Awwwww ....

I'll send you to the naughty step, young man ...

Ooooookaaaay.

Printing timetables is clearer and easier using the 24 hour clock. In the mass of thousands of numbers it's far more obvious that 0400 is very different to 1600 than seeing the 04.00am and 04.00pm.

But most people operate with the 12 hour clock. Very few people are going to tell you they'll pick you up at 1915.

The reason that all the train stations will have the 24 hour clock is that some of the old and slow brained still won't be able to quickly work out that 1915 is 7.15pm. The 24 hour clock is there to help them.

FFS will one of the mods please clear all the [is[/ihit off this thread?

We are looking at the destruction of a system of universal healthcare and we've got arguments about 12 or 24 hour time systems. I can tell the difference, I couldn't give a flying fook about whether anyone else can or not. I'm more concerned with seeing ever increasing elements of the NHS handed over to private, profit-driven entities

And back to the topic.

www.express.co.uk/news/health/41 ... ppointment

www.express.co.uk/news/health/41 ... ppointment

I got his opinion for nothing. I don't value it.

That was the front page story of the Express. A stupid survey from a medical magazine. No news today?

Its a very stupid idea from a group of people who should know better and who are merely financially motivated, any political party who picks up that particular baton will be signing their own death warrant for the next 50 years worth of elections (or would be if the opposition had any balls).

1. You already pay for your GP to consult with re: your health.

2. Force people to pay and you may drive away a small handful of time wasters but you'll also drive away vast numbers of genuinely ill patients, patients that those very same doctors are already being paid to look after.

3. A&E departments will become your city's doctors surgery, only difference is that they may only have the same number of doctors as your local doctors surgery, but there will be 100 times more people in the waiting room - and all the time your own doctor will be standing outside his surgery door scratching his and wondering how all of his patients suddenly cured themselves.


If GP's want to stop taking the NHS payments based on the number of residents in their catchment area then fine, let them go to a totally private system where you pay your doctor every time you need his/her advice (hint - it never worked well prior to 1946 and it won't again - it also didn't work out that well for dentists either), otherwise just do the bloody job we already pay you for.

As LGJM has already said, the "survey" is pi[is[/ispotical and the reporting of it is stupid in the extreme.

An on-line survey on the Pulse website, attracted 440 responses. Now it we are even to assume all respondents were GPs (they weren't), that still represents considerably less than 1% of the current number of licensed GPs. So around 0.3% of the registered GPswould like to introduce some form of charging. As for quality of responses, did the reporter not think some were more than a little tongue in cheek, hence the "£150 for solicitors and accountants”. I'm only surprised that respondent didn't include estate agents too.

Another Dally non-story

Who the hell believes anything in these papers?

[uOne doctor[/u suggests a means-tested payment up to £150 ... and what does the Sexpress print as a headline? "[size=150Doctors want you to pay £150 for an appointment[/size".

Lying bstrads.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23465966NHS Direct looking for a way out of Dial 111[/url

If it ain't broke fix it, then keep on fixing it 'til it is broke beyond repair

...or, "We can't make any money out of this public service anymore, here, have it back..."

What should be of concern is that NHS Direct ran the service and established the business model of filtering the emergency calls out of the tidal wave of other stuff and then found after renegotiating that there was no money to be made by sticking to the business model.

So how are the other two operators who nicked some of the business off them doing ?

[url=http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/articles/all/undercover-in-nhs-111We might find out at 8.00pm tonight[/url

Just listened to the story around this on [iThe World at One[/i on R4.
Apparently, they invited Hunt onto the programme but either he or his department turned them down, saying that the BBC should speak to NHS England.
So, it's OK for HMG to force the privatisation but when it fails it's NHS England's fault.
Bodes well for the future of the NHS in general doesn't it?

Some years back, I had cause to call NHS Direct in the evening (at about 20:00) and was impressed that they got me an appointment at the local hospital at 22:15 that same evening.
Mind you, I spoke to a clinically-trained professional straight away ... the privatised 111 service has to use non-clinically-trained call-centre staff in order to keep the costs down or they won't make a profit. (NHS direct was costing £20 per call, the privatised service can be £7-to-£9 per call).
I might be naive but I think I've spotted a flaw there.

I've only ever had cause to ring NHS Direct once, some years ago with my little kidney stone issue, although it wasn't me who was on the phone to them, I was bent over the toilet bowl throwing up with the pain = they too were very good, asked several questions and then re-assured my wife that I wasn't dying

and so it wouldn't be an emergency call-out but the next available, with hindsight it was handled very well and they were correct with their telephone diagnosis although it didn't feel like it from my viewpoint at the time - there was also the knowledge that the people who ran the service then were actually medically qualified, I'm not so sure I'd be so re-assured that I wasn't going to die if it happened now, not knowing that it could be a trainee on the other end of the line (see the link in cod'eads post).

And in "other NHS news", we have:

[url=http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/private-hospital-asks-govt-for-3-5m-loan-while-renewing-200m-contract/Circle Health requesting a £ multi-millions loan from the government[/url

Once again: state bad - private good eh?

Sounds like profit privatised whilst risk is socialised.
Also, there's an interesting link in that article to another article about Tory links to Circle Health.

I don't think it's sufficient for MPs to merely declare interests in the register, it should be completely prohibited for MPs with such interests to take any part whatsoever in the area for which they are being paid by outside interests.
There's a word for it ... corruption... and they are getting away with it.

Currently doing a spot of work on this: from memory, there are 76 MPs and around 200 peers with private interests linked to private health (this can include the likes of PR work for private health companies).

They're not barred from voting on something that they have personal financial interests in. Councillors are – but not MPs and peers.

They should have to mention their interest every time they speak on those topics and be barred from being on a committee or voting on topics around those interests.
I can't think of a good reason why it isn't that way already.

I can: private financial gain. And they'd have to legislate on it themselves.

I got that ... which is why I said "good" reason.

The phrase is "confrontational politics", its what our parliament is built on, the way its worked for hundreds of years.

The argument goes that in order to present a balanced view you have to have representatives from both sides to present those views and if an MP is employed by one of the interested parties then he's in a good position to present that point.

Where the wheel fall off is when a majority of MP's have business interests in various parties and whilst declaring them in a often ignored register, fail to mention the fact during debates and votes - everyone has an opinion on a topic and thats why we place them in parliament but technically they should be there to represent the majority of their constituents views, not the view of a secret paymaster.

Oh I imagine they think there's no better one.