So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[Lxxx]

12 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Preserved for posterity.

Shameful.

Errrr reform costs money don't you know....

Well let's spend any extra money on reform then and stop bleating about more money for an organisation that has proved it doesn't know how to spend it wisely.

I used to work for a recruitment company in the UK that used to make a lot of money from an inefficient NHS who couldn't get their house in order. The people we used to deal with I wouldn't trust to run a bath yet they were in charge of running budgets which stretched into tens of millions of pounds. It was a sad indictment of where tax payers money was going and I'm sure there are many stories across the UK from industry sectors that deal with the NHS which would echo the same sentiments. It could take and take as much money as government would be wiling to give it and nothing would change, apart from more managers and bureaucrats all wanting to suck on the taxpayer teat. 

[RIchard Britten]

4 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Well let's spend any extra money on reform then and stop bleating about more money for an organisation that has proved it doesn't know how to spend it wisely.

I used to work for a recruitment company in the UK that used to make a lot of money from an inefficient NHS who couldn't get their house in order. The people we used to deal with I wouldn't trust to run a bath yet they were in charge of running budgets which stretched into tens of millions of pounds. It was a sad indictment of where tax payers money was going and I'm sure there are many stories across the UK from industry sectors that deal with the NHS which would echo the same sentiments. It could take and take as much money as government would be wiling to give it and nothing would change, apart from more managers and bureaucrats all wanting to suck on the taxpayer teat. 

Is it the fault of the NHS, or is the fault of successive Health Ministers, external consultants, boards of vested interest companies (who more often than not are politicians or linked to such politicians), etc who have been steering the bloat, thus rendering the NHS un-workable.

To say that the NHS is being destroyed by design is no real exaggeration.  I mean CHunt even wrote a book on how to disassemble the NHS so as to prepare it for privatisation.

[P.K.]

Just now, Lxxx said:

Well let's spend any extra money on reform then and stop bleating about more money for an organisation that has proved it doesn't know how to spend it wisely.

I used to work for a recruitment company in the UK that used to make a lot of money from an inefficient NHS who couldn't get their house in order. The people we used to deal with I wouldn't trust to run a bath yet they were in charge of running budgets which stretched into tens of millions of pounds. It was a sad indictment of where tax payers money was going and I'm sure there are many stories across the UK from industry sectors that deal with the NHS which would echo the same sentiments. It could take and take as much money as government would be wiling to give it and nothing would change, apart from more managers and bureaucrats all wanting to suck on the taxpayer teat. 

Dear oh dear oh dear.

Here is how it works.

In every organisation you will have a layer of quite exceptiona people.

You will also have a layer of useless people.

The exceptional pull the useless into the average which is why it is the average.

Your complaint about managers and bureaucrats waiting to suck on the taxpayers teat did make me laugh as in the same post you admit to working for an amoral organisation that was doing exactly that...!

Don't bother replying as nobody likes a hypocrite

[Lxxx]

1 minute ago, RIchard Britten said:

Is it the fault of the NHS, or is the fault of successive Health Ministers, external consultants, boards of vested interest companies (who more often than not are politicians or linked to such politicians), etc who have been steering the bloat, thus rendering the NHS un-workable.

To say that the NHS is being destroyed by design is no real exaggeration.  I mean CHunt even wrote a book on how to disassemble the NHS so as to prepare it for privatisation.

There's probably some merit in that I agree, which doesn't detract from the need for it to change and I happen to think a degree of privatisation is probably needed in certain areas. 

[RIchard Britten]

1 minute ago, Lxxx said:

There's probably some merit in that I agree, which doesn't detract from the need for it to change and I happen to think a degree of privatisation is probably needed in certain areas. 

Because that has worked for the railways right?

[Lxxx]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Dear oh dear oh dear.

Here is how it works.

In every organisation you will have a layer of quite exceptiona people.

You will also have a layer of useless people.

The exceptional pull the useless into the average which is why it is the average.

Your complaint about managers and bureaucrats waiting to suck on the taxpayers teat did make me laugh as in the same post you admit to working for an amoral organisation that was doing exactly that...!

Don't bother replying as nobody likes a hypocrite

I'll reply anyway.

The reason organisations in the private sector thrive off the taxpayer is because of the huge inefficiencies within the public sector. Exceptional people do not put useless people in key positions, but if they do, then they reform their internal procedures so as to minimise any damage that said useless people can do with sizeable areas of the budget. 

In my opinion the NHS should be run as a lean, professional, procurement organisation tasked with finding the best service at the best quality for the best price from the private sector, as and when needed for it's patients. 

[Lxxx]

8 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Because that has worked for the railways right?

Thatcher and successive governments went too far in privatisation of the railways in splitting it up into too many pieces, which meant the public sector owned the infrastructure but the private sector operator ran the trains. Which meant investment wasn't correlated and efficiencies weren't shared.

However I am still in favour of rail privatisation as what we see today in terms of service far outstrips anything that we saw under the old British Rail days.  

[P.K.]

3 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

I'll reply anyway.

The reason organisations in the private sector thrive off the taxpayer is because of the huge inefficiencies within the public sector. Exceptional people do not put useless people in key positions, but if they do, then they reform their internal procedures so as to minimise any damage that said useless people can do with sizeable areas of the budget. 

In my opinion the NHS should be run as a lean, professional, procurement organisation tasked with finding the best service at the best quality for the best price from the private sector, as and when needed for it's patients. 

A hypocrite and a Thatcherite!

Why am I not surprised....

Just for you hypocrite:

They starve the NHS of funds so parts of it can be hived off into the private sector. But, and this is key, only the most profitable parts. So Mr Average Voter ends up paying more in tax dollars for a reduced level of service. Because the most profitable parts are no longer supporting the rest.

The payoff for this slice of NHS cake are grateful donations into tory party funds - to ensure re-election next time.

Of course, average punter has seen part of their health service given away without their permission.

But if they can't afford to pay for private healthcare they probably don't vote tory so fuck 'em a la Margaret Thatcher....

[Barrie Stevens]

4 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

There's probably some merit in that I agree, which doesn't detract from the need for it to change and I happen to think a degree of privatisation is probably needed in certain areas. 

Privatisation of the UK NHS is well under way but not how you might envisage...Down on my manor many, many people now go for the more routine treatments at a private hospital paid for by NHS.

We have several private medical venues on my manor.

Springfield Hospital local to me I know is Australian and a lot of folk go there on the NHS. My sister had two new knees in there on the NHS and the consultant works at NHS major acute hospitals as well. They now have a private cancer hospital which takes NHS patients.

A neighbour went to Springfield Hospital (Chelmsford, Essex) for some four hours of ENT keyhole surgery on the NHS.

The same applies to NHS dentists now. My brother in law had several difficult teeth out at a private dental hospital all done by a surgeon on the NHS. This used to be done at Broomfield major acute hospital.

Down on my manor there are also "walk in" private GPs whose charges are just about affordable. "Baddow Hospital" is one such.

One does not get the luxury of private hospitals such as the full menu and wine list!...The food is NHS standard on a budget but you get a room like an hotel room, TV, bathroom/shower etc. The main thing is the more relaxed way of life in there.

The staff are not rushed off their feet and harassed. It is a calmer hotel-like atmosphere. I think the staff are better paid than in the NHS as well. The overall effect is that they have more time for you...

The private hospitals will only accept NHS patients if there are not too many complications. They do not have the facilities if it all goes horribly wrong or you have other conditions needing major acute care and expertise. I know someone needing new knees but the private hospitals will not take her due to potential complications such as heart and COPD...Even private cases if they go wrong must go to an NHS hospital for the specialist talent and equipment which the private sector does not have.

Another drawback, being private on the NHS you have a dedicated Doctor or Surgeon and if there is something up one doctor cannot attend another's patient...Your own Doc must come and see you.

 

 

 

 

[paswt]

41 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

Sadly no even close.  Turn out was around 72%, so around 28% didn't vote.

So by extension only around 35% of the electorate actually voted for Brexit.

And even if we are being pedantic, the "out" voters only won by a couple of percent.  Hardly a decisive landslide is it...

and  around less than 35% voted against 

[P.K.]

8 minutes ago, paswt said:

and  around less than 35% voted against 

Hardly a sweeping mandate though, was it?

I guess we're all forced to conclude that brexiteers are more gullible than the rest....

[P.K.]

This vote on the final deal has me puzzled.

If parliament votes against it do we stay in the EU or do we crash out with no deal?

[Barrie Stevens]

26 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Thatcher and successive governments went too far in privatisation of the railways in splitting it up into too many pieces, which meant the public sector owned the infrastructure but the private sector operator ran the trains. Which meant investment wasn't correlated and efficiencies weren't shared.

However I am still in favour of rail privatisation as what we see today in terms of service far outstrips anything that we saw under the old British Rail days.  

A lot of the UK rail service is owned by Abellio which is a subsidiary of Holland's version of the old British Rail and they use the profits made in the UK to subsidise the latter...In effect most of the UK rail is government owned and controlled one way or the other. Abellio is spreading itself around the UK as we write.

[Barrie Stevens]

I mean former. Abellio owns a lot of the UK rail services and uses the profits to subsidise the Dutch state owned rail system

[paswt]

8 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Hardly a sweeping mandate though, was it?

I guess we're all forced to conclude that brexiteers are more gullible than the rest....

What's this "all" cobblers.