NHS is very good value

[Beef Oven!]

............and are called Mr, tend to do nothing but "doctoring".
It's not prefect but one shouldn't dismiss the things that work.

I don't, hence we agree about doctors.

[Beef Oven!]

It isnt received wisdom if you have experienced it, although to somebody else it is just an anecdote.

Apparently dosctors ARE spending less time doctoring....

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/fin...e#.VFlJdoiQGrU

Yes, it's a joke. Too much bureaucracy, too many managers. That's why we get a pure service that's bad value :-(

[amateur51]

I certainly have views on these things. Whether anyone would find them interesting, is another matter. NHShEngland can talk about £108 billion, or whatever they think it takes, but it's way too much. We get poor service and poor value for money. Let Amazon, John Lewis Partnership whoever manage the business, and let the doctors, doctor. We should even utilise some of the nurses (you know, the ones who have a real patient-focus).

Of course! We ALL remember what a great job ATOS did with disability benefits and how chuffed we were with the job that G4S did at the 2012 Olympics. Oh and those great guys running the investment banks, aren't they just the best?

Stick with the knitting, ginger.

[Beef Oven!]

It isnt received wisdom if you have experienced it, although to somebody else it is just an anecdote.

Apparently dosctors ARE spending less time doctoring....

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/home/fin...e#.VFlJdoiQGrU

And while people argue the toss, it just shows that the cost of bureaucracy is either way to much or way, way too much!

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/andrew_lansley_and_the_cost_of_nhs_bureaucracy-1570

[MrGongGong]

And while people argue the toss, it just shows that the cost of bureaucracy is either way to much or way, way too much!

BUT you (and your Elk) are wanting MORE bureaucracy
more administration
more rules

[Beef Oven!]

BUT you (and your Elk)

Elk?

[teamsaint]

Oh deer.

[Beef Oven!]

Oh deer.

Lol!

[MrGongGong]

It was a JOKE

Now stop wasting time
and get with the metal

[Beef Oven!]

It was a JOKE

Pull the other one!

[P. G. Tipps]

calling the Guardian "the Forum bible is good enough for me" to be seen as having a go at the Guardian and its readers. perhaps you haven't done that as often as I think, in which case I would apologise for suggesting that you have. I really cac't be bothered to go back and check.

as for the rest, lets just discuss the effectiveness , cost and health wise, of the NHS, instead og made up stuff about" raw political sensibilities" whatever they are.

I accept your somewhat half-hearted apologies but wasn't looking or asking for any of that, just an acknowledgement of the facts which are now clear considering you have trotted out the anticipated 'can't be bothered to check' stuff after insisting that I made those mysterious 'accusations against the Guardian and its readers' and then outrageously suggesting 'trolling' on my part.

As regards the 'Forum Bible' I'll gladly not use the teasing term any longer if it upsets you greatly, and I look forward to a similarly angry disapprobation from you in the future regarding any mention of the 'Torygraph' and 'Daily Wail' on these boards!

By all means let us all continue 'on topic' ... three hefty cheers for that!

[Richard Barrett]

As regards the 'Forum Bible' I'll gladly not use the teasing term any longer if it upsets you greatly, and I look forward to a similarly angry disapprobation from you in the future regarding any mention of the 'Torygraph' and 'Daily Wail' on these boards!

Today the Guardian front page reads: "UK gains £20bn from EU migrants". The Mail's headline reads: "Sex shame of Libyan warriors invited to train in UK". Both are of course aimed at a certain kind of core readership and present themselves accordingly. Given the choice would you prefer to be treated as an intelligent human being with rational views about affairs of state or as an imbecile who's going to lap up a salacious story that promises to combine sex, Muslims, the "war on terror", immigration and no doubt more sex? This is why the Mail comes in for criticism in these parts. Whichever way you look at it, knowledge is not equivalent to ignorance.

[teamsaint]

M

I accept your somewhat half-hearted apologies but wasn't looking or asking for any of that, just an acknowledgement of the facts which are now clear considering you have trotted out the anticipated 'can't be bothered to check' stuff after insisting that I made those mysterious 'accusations against the Guardian and its readers' and then outrageously suggesting 'trolling' on my part.

As regards the 'Forum Bible' I'll gladly not use the teasing term any longer if it upsets you greatly, and I look forward to a similarly angry disapprobation from you in the future regarding any mention of the 'Torygraph' and 'Daily Wail' on these boards!

By all means let us all continue 'on topic' ... three hefty cheers for that!

Actually, since you raise the matter again, there is a qualitative difference between using the term " Torygraph", which is pretty accurate really, and the term "forum Bible ", which suggests an unthinking accepatance of the Guardian's content, and is clearly aimed at forum members rather than the newspaper.

I cant be bothered to go back , because I apologised if the accusation of your overuse was unfair. Seems reasonable to me.

[ahinton]

Today the Guardian front page reads: "UK gains £20bn from EU migrants". The Mail's headline reads: "Sex shame of Libyan warriors invited to train in UK". Both are of course aimed at a certain kind of core readership and present themselves accordingly. Given the choice would you prefer to be treated as an intelligent human being with rational views about affairs of state or as an imbecile who's going to lap up a salacious story that promises to combine sex, Muslims, the "war on terror", immigration and no doubt more sex? This is why the Mail comes in for criticism in these parts. Whichever way you look at it, knowledge is not equivalent to ignorance.

Quite. I would have thought that the considerable difference in style, content, presentation and overall aims of the various UK national newspapers were pretty obvious but it seems that not everyone realises this (or is willing to do so or admit to doing so). If one considers headlines alone, those differences are perfectly clear to see. Yet the news is still the news. I have no doubt that you do not seek to undermine the gravity of the accusations levelled at the Libyans concerned, the consequences of their alleged actions or the extent to which they're taxpayer funded, but that's not the point, of course; readers are not going to be titillated by the Guardian headline but, again, that fact does not undermine its importance in countering myths promulgated by some of those driven by certain agendas that most immigration to UK is economically unsound and disadvantageous.

OK, a discussion of this with Pesto on BBC R4's Today this morning also included the fact that EU migrants will indeed come to cost the state if they remain in UK long enough, either because they become ill or pass stte retirement age or whatever else - but, as was also rightly pointed out, the same applies to everyone else in Britain! It's not yet clear to me why migrants from outside EU cost UK as much as is alleged whereas there's a net benefit from those coming the UK from elsewhere in EU, but all that this shows is that I need to read more about it; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29912945 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29906592 - again from Pesto - seem hardly the worst places to start, although by reasons of space they're mere summaries of what is, after all, a very large subject.

[amateur51]

I certainly have views on these things. Whether anyone would find them interesting, is another matter. NHS England can talk about £108 billion, or whatever they think it takes, but it's way too much. We get poor service and poor value for money. Let Amazon, John Lewis Partnership whoever manage the business, and let the doctors, doctor. We should even utilise some of the nurses (you know, the ones who have a real patient-focus).

Sir Gerry Robinson knows the answer: "Tesco could really teach the NHS a thing or two"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10141241/Sir-Gerry-Robinson-Tesco-could-really-teach-the-NHS-a-thing-or-two.html

So that'll be horse meat on the menus and creative accounting in the back-office function, will it Sir Gerry?

Allegedly.