"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

The question is why don't people here want to train for this
profession? Working conditions perhaps?

Something I wouldn't like to do.

Your ridiculous notion of just going private and then all will be solved
is
very silly. All it will mean is that rich people benefit over the poor.
It simply means freedom of choice.

The midwives will be tempted over to the private sector at the expensive
of
the real sector.

... and why would they be tempted? Better pay and conditions? WHy
should they be restricted to where they can work?

You just can't get a point can you. All this private Tory balls is still
swishing around you noggin.

In article ,
says...
Of couse.

I always amuses me when semi-troll lefties like yourself can provide no
back argument.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article ,
says...
Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same furniture around the
same room. duh!

You clearly have no idea about how the world works.

A tax break would reduce strain but would not be attractive enough for
everyone to leave the NHS.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article ,
says...
It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.
Your ridiculous notion of just going private and then all will be solved is
very silly. All it will mean is that rich people benefit over the poor.
The midwives will be tempted over to the private sector at the expensive of
the real sector.

This is a school boy error.

You do not train Midwives overnight but overnight you do persuade them
back into the profession by offering market levels of remuneration.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article ,
says...
A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish
Costa's. They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they MAKE
MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is stupidity.
The standards are always lowered.

Rubbish. 99% of the time the standards are enhanced.

It does. You have to slowly introduce outsourcing, so skills and
re-trained.

Lovely leftie notion.

They are! Through the drugs I buy, prescribed by the NHS, I pay fro SKB
parachutes.

No you don't, you pay the standard prescription charge. If the NHS
happens to have badly organised the prescription proceedures than its
down to them. Occassionally in the past I've had a private prescription
and it's been cheaper.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article ,
says...
snip drivel

Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.
Your ridiculous notion of just going private and then all will be solved
is
very silly. All it will mean is that rich people benefit over the poor.
The midwives will be tempted over to the private sector at the expensive
of
the real sector.

This is a school boy error.

You do not train Midwives overnight but overnight you do persuade them
back into the profession by offering market levels of remuneration.

I have a relative who is a midwife fro the NHS, and she is paid fine. Never
appears short of money and take very expensive hols, etc. If the private
sector expanded and required midwives they would temp the existing widwives,
who are not in a free market of pay. You don't get it do you?

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same furniture around
the
same room. duh!

You clearly have no

snip drivel

Please use some logic.

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
snip drivel

Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.

Brainwashed illogical drivel, is drivel and worth of taking stock of. Just
like what you come out with.

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish
Costa's. They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they
MAKE
MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is
stupidity.
The standards are always lowered.

Rubbish.

snip drivel, when there is firm evidence to prove otherwise.

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
Of couse.

I always amuses me when semi-troll lefties like yourself can provide no
back argument.

You clearly have no objectivity, being brainwashed by right wing views that
all private is brill, when that clearly is not the case.

Look at the big picture. Find out who own and runs the Uk, and for whose
benefit, which is not you and me. Read Who Runs Britain by Paxman and Who
Own Britain by Cahill. Understand them and then you will see a ruling class
of people who think they have the almighty right to rule, or heavily
influence matters and live the life of Riley to boot, while excluding others
(you and me). Voting Tory is shafting yourself, your family and friends.

Sausage King wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip drivel


Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.


Yo sausage. You wandered in here from UK-lea?

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Sausage King wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip drivel


Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.

Drivel is just that! Plain drivel with no brain attached to it.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:54:44 -0000, Sausage King
wrote:

In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

Obviously not enough to entice more into the profession.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Private medical care is a misnomer. The correct term is: Let us balls
up the simplest operation because we know the NHS will bail us out as
the hozzie of last resort.

Another item on the
news today was the industrial action by job centre staff and others in
that category. A public servant's starting salary mentioned earlier in
the day was just over £9,000, so it's no wonder they're out on strike.
How can the fourth richest country (so called) allow this to continue?

Life has winners and losers. Sounds terribly harsh but should they
strike simply because they are low paid?

Because that is what striking is all about - to improve one's lot when
all other negotiations have failed. Would you make strikes illegal?
Maggie Thatcher tried very hard to do so and look where it got her! If
you don't want to make strikes illegal, then logically you must
support striking workers.

Whilst I believe in freedom

Good. That includes the freedom NOT to work, yes?

I
also believe that those people went into those low paid jobs on low pay.

Well, stap me if I don't roll about laughing, but could that be
because they were not being offered high-paid jobs at higher pay?

If they had all gone in at £30k then had their money cut to £9k I could
understand.

Big of you!

And then wonder why we can't get the staff and increasingly have to
rely on people from countries far worse than ours but who are willing
to work for a pittance.

This has always been the way since slavery...

....ah, slavery! Let's shed a tear.

Adam Crozier, Royal Mail boss on the other hand gets a basic (basic!)
salary of half a million quid! The top people in many other industries
receive similar huge sums of dosh. I'd say, a couple of hundred grand
should be enough for anybody.

Why though?

Can you spell g-r-e-e-d? Can you understand f-a-i-r p-l-a-y? Just what
added value does one man bring to the business by earning fifty, yes
FIFTY times the rate of the low-paid worker? Doesn't that strike you
as a massive imbalance which is completely unfair and foments digust
and loathing in the workforce, which inevitably will eventually go out
on strike to get the fair play it deserves? And who picks up the tab
for the income support which helps low-paid families to get by when
they are faced with the excessive rises in stealth taxes? That's
right, the people earning just a bit more. Certainly not upper
management. Do you think that people like Crozier would leave the
country if they had to pay just a little bit more tax on their vast
earnings? Do you think if they did that Britain would have no other
fairer-minded managers willing to occupy key posts for less?

Typical left view (not that I am saying that that is wrong
in itself if you can back it up).

So if it's not wrong, why the pejorative "typical"? Sounds like you're
on the right, but I won't hold that against you.

Adam's salary should be set at a
level which he would earn in the next best employment (opportunity cost)
for this is the way of the free market.

It's not a free market! It is rigged in favour of the big
corporations. What is free about Tesco, ADSA, and Sainsbury's to
decimate the High Streets of Britain, force nearly all food shopping
to be undertaken by car, lobby for Sunday opening and ruin the one day
off a week, and turn Britain into a 24/7 consumer society? Anyone in
their right mind would see that British society has become more hectic
and less caring over the past ten years, and that is because we work
the longest hours in Europe often for a pittance. The corporations,
aided and abetted by their Government lackeys, are to blame for the
sorry state in which we live.

Are you the communist who would cap earnings at a couple of hundred
grand?

I'm not anything except an ordinary member of the public who likes
some things from Labour, others from the Tories, but will vote Liberal
Democrat. If you had a referendum tomorrow, what do you think the
proportion would be of those supporting a reduction in high earnings
to benefit low-paid workers or employ more midwives?

So while managers everywhere are getting paid what I believe to be
excessive remunerations, plus perks, share options, and golden
goodbyes, we do not have enough staff to run a vital part of the NHS!

A third of my family are employed by the NHS and I can only agree.
However, nothing will be done on the back of strikes.

How else will any advance be achieved? You must think that employers,
the Government, big corporations will suddenly be assailed by an
attack of guilt! How do you negotiate an advance from £9,000 to, say,
£12,000 (a minmally reasonable wage) if the employer simply tells you
to eff off? Employers are cheating the better paid by relying on their
tax take to pay for income support, whereas if the employers could
only, just possibly, stop feathering their own nests quite so
luxuriously, there'd be more to pay the low-paid workers and less
income support required. So it comes down to greed, pure and simple,
on the part of corporations, mainly the larger ones. Family businesses
are somewhat different because the boss knows the workers personally
and he, the boss, has a local reputation to maintain. But once
coporations get so large that the management starts occupying the
ivory towers, any connection to the actual workforce, without which
the whole business would be screwed, is lost.

Neither Gordon's nor Olive's sums add up at all.

But do people care?

Well, I do. I am 58 and I'm still waiting for Britain to become
anything like a decent country, having lived for many years abroad.

If that many people were bothered about our friend Brown he would be out
tomorrow.

Apathy. Wait until the vast mountains of personal debt, encouraged by
the big four banks, come crashing down and you will see the public in
revolt that will make the poll tax seem like a vicar's tea party.
Ordinary people don't seem to realise that they are going to LOSE
THEIR HOUSES! In their thousands. But that's okay if one's been
"earning" £500 grand and managed to save a few bob.

MM

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:05:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

That is a thoroughly obnoxious suggestion as it is tantamount to
supporting theft. The third world, mainly, will have sacrificed a good
deal in order to train nurses presumably for their own needs, and
Britain, that once great colonial paragon, then poaches them! This is
fair? No, it bloody well is not! Anyone who suggests this course of
action needs a lesson in removing the beam from his own eye first.

The question is why don't people here want to train for this
profession? Working conditions perhaps?

Them, and low wages. But also a lack of any will to achieve in the way
we in Britain stumble from one year to the next, from one decade to
the next. We have been stumbling along, almost since the end of World
War II. I think we are a nation which does not like thinking. We are
too content to wallow in an inferior quality of life and make it seem
better by buying lots of booze and drugs. We probably don't want to
become midwives, because, well, babies are messy little things, aren't
they? All covered in blood and gore when they pop out! Who wants to do
something useful when it's far easier to work in a call centre or
stack tins of beans in Tesco's? It's our attitude to life that is the
problem. We are without ambition. And all the while we have the
"insurance policy" of the third world to call upon to do the jobs
don't want to do, we'll be okay, won't we, won't we...?

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:56:45 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:34:10 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andrew" wrote in message
...
In article , IMM

writes

A sad case of brainwashing here. The economy is the best it has been
in
living memory.

Thanks to Maggie ....

snip drivel

That the best you can do? It wasn't drivel. It was right on the money.
Shame you cannot add some useful comments.

What you said was only worthy of contempt.

At least you didn't snip it!

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:01:54 -0000, Sausage King
wrote:

In article ,
says...
But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return. It is greed, pure and simple. A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks, while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt. If
the chancellor levies another windfall tax on such avaricious
behaviour, I for one will cheer loudly. Maybe once day the shysters
will realise that if they play fair with the public, there won't be a
need to levy windfall taxes.

So should hard work not bring it's own rewards?

And do you really believe that everyone in an organisation that makes
thousands of pounds a minute is being handsomely rewarded? If not, why
not? They all contribute, don't they? At least Bill Gates made
millionaires out of tea ladies, even though his software is full of
holes.

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:57:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

What is the justification for this? Do shareholders plant wheat or
rice? Do shareholders weld or build? No, they prefer to exploit the
workers, and then pay them a pittance, and then have the gall to
grumble when the workers revolt.

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:44:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong.

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

The self-employed? How come thousands of small businesses can provide
a useful service, both to their customers and themselves, with no
shareholders involved?

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:05:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

That is a thoroughly obnoxious suggestion as it is tantamount to
supporting theft. The third world, mainly, will have sacrificed a good
deal in order to train nurses presumably for their own needs, and
Britain, that once great colonial paragon, then poaches them! This is
fair? No, it bloody well is not! Anyone who suggests this course of
action needs a lesson in removing the beam from his own eye first.


So it's fair and reasonable for the workers of Britain to want to improve
their lot, by striking or whatever, and but unfair for a foreigner to do the
same by moving to somewhere they can get better pay and conditions?

I suggest you take a long hard look at the rest of your series of ridiculous
posts too, hypocrite.

Mal

In article , Mike
Mitchell wrote:
So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

But Labour are. The problem is in ensuring that the money goes into
"front line services" rather than non or inessential jobs. I suspect
that Gordon Brown is as outraged as the Daily Mail by some of the
jobs that appear in the Guardian public sector ads. When I worked for
a LA BCO jobs would be kept empty for months at a time whilst
Personnel and Management Services relentlessly grew.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On 16 Feb 2004 22:24:29 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Mike Mitchell writes:
On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion!

So what?

The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003.

So what?

This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

It's not up to you to decide. Nor politicians.

Correct. The people will decide. And then the politicians will take
note, as did the Tories in 1997, even though they were well past their
best before date in 1992.

It is greed, pure and simple.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

A few very highly paid
managers are obtaining vast salaries and perks,

So that's not profit, then, is it? Make up your mind.

You don't pay wages and salaries from profit! Profit is what you have
left after all your other outgoings! Goodness me, no wonder the UK has
so much personal debt! No wonder the managers pull the wool over our
eyes!

while the citizens are
enticed by beautifully made adverts to get ever deeper into debt.

Ah, so you know *so* much better than they do how to run their lives?
Isn't that a tad, er, patronising? Are you a Labour politician?

What, then, is the point of advertising if not to influence consumers?
Advertisers obviously feel they have the right to persuade people to
run their lives differently, don't they? Curiously, the difference
sought always involves money passing one way - from the consumer to
the company doing the advertising! Funny, that.

If
the chancellor levies another windfall tax on such avaricious
behaviour, I for one will cheer loudly.

So, you'd rather the money was in Gordon Brown's swag bag than your
pension?

If it's in Gordon's swag bag, then there's more chance of it being
used to benefit those in society who need it more. As long as the
avaricious keep it all to themselves, there's NO chance! Also, it
sends a valuable lesson to the greedy *******s around us: Stop it and
we will not be so hard on you next time!

Maybe once day the shysters
will realise that if they play fair with the public, there won't be a
need to levy windfall taxes.

Utter garbage.

Oh, dear! Nothing left in the box marked "adult debate", then! Of
course, if your ammunition's got wet or you've run out, the best thing
you could do is get it over with and succumb to the stronger argument.
The fair-minded will always understand the cross you had to bear
before you ran out of ideas!

MM

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:39:58 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...


But it's much more
difficult to persuade thousands of families to move, with all the
concommitant issues of work, relatives, roots, schooling, friends to
take account of.


Not difficult at all. It was done in the 1950's, they were called "new
Towns" and moved many thousands of mainly young people from overcrowded
urban conditions to rural areas where work was made available.

And then the factories closed, businesses were privatised, people lost
their jobs, houses were repossessed, and High Street shops closed
down.

Then we were
stupid enough to build more council houses in the urban areas and provide
cheap taxpayer funded transport, surprise, surprise, you get the overcrowded
urban living conditions of today.

Where else would you have built them? On greenfield sites miles from
anywhere? Which would have *required* cheap taxpayer funded transport
to move the workers to where the factories were - in urban areas -
since the occupiers of those homes would patently have been unable to
buy cars.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:44:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong.

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

The self-employed? How come thousands of small businesses can provide
a useful service, both to their customers and themselves, with no
shareholders involved?

MM

They are the shareholder. They will try to maximise their own return.

Mal

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:07:00 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:05:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:52:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




It is. There are only so many midwives. You don't train them overnight.

They can be recruited from overseas just as they are to an extent now.

That is a thoroughly obnoxious suggestion as it is tantamount to
supporting theft.

What a silly idea.

The third world, mainly, will have sacrificed a good
deal in order to train nurses presumably for their own needs, and
Britain, that once great colonial paragon, then poaches them!

Quite a bit of training happens in the first and new worlds anyway,
and why should people be prevented from going to work in a different
country?

This is
fair? No, it bloody well is not! Anyone who suggests this course of
action needs a lesson in removing the beam from his own eye first.

Strange and inapplicable analogy.


The question is why don't people here want to train for this
profession? Working conditions perhaps?

Them, and low wages.

In a fundamentally broken public system.


But also a lack of any will to achieve in the way
we in Britain stumble from one year to the next, from one decade to
the next.

You might, but I certainly don't. It's a question of one's
attitude. As soon as collectivist descriptions and notions are
spplied to this type of issue the outcome will be poor, simply because
people then believe that it is the responsibility of the group or
somebody other than them to improve their lot. It isn't.

We have been stumbling along, almost since the end of World
War II. I think we are a nation which does not like thinking. We are
too content to wallow in an inferior quality of life and make it seem
better by buying lots of booze and drugs.

This is a very defeatist view of life and one which doesn't have to
be. Fundamentally, people are happier with less involvement from the
state in their affairs, yet the state seeks to increase its influence.


We probably don't want to
become midwives, because, well, babies are messy little things, aren't
they? All covered in blood and gore when they pop out! Who wants to do
something useful when it's far easier to work in a call centre or
stack tins of beans in Tesco's? It's our attitude to life that is the
problem. We are without ambition.

Some people are, and as long as the state bails them out will continue
to be.


And all the while we have the
"insurance policy" of the third world to call upon to do the jobs
don't want to do, we'll be okay, won't we, won't we...?

That isn't really the point, it is one of attitude and economics.



MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:17:04 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:44:25 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

Which is wrong.

No it isn't. It is the first objective of any business.

The self-employed? How come thousands of small businesses can provide
a useful service, both to their customers and themselves, with no
shareholders involved?

The proprietor or perhaps a small group of individuals are the
shareholder. The same principles apply



MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
says...
I have a relative who is a midwife fro the NHS, and she is paid fine. Never
appears short of money and take very expensive hols, etc. If the private
sector expanded and required midwives they would temp the existing widwives,
who are not in a free market of pay. You don't get it do you?

Sure I get it.

How do you know your relative does not borrow money?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article ,
says...

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same furniture around
the
same room. duh!

You clearly have no

snip drivel

Please use some logic.

Cite when I did not?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article ,
says...
Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.

Brainwashed illogical drivel, is drivel and worth of taking stock of. Just
like what you come out with.

There is no country in the world where extreme left has worked
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:14:24 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:57:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:00:56 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On 16 Feb 2004 02:41:39 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

Andrew writes:

If the banks can be hit with windfall profits taxes so can we.

I have another name for windfall taxes. Theft.

But the Royal Bank of Scotland will be announcing a profit this week
of £6 billion! The big four banks are reckoned to have made £50,000
EVERY MINUTE of 2003. This is not what I would call a reasonable rate
of return.

Why?

It is greed, pure and simple.

No it isn't. The objective of any business is to maximise
shareholder return.

What is the justification for this?

They are the investors in the business and quite reasonably expect a
return on their investment.


Do shareholders plant wheat or
rice? Do shareholders weld or build? No, they prefer to exploit the
workers, and then pay them a pittance, and then have the gall to
grumble when the workers revolt.

Oh dear. This kind of idealism disappeared long before the decline
of the former USSR. The few countries that still attempt to ply
this nonsense have corrupt regimes and the population live in abject
poverty. Homo Sapiens and planet Earth have largely moved on from
the failed experiment of communism.





MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
says...
You clearly have no objectivity, being brainwashed by right wing views that
all private is brill, when that clearly is not the case.

If you say so.

Look at the big picture. Find out who own and runs the Uk, and for whose
benefit, which is not you and me. Read Who Runs Britain by Paxman and Who
Own Britain by Cahill. Understand them and then you will see a ruling class
of people who think they have the almighty right to rule, or heavily
influence matters and live the life of Riley to boot, while excluding others
(you and me). Voting Tory is shafting yourself, your family and friends.

But the point is voting left is sometimes even more right.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

The trouble with this notion is that it is thinking only in a
simplistic way.

The more sensible approach would be to make the pie larger. Some
contributors to that will be those who run a business, others will be
those who have other roles. They are all important.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , says...
Sausage King wrote:

In article ,
says...

snip drivel


Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.


Yo sausage. You wandered in here from UK-lea?


Tis me!
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

The trouble with this notion is that it is thinking only in a
simplistic way.

The more sensible approach would be to make the pie larger. Some
contributors to that will be those who run a business, others will be
those who have other roles. They are all important.



Like a friend of mine (who owns a successful business) once said in response
to the kind of anti-businessman ranting we've keep seeing he

"When was the last time a poor person gave anyone a job?"

Mal

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:36:14 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



Okay, then. Try t-h-e-f-t. Understand that? Taking something that is
not rightfully yours. With six slices in a pie, the greedy person
always wants TWO slices, even if it means that someone gets NO slice.
It's all the same to the greedy person. Two slices seem totally fair.
Of course, most of us know different, as did our mothers if we had had
the benefit of a good and decent upbringing.

The trouble with this notion is that it is thinking only in a
simplistic way.

The more sensible approach would be to make the pie larger.

If the pie is not made larger then the greedy ******* always take two slices
and still doesn't care if someone gets nothing. The royal family and the
British aristocracy come to mind. There may be a recession, but if the
tenant at farmer can't pay rent, out he goes.

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
You clearly have no objectivity, being brainwashed by right wing views
that
all private is brill, when that clearly is not the case.

If you say so.

Thank you.

Look at the big picture. Find out who own and runs the Uk, and for
whose
benefit, which is not you and me. Read Who Runs Britain by Paxman and
Who
Own Britain by Cahill. Understand them and then you will see a ruling
class
of people who think they have the almighty right to rule, or heavily
influence matters and live the life of Riley to boot, while excluding
others
(you and me). Voting Tory is shafting yourself, your family and
friends.

But the point is voting left is sometimes even more right.

You are confused. Every tried therapy?

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any
water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter
arguement.

Brainwashed illogical drivel, is drivel and worth of taking stock of.
Just
like what you come out with.

There is no country in the world where extreme left has worked

I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.

There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
Nothing is solve at all. It is just shuffling the same furniture
around
the
same room. duh!

You clearly have no

snip drivel

Please use some logic.

Cite when I did not?

I did.

"Sausage King" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
says...
I have a relative who is a midwife fro the NHS, and she is paid fine.
Never
appears short of money and take very expensive hols, etc. If the
private
sector expanded and required midwives they would temp the existing
widwives,
who are not in a free market of pay. You don't get it do you?

Sure I get it.

How do you know your relative does not borrow money?

Or rob banks too.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:51:15 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:54:44 -0000, Sausage King
wrote:

In article ,
says...
However, tonight the Trevor McDonald programme on ITV had a piece
about the dreadful lack of midwives in the UK and the effect this is
having on births all over the country. Apparently we are 10,000 (ten
thousand!) midwives short. The midwives that there are are having to
work long hours to cope with the pressure.

For which they get more money than other people in similar professions.

Obviously not enough to entice more into the profession.

So, if anything, both Labour and the Tories should be ploughing in
*more* taxpayers' money into the NHS, not less.

Why not just introduce better tax breaks for people wishing to take
private medical care...?

Private medical care is a misnomer.

Only in your mind

The correct term is: Let us balls
up the simplest operation because we know the NHS will bail us out as
the hozzie of last resort.

That's a strange idea and is a long way from the truth.

Over the past five years I've had occasion to need to use secondary
healthcare with respect to four different issues. None of them would
have been regarded as immediately life threatening in the acute sense,
although one would be if untreated in the long term and two required
surgery. None would be regarded as elective or cosmetic conditions
either, all resulting in some impact on quality of life.

I would not have been able to obtain a consultation for any of them,
let alone treatment in under a year by using the NHS, for two of them
almost two years. Appointments couldn't even be scheduled until 3
months ahead of the available dates.

I was able to obtain private consultation and treatment and follow up
in 4 weeks for three of the cases and 8 weeks for the other two - that
was simply because time needed to elapse before the follow up.
Appointments were scheduled when the physican was available of course,
but there was a lot of flexibility. I was able to make changes on two
occasions and only slip a week before the next available appointment.
The facilities, equipment, staff and treatment were beyond reproach -
all of the latest medical equipment etc.

In all of the cases, the consultants carry out both private and NHS
work, so it is not correct to say that one sector is robbing the
other. All of them said that the main limiting factor is
availability of supporting services, not consultant time.

I checked out the credentials of all of the consultants and surgeons
that I saw. It is reasonably easy to do so from the GMC web site and
then a search for the individual in terms of research papers and
clinical work that they have done. Each had published at least two
peer reviewed papers.

When one considered the hurdles to achieve accreditation to work at
this level, it is frankly amazing that people stay the course, but
they do. I talked to every single consultant and surgeon that I met
about this. All of them felt that it was important to make their
skills available to the public health service but they were too
frustrated by its limitations and bureaucracy to allow it to be their
sole source of work and income. In effect, most viewed the private
sector as a means to bring their income to an acceptable level and to
maintain their sanity. Sad but true.

If we look at the economics, again taking a personal example. I
don't mind commenting that I am reasonably well remunerated as
represented by what I can contribute to my company's business. As a
result, I contribute a lot into the state system by virtue of my
taxes, NI contributions and my employer NI contributions. These are
certainly a great deal more than I would take from the system, even if
I were using it. To a point I don't have a problem with that. In a
civilised society, I think it's reasonable to contribute for the needs
of others and perhaps for one's own needs in later life.

In order to achieve an acceptable level of service for healthcare I
turn to the private sector to provide it. The public sector could do
something but not in a timescale that is acceptable or useful.
To address that, my employer pays for health insurance. This is
hardly cheap at several £k per annum. From the financial
perspective, this is treated as further income and so the full gamut
of tax, employee and employer NI are addeed to it. In effect I have
to pay for about half of the cost out of net income. On top of this
there is insurance tax of another 5% IIRC.

So adding this all up, I am unburdening NHS facilities, I am providing
funding to a source of income for highly skilled clinicians who are
not able to derive an acceptable income from the NHS. Yet I get
penalised either deliberately or accidentally by the tax system.

I have no problem with contributing "over the odds" for the benefit of
others. However, I would like to see a return to me that is equal to
the value of a treatment under the NHS. In other words, if a
particular piece of treatment costs £3000 through the NHS, then I
should receive a voucher for that, or a substantial part of it which I
can either "spend" at an NHS facility or at a private one,
supplemented by insurance or cash..

For people who can't or don't wish to supplement their healthcare, the
state sector would then have more resources to provide treatment
because more of the population would be able to afford to seek
treatment part funded by themselves if they need it.
In terms of prioritisation of public sector services, those with life
threatening or seriously debilitating conditions would have more
resource available.

The problem comes in the present outdated notion of free treatment at
the point of delivery and trying to create a one size fits all
service. It doesn't work. The best that can be achieved is
mediochre treatment. Those who want healthcare faster and on a more
convenient basis are penalised, and those who are unable or don't wish
to pay for it draw a short straw as well.

It would be far more effecitve if a more open market were created and
people could choose what they want to spend on healthcare vs. other
things. The current notion of over management of the available
resources to make sure that nobody gets more of the state pie than the
next man misses the point completely.

Resource should not go into the equipment for the groundsman to create
a level playing field but into the quality of the players and the
involvement in the game for the supporters.

The current NHS system is rotten to the core in terms of what is meant
to be a service for all. You can always tell how an organisation
wants to be viewed by its PR and marketing.

With respect to the NHS, two things spring immediately to mind.

- A series of radio commercials to entice nursing staff back to work
for them. The premise was that the person was grateful to the NHS
for providing care for her ageing mother. What a crock. For
something that is meant to be a public sector service, it is audacity
in the extreme to suggest that people should be grateful for what they
get

- Illuninated signs on the sides of cranes on construction sites.
What do they think they are doing spending money on that type of
nonsense? The only explanation is political humbug and correctness.
It certainly doesn't benefit any patients.

That is why I have no problem in making the proposition that the
current system and notion of it should be shut down and replaced with
something that addresses patient requirements rather than outmoded
dogma














..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl