In article , Andrew wrote:
But the banks could easily lose all their customers - it's a
free choice. The housing market is now effectively being driven
by the buy-to-let market. Great, everyone goes to Bristol & West
BS and is allowed to borrow enough to buy 5 houses for their
portfolio - what happens to house prices ?.

They go up, and then if/when there aren't enough tenants to go
round they will come down. The crunch will come when people who
have borrowed on multiple properties get hit by a rise in interest
rates and a shortage of tenants at which point they will have to
hit the eject button.

The good news is for tenants, and this government has had the good
sense to (for the most part) leave well alone. When I was a child
in the 1960's my father let out flats and 200 applications for one
flat was not unusual. Ours were pretty good by the standards of
the day (subsequently retrofitting washing machines and c/h kept
us busy for a number of years), but people were grateful to get
anything. Now if you don't provide what they're looking for
they're off to see another.

--
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

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:02:34 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

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?"

I suppose you think "businessmen" are our saviours, our gods, our
reason for living. Well, I do not. "Businessmen" have got out of hand
in a very big way and they need to be reined in. The public do not
realise what an Achilles' Heel consumers represent in terms of buying
power. If a company were boycotted for just a week, things would start
to look shaky. For a month, and it would be applying for Chapter 11.
This *is* actually starting to happen, but only in a fledgling manner
so far, with more and more people shopping on the internet, fed up
with being ripped off. Also, in Britain at least, consumers are
waiting until *after* Christmas to take advantage of the sales. They
are becoming wise to the wily ways of the "businessmen". And when the
company goes out of business because consumers became fed up with its
greed, its rip offs, its bad service, and its don't care attitude, the
company's workers will have something to say about it, too, because
they will be without a job. The free market rules, okay?

MM

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in that last post - but if you
don't like the current system, what do you suggest instead?

"Mike Mitchell" wrote
| The real thing to bring the price of houses down is to deflate
| the economy in London and the South-East and rejuvenate depressed
| areas. ...
| But it's a lot quicker, certainly in the interim, to build more
| housing wherever possible. You can have new housing available within a
| few months of planning decisions having been made.

Most of the housing estates I've seen being built take about a year to be
sunstantially completed to habitation. Add the need for a new sewage plant
or other major infrastructure, however, and it will take longer.

| 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.

But thousands of families are already moving as rural and 'northern' areas
are depopulating. It's only a few hours up the motorway FFS. There are
plenty of people willing to travel halfway round the world in a freight
container. Judging by how popular the tv programmes are, it seems that the
ambition of half the people in London is actually to move out of London.

Owain

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:20:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Mitchell wrote:


As for running my own small business, I was pushed rather than jumped.
Forced out of work by an unscrupulous employer not once but twice I
was encouraged to join the great unwashed of the IT industry -
wouldn't have gone self-employed if that hadn't happened.


"Unscrupulous" is synonymous with "employer" in my book. I wouldn't
cross the road to put the fire out in most cases.




Mmm. Never confuse he employer - the actual entity that owns the
business you work for - with the middle management tawt who has the
power to hire and fire you.

Middle managers are n a greasy pole climb. 99% of teh time they are here
because they want the extra salary, staus and power, not because they
have a clue about the job or teh first inkling of the fact that
management IS a job.

They are the Machiavellian princelings in the the country of the company.

Any employee is subcosnciously assessed on two basic parameters..nameley

(i) How much can this employee advance my career?

(ii) Whatt threat does this employee reprsent to me, in terms of me
being shown up to be relatively ignorant and useless?

Weka managers of this sort abound. A strong manager perceive no threat,
can handle criticism and admits mistakes.

Tony Bliar epitomizes a weak ambitious middle manager. Anyone who
disagrees with him, or makes him or hs government look shaky, is sacked.
Meanwhile he gathers a coterie of yes men and clever chaps around him
to blster his confidence and polish his image.

Until they et it wrong and have to go.

The difference between a strong manager and a weakone is very very sim0le.

The strong one is free to concentrate on getting the job done:
Analayisng the state of his part of the business, and working to improve
its efficiency and develop it in approprate directions.He is aslo
mindfu; of teh duty of care oqed to his employers - the shareholders -
and te staff.

A weak manager is preoccupied with gaining and maintaining his position.
To do this he feels (gernerally fairly correctly) that what is
important is creating and maintianing an illusion of competencey and
efficiency, not actally achieving it.

Of course ultimately such managers fail, or are promoted even higher to
get them out of the way (they probably have enough dirt on top
managements affairs with the tarts in typing) once the accountants have
been through the figures and worked out just how sloppy and inneficient
thay really are, or in other cases the whole company falls.

We will no doubt see sir Bliar, or Lord Bliar, in due course.

In a career of dealing wih such people I have learnt to recognise the
animal. The phrase 'no one ever got sacked for buying IBM' was invented
to describe them.



Best thing I ever did. No more of the corporate office politics for me
nor trying to climb greasy ladders for a 1% pay rise next year and
some **** writing stupid words on my performance evaluation.


Totally agree. Those ruddy appraisals year in, year out! Such a bloody
waste of time, but how good did they make management feel! Its one and
only annual attempt to meet the people.



Management hates them. It is however the one thing that they cannot
avoid. Its in the Bumper Book of What Managers Do.

Very few managers actually manage anything. Eeven if they have been on
management courses.

An admirable commentary!

MM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:45:21 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:


"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:02:34 -0000, "Mal"
wrote:

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?"

I suppose you think "businessmen" are our saviours, our gods, our
reason for living. Well, I do not. "Businessmen" have got out of hand
in a very big way and they need to be reined in. The public do not
realise what an Achilles' Heel consumers represent in terms of buying
power. If a company were boycotted for just a week, things would start
to look shaky. For a month, and it would be applying for Chapter 11.
This *is* actually starting to happen, but only in a fledgling manner
so far, with more and more people shopping on the internet, fed up
with being ripped off. Also, in Britain at least, consumers are
waiting until *after* Christmas to take advantage of the sales. They
are becoming wise to the wily ways of the "businessmen". And when the
company goes out of business because consumers became fed up with its
greed, its rip offs, its bad service, and its don't care attitude, the
company's workers will have something to say about it, too, because
they will be without a job. The free market rules, okay?

MM

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in that last post - but if you
don't like the current system, what do you suggest instead?

There are a number of points. The key point is, we in Britain are
being ripped off as no other country in Europe is. Every day some
price or other is increased, often by a percentage well above the
inflation rate. By "price" I mean anything that we pay for any good or
service, private or public. Rip offs are everywhere. Today the big
story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack of it for vast numbers of
the population and their need to go private. Do you know how much
private dentistry costs? It is exhorbitant beyond all measure. But
that is only one service that is beyond all reasonableness in its
pricing strategy.

Council tax is another extortion. Today, Rictus Raynsford has been
meeting representatives of 11 councils which plan to increase the tax
by far more than the Govt wants them to. Although Rictus has
threatened to cap councils, he will likely be told to back down
eventually so as not to rock the boat too much before the election.
That meeting today was probably so that the 11 reps could judge how
much of a pussy-cat old Rictus really is, so that they might see what
they could get away with by tickling his tummy a bit and saying the
right words. In any case, council tax for EVERYbody will be increased
by a rate far in excess of the inflation rate, but what choice do we
have? Oh, once every five years we can choose a new government - big
deal!

The British are not very good at managing money and think that somehow
the Govt will bail them out if their houses are repossessed. The
humungous increase in property values is out of all proportion to what
many ordinary workers can afford, and yet banks, building societies,
"independent" financial advisers are only too keen to let gullible
newbies borrow six, seven times their annual salary. Other homeowners
are taking out new loans using their houses as collateral. If and when
a crash comes, they will have to keep paying back the interest and the
amount borrowed, yet their houses may only be worth 75% of when they
took out that loan for a new car or a smart holiday. Even a 25% drop
won't sound too bad to many, but the point is, no one will be able to
sell even then.

All this is incredibly stupid, irresponsible and destined to leave a
hell of a lot of families destitute and homeless, but do the banks et
al care? Of course they don't! They stand to get the interest, the
loan paid back, AND the house!

But at least when that happens, the rip offs will finally cease as no
one will be able to afford anything except soup.

MM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:28:53 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:



There are a number of points. The key point is, we in Britain are
being ripped off as no other country in Europe is. Every day some
price or other is increased, often by a percentage well above the
inflation rate. By "price" I mean anything that we pay for any good or
service, private or public. Rip offs are everywhere. Today the big
story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack of it for vast numbers of
the population and their need to go private. Do you know how much
private dentistry costs? It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

Nope. It is the true cost of providing quality treatment.

If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs are not
excessive at all.

I haven't used an NHS dentist for over 20 years, but have some friends
who do. There is really no comparison in terms of the treatments
done, with the NHS trying to do it to a price. In the practice
that I go to, one or two of the junior associates do some NHS work,
but the partners certainly don't because they need to make a living.



The British are not very good at managing money and think that somehow
the Govt will bail them out if their houses are repossessed.

Speak for yourself.

The
humungous increase in property values is out of all proportion to what
many ordinary workers can afford, and yet banks, building societies,
"independent" financial advisers are only too keen to let gullible
newbies borrow six, seven times their annual salary.

So why should people be mollycoddled?

Every offer or advertisement of a secured loan has a clear warning in
plain english about the implications,.


Other homeowners
are taking out new loans using their houses as collateral. If and when
a crash comes, they will have to keep paying back the interest and the
amount borrowed, yet their houses may only be worth 75% of when they
took out that loan for a new car or a smart holiday. Even a 25% drop
won't sound too bad to many, but the point is, no one will be able to
sell even then.

We've been there before several times. People need to manage their
affairs.



All this is incredibly stupid, irresponsible and destined to leave a
hell of a lot of families destitute and homeless, but do the banks et
al care? Of course they don't! They stand to get the interest, the
loan paid back, AND the house!

The borrower knows what the rules of the game are on the way in.



But at least when that happens, the rip offs will finally cease as no
one will be able to afford anything except soup.

MM

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
says...
The aren't leaving because of the money though !.
PS Like the population as a whole, the nursing profession is well into
its 50's and when they start retiring and collecting their fully
inflation proof pensions (which few private employers can afford) over
the next 5 years, who is going to replace them ?. The nursing profession
shot itself in the foot by going for graduate entry only. Now thousands
of very willing people find they can only work as nursing auxiliaries
with no chance of promotion.

Project 2000?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
a ticket to the Sausagefans.com feast

In article , IMM
writes

"Andrew" wrote in message
Replacing the three that were there before

Their were no tiers as they didn't need to add up the cost of operations.
There was no need.

********.
From 1974 on there were :-
13 Regional Health Authorities (e.g. North East Thames), each RHA with
-
many Area Health Authorities (e.g. City and Hackney Area Health
Authority), each AHA with -
several District Health Authority, each of which generally had no more
than 1 hospital, e.g. St.Bartholomews and The Royal London Hospital were
both in the City & East Lunnon AHA, but were in different Health
districts so no (theoretical) competition for resources.
On top of that was the Min. of Health itself, so actually 4 tiers.
Despite this GP's had virtually no contact with the DHA's.
I worked for the NHS from 1971 to 1984, so I do know my facts; you
clearly cannot stand being proved wrong and resort to snip drivel

--
Andrew

In article , Tony Bryer
writes
In article , Andrew wrote:
But the banks could easily lose all their customers - it's a
free choice. The housing market is now effectively being driven
by the buy-to-let market. Great, everyone goes to Bristol & West
BS and is allowed to borrow enough to buy 5 houses for their
portfolio - what happens to house prices ?.

They go up, and then if/when there aren't enough tenants to go
round they will come down. The crunch will come when people who
have borrowed on multiple properties get hit by a rise in interest
rates and a shortage of tenants at which point they will have to
hit the eject button.
Except that this invariably hurts people and even the economy since
the well-being of the latter is unfortunately linked to the 'health'
of the house builders (unlike Germany). Any genuinely democratic
government that pays attention to all segments of the population (and
that includes first time buyers in Devon and Cornwall, not just those
who were lucky enough to get aboard the ladder when prices were less
than the current multiple of avg. earnings) cannot just stand back and
do nothing. This is a classic case of fiddling while Rome is
burning.

The good news is for tenants, and this government has had the good
sense to (for the most part) leave well alone. When I was a child
in the 1960's my father let out flats and 200 applications for one
flat was not unusual. Ours were pretty good by the standards of
the day (subsequently retrofitting washing machines and c/h kept
us busy for a number of years), but people were grateful to get
anything. Now if you don't provide what they're looking for
they're off to see another.

And now their rent is paid for by Housing Benefit ! - another example
of the great British scam.
--
Andrew

In article , Owain owain41276@sti
rlingcity.co.uk writes
There are
plenty of people willing to travel halfway round the world in a freight
container. Judging by how popular the tv programmes are, it seems that the
ambition of half the people in London is actually to move out of London.
And after 01/may/04 half of eastern Europe may have the ambition to
replace them. How much is that going add to the housing benefit bill ?.
--
Andrew

PoP wrote in message ...

some **** writing stupid words on my performance evaluation.


Classically described as " not worth the hot air it was written on!"

Regards
Capitol

The Natural Philosopher wrote in message ...
Very few managers actually manage anything. Eeven if they have been on
management courses.


I disagree. Should be " especially if they have been on management
courses!"

Regards
Capitol

Huge wrote in message ...
I suggest he buggers off and lives in a Socialist Paradise somewhere.


No. He says he wants to live in the Euro zone.

Laughs!!

Regards
Capitol

Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...

Rictus Raynsford

I like that one!

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote in message ...
It is the true cost of providing quality treatment.

If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs are not
excessive at all.


I don't agree. The cost of private basic dental work is IME much lower in
the US than in the UK.(£1=$1.6) This seems to be as a result of a lack of
competition in private practice and much higher building etc overhead costs.
The UK is just not efficient at healthcare in any form which I have seen and
it seems to be related to the historic management practices of the
land-owning hierarchy, which are still practised today throughout all the
UK.

Regards
Capitol

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:20:09 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Andy Hall wrote in message ...
It is the true cost of providing quality treatment.

If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs are not
excessive at all.


I don't agree. The cost of private basic dental work is IME much lower in
the US than in the UK.(£1=$1.6)

Hmm. It wasn't very different when I compared recently with what
some friends were paying in Califormia.


This seems to be as a result of a lack of
competition in private practice and much higher building etc overhead costs.
The UK is just not efficient at healthcare in any form which I have seen and
it seems to be related to the historic management practices of the
land-owning hierarchy, which are still practised today throughout all the
UK.

Ah, that could be. Clearly it's another indicator for land reform,
specifically targetted at dentists in this case. A land value tax
scaled by the number of root canal treatments that they do.






Regards
Capitol


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:03:02 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I don't agree. The cost of private basic dental work is IME much lower in
the US than in the UK.(£1=$1.6)

Hmm. It wasn't very different when I compared recently with what
some friends were paying in Califormia.

And at present £1 = $1.9. Who thinks like me that the US economy is
not in good shape?

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:12:32 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:

Rictus Raynsford

I like that one!

Rectum Raynsford would be closer to the mark.

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

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

"Andrew" wrote in message
Replacing the three that were there before

Their were no tiers as they didn't need to add up the cost of operations.
There was no need.

********.
From 1974 on there were :-
13 Regional Health Authorities (e.g. North East Thames), each RHA with
-
many Area Health Authorities (e.g. City and Hackney Area Health
Authority), each AHA with -
several District Health Authority, each of which generally had no more
than 1 hospital, e.g. St.Bartholomews and The Royal London Hospital were
both in the City & East Lunnon AHA, but were in different Health
districts so no (theoretical) competition for resources.
On top of that was the Min. of Health itself, so actually 4 tiers.
Despite this GP's had virtually no contact with the DHA's.
I worked for the NHS from 1971 to 1984,

From 1984 onwards the admin increased, Thatcher wanted to cost everything
down to the last nail in order to sell off. You were not there when it all
happened. A terrible time for humanity when the Wicked Witch was in power.

"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.
| Nope. It is the true cost of providing quality treatment.
| If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs
| are not excessive at all.

If people have good teeth to start off with. I don't, and finding money for
serious treatment on the NHS could be difficult. Private care is simply
unaffordable. I don't want whitening, straightening, gold filling, crowning,
capping, or root canalling. I just want teeth that don't hurt and are
reasonably efficient for eating. And for a supposedly developed country that
really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Owain

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:12:32 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:


Mike Mitchell wrote in message ...

Rictus Raynsford

I like that one!

Yeah, well, I'd just like to see the ******* cry. Just the once!

MM

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:59:04 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 01:12:32 -0000, "Capitol"
wrote:

Rictus Raynsford

I like that one!

Rectum Raynsford would be closer to the mark.

At least you can see that almost permanent grin on his face. God only
knows (or maybe even He doesn't) what the little R's arse looks like.

MM

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:32:20 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

In article , Owain owain41276@sti
rlingcity.co.uk writes
There are
plenty of people willing to travel halfway round the world in a freight
container. Judging by how popular the tv programmes are, it seems that the
ambition of half the people in London is actually to move out of London.
And after 01/may/04 half of eastern Europe may have the ambition to
replace them. How much is that going add to the housing benefit bill ?.

Billions of pounds, they are all going to come and live in your street
and you are the one person who will pay for it all.

Life's so unfair, ain't it just!

MM

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

| If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs
| are not excessive at all.

If people have good teeth to start off with. I don't, and finding money
for
serious treatment on the NHS could be difficult. Private care is simply
unaffordable. I don't want whitening, straightening, gold filling,
crowning,
capping, or root canalling. I just want teeth that don't hurt and are
reasonably efficient for eating. And for a supposedly developed country
that
really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Owain

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:28:20 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Rectum Raynsford would be closer to the mark.

At least you can see that almost permanent grin on his face. God only
knows (or maybe even He doesn't) what the little R's arse looks like.

If that's your wish don't let me obstruct the view

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

Have you used private dental care?

I'm happy with mine.




| If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs
| are not excessive at all.

If people have good teeth to start off with. I don't, and finding money
for
serious treatment on the NHS could be difficult. Private care is simply
unaffordable. I don't want whitening, straightening, gold filling,
crowning,
capping, or root canalling. I just want teeth that don't hurt and are
reasonably efficient for eating. And for a supposedly developed country
that
really shouldn't be too much to ask.

Owain





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:35:03 -0000, "Owain"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.
| Nope. It is the true cost of providing quality treatment.
| If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs
| are not excessive at all.

If people have good teeth to start off with.

It does vary, but I had found that NHS treatment in early life had
left a legacy of poor quality restorative work.

Over a period of several years, as replacement fillings were needed,
they were done privately with much more time and effort being taken
and better materials being used.

I have required a couple of gold crowns in recent years and these are
an expensive proposition. On the other hand, to do the job properly
can be several hours of work so that is understandable.

With that all done, I have had a very stable situation for several
years. The focus is on care around teeth and keeping gums in good
order because after the age of about 40, more teeth are lost via gum
problems than by tooth decay itself.

I've found that nowadays it's unusual if the cost of my dental
treatment for a year, including hygienist visits etc. exceeds £200.
I consider that a worthwhile investment.

I don't, and finding money for
serious treatment on the NHS could be difficult. Private care is simply
unaffordable. I don't want whitening, straightening, gold filling, crowning,
capping, or root canalling.

There are always different options and some are more expensive than
others. However, to establish a good and stable situation does not
necessarily have to involve complex treatments.

I just want teeth that don't hurt and are
reasonably efficient for eating.

Fine, and that's a reasonable aim.. It doesn't look as though the
NHS is going to deliver that, though.

And for a supposedly developed country that
really shouldn't be too much to ask.

No it shouldn't, but all the time that provision is attempted through
a megalithic bureaucracy it won't be. There is too much money
collected on the way in and too little delivered at point of use.

Dentists have cut back NHS work en masse because it does not provision
sufficiently to do a proper job, and they can't make a decent living.


Owain



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In message , PoP
writes
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:03:02 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

I don't agree. The cost of private basic dental work is IME much lower in
the US than in the UK.(£1=$1.6)

Hmm. It wasn't very different when I compared recently with what
some friends were paying in Califormia.

And at present £1 = $1.9. Who thinks like me that the US economy is
not in good shape?

What US economy ?

It's only the fact that oil is priced in dollars which is keeping it
afloat
--
geoff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

Have you used private dental care?

Yes.

I'm happy with mine.

Ignorance is bliss. I hunt out NHS dentists.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:53:09 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Ignorance is bliss. I hunt out NHS dentists.


Nothing can be added to that......





..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:25:40 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

It does vary, but I had found that NHS treatment in early life had
left a legacy of poor quality restorative work.

The following is my true story.

When I was young I did not care properly for my teeth, and I'm rather
surprised that airport metal detectors don't indicate to the staff
that maybe the surgical gloves might need to be brought into
operation....

When I eventually started going to a dentist regularly it was an NHS
dentist. I stayed with him for about 15 years or so, feeling that I
was getting good treatment.

Eventually I moved to the midlands for a couple of years. I got
toothache and went along to the local NHS dentist. He immediately told
me I needed a couple of crowns fitted, and my contribution needed to
be some £250+. I let him fix my filling which was giving me a hard
time, and never went back to him.

I moved back down south and my family signed up with an NHS dentist.
Along I went, expecting the worst. Apparently I didn't need crowns at
all, but I could have them fitted if I wanted (sure....).

For practical reasons we changed to another NHS dentist after a couple
of years because one opened up in our locality. I've had a couple of
fillings since being there but nothing serious.

Last year that dentist became private and we were given the choice of
finding another dentist or going private. We chose the latter.

Now having jumped the fence I am a lot happier with the quality of
care I'm getting. The dentist really does seem to care about looking
after my teeth, I'm not just another on the production line. The cost
to me is not significantly different to what we had to pay under the
NHS (though it would be if we needed anything substantial).

So bottom line is that I'm very happy with private dentistry. I was
frogmarched into this rather than go by choice - but it has worked out
very well. I see no reason to go back to the NHS.

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:01:42 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

Ignorance is bliss. I hunt out NHS dentists.

Nothing can be added to that......

Oh I dunno. I can think of one or two quips....

PoP

-----

My published email address probably won't work. If
you need to contact me please submit your comments
via the web form at http://www.anyoldtripe.co.uk

I apologise for the additional effort, however the
level of unsolicited email I receive makes it
impossible to advertise my real email address!

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

I can vouch for that! Here there is no NHS dentist. There is only a
private dentist. Last year I paid £320 for root canal work on ONE
tooth! Last week I had an esitmate for the repair of one filling (not
the same tooth) in a 30-minute appointment: £60! Sixty quid just to
*repair* a filling! The dentist now has a price list on the wall, and
some of the prices would frighten off most people from ever going
anywhere near a dentist again. Oh, the hygenist costs £40 for a
descaling, i.e. about 20 minutes' work.

Rip-off, extortion, thoroughly unsupportable in the so-called
fourth-richest nation. Utterly ludicrous. Unlike that brave old Lady
from Devon however, we cannot refuse to pay when our teeth hurt.
Usurious private dentistry is taking advantage of pain. There is a
word for that, I believe.

MM

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:02:54 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

Have you used private dental care?

I'm happy with mine.

That's because you can afford it. No wonder Thatcher said there's no
such thing as society.

MM

"Mike Mitchell" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

I can vouch for that! Here there is no NHS dentist. There is only a
private dentist. Last year I paid £320 for root canal work on ONE
tooth! Last week I had an esitmate for the repair of one filling (not
the same tooth) in a 30-minute appointment: £60! Sixty quid just to
*repair* a filling! The dentist now has a price list on the wall, and
some of the prices would frighten off most people from ever going
anywhere near a dentist again. Oh, the hygenist costs £40 for a
descaling, i.e. about 20 minutes' work.

Rip-off, extortion, thoroughly unsupportable in the so-called
fourth-richest nation. Utterly ludicrous. Unlike that brave old Lady
from Devon however, we cannot refuse to pay when our teeth hurt.
Usurious private dentistry is taking advantage of pain. There is a
word for that, I believe.

MM

So what would a fair price have been, in your opinion?

Neil

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:00:27 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:28:20 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

Rectum Raynsford would be closer to the mark.

At least you can see that almost permanent grin on his face. God only
knows (or maybe even He doesn't) what the little R's arse looks like.

If that's your wish don't let me obstruct the view

What were you thinking of! Now clean your teeth immediately!

MM

"Andy Hall" wrote
| "Owain" wrote:
| | If people take care of their teeth properly, the ongoing costs
| | are not excessive at all.
| If people have good teeth to start off with.
| It does vary, but I had found that NHS treatment in early life had
| left a legacy of poor quality restorative work.

Yes, that's why I think the NHS should keep my teeth sorted out; they made
them what they are.

Dentists are paid a flat per annum rate for children, the idea is this will
encourage dentists to do preventative care so that expensive treatments are
not needed. Although dentists now concentrate on preserving natural teeth,
when faced with a nervous child patient and the dentist knows the patient
and family history is such that dental health will deteriorate again anyway,
extraction of deciduous teeth is a quick (for the dentist and the patient)
and cheap treatment, especially in the days when dentists could use general
anaesthesia for extractions. It also fosters a culture that the quick cure
for dental problems is extraction. The problem is that if deciduous teeth
are extracted the sockets are not properly formed in the jaw and the
permanent teeth can then grow squint.

| Over a period of several years, as replacement fillings were needed,
| they were done privately with much more time and effort being taken
| and better materials being used.

Unless you want non-amalgam fillings for appearance or particular health
concerns, the materials shoudl be the same. However the main criterion of
success and longevity of a filling is preparation of the cavity,
particularly dryness. The more time a dentist can take over this, the better
the filling will be. If you can get private dentistry fairly cheaply it
might actually work out cheaper than continual NHS renewal.

Owain

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:32:18 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:02:54 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

Have you used private dental care?

I'm happy with mine.

That's because you can afford it. No wonder Thatcher said there's no
such thing as society.

MM

It's a matter of priorities. My parents are both OAPs and are far
from being well off. They feel that medical and especially dental
care are important and also go for private dental care, sacrificing
other things.

To put a huge bureaucracy in between payment for and delivery of this
type of service adds no value at all. It's far easier and more
efficient for the patient to deal directly with the practitioner and
if there is an issue of financing it, for the patient to receive a
voucher from the government to cover all or part of the cost.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:31:12 +0000, Mike Mitchell
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:53:39 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Owain" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote
| Today the big story is NHS dentistry, or rather, the lack
| of it for vast numbers of the population and their need
| to go private. Do you know how much private dentistry costs?
| It is exhorbitant beyond all measure.

| Nope. It is the true cost of providing
| quality treatment.

Quality? Total "rip off" treatment. It is extortion.

I can vouch for that! Here there is no NHS dentist. There is only a
private dentist. Last year I paid £320 for root canal work on ONE
tooth!

That price is very low considering the amount of skill and effort to
do a root canal treatment properly. How long did the work take and
how many visits?

Last week I had an esitmate for the repair of one filling (not
the same tooth) in a 30-minute appointment: £60! Sixty quid just to
*repair* a filling!

That is also quite low. This isn't a hack job with Polyfilla.
The old material has to be carefully removed without removing healthy
tooth material unnecessarily; various materials, which are not cheap
are required to complete the job and shaping to achieve correct bite
has to be done. Not trivial work if done properly.

On top of this, the dentist has to pay for his equipment, a nurse, the
rent, the insurance,...... in the context of that £60 is not at
all expensive.


The dentist now has a price list on the wall, and
some of the prices would frighten off most people from ever going
anywhere near a dentist again. Oh, the hygenist costs £40 for a
descaling, i.e. about 20 minutes' work.

That's perfectly reasonable as well.



Rip-off, extortion, thoroughly unsupportable in the so-called
fourth-richest nation.

The rip off here is that you are expecting something for nothing.

Having an enormous bureaucracy to deliver what can be done perfectly
simply between patient and practitioner is what is unsupportable.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 20 Feb 2004 11:03:45 GMT, (Huge) wrote:

PoP writes:

[40 lines snipped]

So bottom line is that I'm very happy with private dentistry. I was
frogmarched into this rather than go by choice - but it has worked out
very well. I see no reason to go back to the NHS.

Me neither, and I'm perfectly happy with my private dentist.

The objection I have is that the State still collects the taxes to
pay for NHS dentistry, but cannot provide it.

.... or most other forms of healthcare.



In the same way they collect taxes to pay for police whose principal
function is now revenue collection, schools that do not educate (or
provide school trips - how dare they say they are 'in loco parentis',
prosecute parents who fail to send their children, then refuse to
act 'in loco parentis'?)

Absolutely.

I don't have a problem with contributing towards the benefit of others
through the medium of tax - that is part of being in a civilised
society.

With respect to healthcare, I am penalised several times over:

- employee NI contribution
- employer NI contribution

The state doesn't deliver usable healthcare so I use private treatment
via insurance for which my employer pays the premium.

- Income tax at highest marginal rate is due on the premium since it
is a benefit in kind.
- NI is due as well
- Insurance premium tax is also due.

So even though I contribute over the odds towards the broken NHS which
delivers me nothing of any use, I end up paying several times over for
letting the state off the hook as well.

That is iniquitous.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl