aren't doing NHS work

On 2008-06-21 22:34:06 +0100, Roland Perry said:


If they stick to the Porsche and 5-bed executive house lifestyle that
dentists were accustomed to in the 70's, viability is certainly an
issue.

Please explain to me why a dentist should take a reduction in lifestyle
because the NHS is unable to run its affairs properly.

On 2008-06-21 22:23:53 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485cb360@qaanaaq, at 08:53:04 on Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Leaving aside the financial aspect, there are much better uses of time
than trips to the post office to spend 20p posting a letter.

That merely shows how extremely narrow your experience is.

On the contrary, the boot is on the other foot. It's a limited view
to be thinking of the lowest financial expenditure to have the lowest
cost when all factors, including how time are taken into account.

The majority of people have a fixed income, in the sense that their
salary is the same however many hours they work. Only the self
employed, or those who own companies (which amounts to the same) have
the luxury of being able to make a real tradeoff between time and
earning potential.

For everyone else, an hour spent saving £5 is just as useful as an hour
spent earning £5.

You have a very limited view.

There are certainly people with variable incomes where this is directly
or loosely related to hours invested. There are others whose income is
based on achievement of certain MBOs.

Generally it is those whose income does vary based on results, who are
the most able to manage their time properly and optimise where they
spend time or spend money to achieve their objectives.

It would be good if everybody were remunerated in that way.

On 2008-06-21 22:19:52 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485c352a@qaanaaq, at 23:54:34 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
However, it would be surpring to hear of anyone wanting to go to London
willingly and spend most of the day hanging around while civil servants
do their stuff.

So realise your passport needs renewing before it's too late, and post
it! Also, London may not be your nearest office. Mine is probably still
the Peterborough one, only an hour away.

Sorry. That doesn't work if the passport is needed for a trip
somewhere each week. Renewal by post takes an indeterminate time.
I've never had a reason to go to Peterborough.

On 2008-06-21 22:11:59 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485c2ffa@qaanaaq, at 23:32:26 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:
Called consular agency who collected documents in the morning and
delivered the renewed passport in the afternoon of the same day.
This is just a "I can afford lots of dosh to get people to do things
at my beck and call" competition, isn't it?

Not really. It's a straightforward cost comparison between writing
off a day visiting the Passport Office and paying someone else to do so

It was a rush job then? My passport renewals have been by normal post,
even though I once worked half a mile from one of their offices. They
only did callers by appointment.

So the consular agencies make booked sets of appointments and deal with
the bureaucrats. Meantime, I can spend my time doing something more
gainful.

On 2008-06-21 22:16:37 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message 485c30df@qaanaaq, at 23:36:15 on Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Andy
Hall remarked:

The sorting office is at the Post Office.
That's fairly unusual, but I do know of a few like that.

They may be seaparate organisations but have the same bad public sector
culture of the past.
Don't they have a separate queue for the sorting-office stuff?

Yes. Outside and wih no shelter or nearby parking.

How long is the queue normally?

On one occasion, over 30 mins in the rain.

- Return of goods purchased on line. I now favour suppliers who a
have a return arrangement where the goods are collected.
Which they charge you for in the general price of their goods. But if
that's affordable for you, then who are we to criticise how you spend
your money.
This isn't the issue. If they sell defective goods, then they should
be dealing with that problem.
A lot of the time, so-called "defective" goods are people buying the
wrong thing, not being able to find out how it works etc. The cost of
sending all those back by super-courier affects all buyers.

So make a charge for such collections. It isn't hard.

So "dealing with the problem" of defective goods involves getting the
customer to pay for exotic courier services??

There's nothing exotic about having some guy in a van showing up to
collect, any more than it is for them to deliver.



he product offerings are presented as something suitable for people
who haven't used them before - somewhat insulting to their
intelligence.
Not everyone is as clever as you.

I don't think it's a matter of being clever, simply avoiding being taken in.

It amounts to much the same thing.

I read some while ago that something like 95% of the population have
bought a Lottery ticket at least once. I was shocked. Why on earth
would people want to pay tax voluntarily?

Much the same as they pay tax when playing bingo, or at the races.

It seems that the first of those is on the way out, I don't know about
the second.