miga

Agreeing with ?s on this. It ain't that great, the Tories aren't ogres, and the last thing they'll touch is holy NHS. It employs too many voters for a start. P.S. written from a queue where I'm waiting for my (rescheduled) 9.15 appointment at 9.40, eavesdropping on nurse Julie's weekend plans.

Ah...then we're talking about the same thing. Me neither. But then, I have no idea how these big monolithic organisations (NHS, big banks, Microsoft etc.) ever manage to get anything done....not for me.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga - not really convinced by many of your > arguments, no reason on earth why the NHS > shouldn't have efficient supply chains. You > suggest that the private sector has a more > streamlined workforce, but the government have > spent vast sums of money on consultancy to try and > achieve exactly this. So what is intrinsically > efficient about the private sector, that the NHS > cannot repliace? I didn't argue that the private sector is inherently more efficient, merely listed examples of how a private company can save money. On the whole, in terms of work benefits for like for like jobs, government employees have a better deal, surely this is not controversial? On the whole, private companies are more likely to link pay to performance, rather than group bargaining and pay scales? Surely this isn't controversial? On the whole, in the services sector, a private company should have more flexibility to fire/hire than a government department, the NHS etc.? And re: supply chains - look further up in the thread and you'll see examples of discrepancy within NHS on what is paid for same things. You mention vast sums government have spent (and continue to spend) on consultancy to make processes more efficient. I would say that's one of the problems - NHS is so vast and complicated that there is this inherent layer of external consultants built into the price of service delivery. The multi-billion IT debacles of the last decade spring to mind when it comes to good money after bad. However, I followed on to say said that ultimately it's not about a simplistic public/private division but about getting best outcomes. So, let's turn this and say what is inherently efficient about the public NHS that the private sector couldn't replace, and what causes such palpitations when it's even broached?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know this is simplistic thinking, but I just > don't get how outsourcing services to profit > making companies can possibly be better value. The > private sector doesn't possess some sort of magic > which allows them to deliver a better service at a > cheaper price AND also make a profit. Examples of ways private companies can save money: employing fewer people, fewer employee benefits than state for state employees, using pre-existing supply chains, being more stringent about worker productivity (linking it to pay). But as ???? said before, it's not the method of delivery (public or private) that people should be hung up about, but the quality of the outcomes. This of course imagines that for any services there exist multiple private providers that can step in and compete on price. The worst outcome for PPP, AFAIK, is being stuck with one private supplier/provider and them holding you to ransom over costs.

Ah, now I get it, you didn't transcribe that sound correctly the first time...

It misfired, but the aim was true.

goosey^2, there are a number of things in what you've said that I wouldn't agree with, but I'm afraid it would drag me away from the topic of NHS not being an amazing or unique example of its type.

This is at least a pass. 6/10.

One of the GTA ones would be good - really fun, if you can tolerate some graphic violence.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is one and only one criteria that mush be > kept, having seen Australia make this mistake. It > must always remain free at the point of delivery. > Anything else is irrelevant ideology. Hang on - it is free (if you don't earn enough), and you get varying levels of rebate depending on your income.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Food was a bit grim though! What, even compared to NHS food?

With all due respect, is it fair to compare Turkey with UK, given that it's a much poorer country? But yes, we're lucky to be born/live in the first world, as a general point.

My first child was born elsewhere (in the first world), and the care was superb, and also completely free. So many variables in care though, so even if it was rubbish, I wouldn't rush to extrapolate from that personal experience to a general conclusion.

AM - glad you're with us, and that kind of personal experience of course explains some of the emotional attachment to the organisation. Do you doubt you would have received similar level of care on the continent, or elsewhere in the first world? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's one of the best (and best value) healthcare > systems in the world. > > http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs > -health > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/887741 > 2/NHS-among-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world. > html Both those from a think tank/lobbying organisation for health care reform in the US AFAICT, but quick google reveals others where the UK comes 18th (2000 WHO rankings), 10th, 14th etc. To properly understand each, the ideological bent of the ranker and scoring system used should be understood, I guess. But the idea that NHS is "the best system" is far from unanimous it would seem.

The NHS seems to be close to many people's hearts (witness the Olympics opening ceremony, "Save our NHS" bumper stickers, general pre-election scaremongering, special budget protection etc. etc.). I don't by any means want to take anything away from the hard work and dedication of many healthcare professionals employed by the NHS. But I do wonder what separates the NHS from the myriad other first world universal or means tested health care systems. In my (albeit limited) experience of two others, the NHS is fine, if a little stretched and shambolic. It also seems like its structure is so Byzantine, that I'm not sure how anyone can really know where the money goes, and so layers of bureaucracy and consultancy have to be brought in to try and get a handle on where the money goes, further removing the money from the front line. So, what's so special about the NHS? ETA: its not it's , bloody auto complete.

Sorry, I'm a humourless git/bit aspergery sometimes. Cycling (any reasonable distance) is great if you have a shower+locker+safe parking on the other side, and if you don't mind doing a bit of maintenance. A lot of conditions to make it work, so definitely not for everyone.

+ congestion charge. + endless frustration of being stuck. + torturing the engine in 1st/2nd. why anyone would drive into Central London as a commute, after, say 6AM, and before, say, 8PM is beyond me.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > miga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > spot on Outta. > > > > The point is I can't get outta! ;) Bloody auto complete....or in EDF junkie jargon, a quick fix in the train station loos...

The beaten addict - spot on Outta. "this is the last time I respond to a post, just one more and then I'm clean"....

Of course, I don't get the idea of mourning a branch of any particular big business either, but I think people were more mourning the loss of a service they used, rather than some emotional attachment to the idea of Iceland (in most cases). And I agree with you that the stuff like the frozen pizzas and a lot of ready meals etc isn't particularly healthy, but that's just symptomatic of the world we live in. Cheapest and most convenient food is processed, fatty and salty. It's interesting that the poorest are much more likely to be obese (a cursory Google will show various studies and newspaper articles to support this). The criticism levelled at Iceland as a purveyor of unhealthy food is probably correct, but Iceland is a symptom, not the cause.

It's a scale, not binary, the dredging. Imagine if someone started a new thread every time they wanted to grind their axe about demographic shifts in ED? In that parallel universe, every other thread would descend into the same arguments back and forth about the same old boring subject. Ah, hang on... ETA: probably the derailer, but me motives is pure as the driven snow guv

r^3, I agree that cheap food doesn't have to be heavily processed and bad for your health, but to cook healthy cheap food is actually a pretty time consuming exercise, and not one that is easily carried out by e.g. shift workers with kids. Iceland was done in by a demographic shift, some will feel they've lost a useful service, but presumably many more will be happy with M&S offerings (otherwise they'll quickly go out of business).

Yes, I'm well aware of that. Except, a kilobyte according to S.I. is 1000 bytes. Hence mine, and presumably 99.99% techies', usage is not S.I compliant.

Non-SI measurements are pervasive where you wouldn't expect them, e.g. pressure in psi in all kinds of engineering applications, air speed etc. But my recent discovery is that according to S.I. my conception of a kilobyte is wrong. The commonly accepted usage is 1024 bytes (a power of two, natch), but S.I. rather weirdly insists even this should be decimal and therefore a 1000, fitting with all other uses of the kilo- prefix. They've even come up with a prefix for the more common usage: "kibi". Needless to say, I'm yet to hear anyone use the newspeak.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Baksheesh is a pandemic obvs. as long as you > aren't caught, especially by the Feds And it goes by many different names.