Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

psittacosis if one of his earlier sobriquets is anything to go by :-)

"Stan - does H/S presently have a health problem that is terminal ?
I now feel sorry for him"

... Unfortunately I don't think so rk -):

Post 29329

I would not risk comparison.

-----------
Hays,

With such a bright bunch of fellows in cabinet, and with their obvious management skills, (as seen by the recent vote in the HP) and apparent incompetence of the present management of the Royal Mail, why doesn't Cameron donate one of his cabinet chums to reorganise and improve the "administration" and "efficiency" of the "utility".

Then it could put the "profits" to use paying off the "National Debt" it is continuing to accumulate.

--------------------------

Or are you hoping the supposed £3 billion raised will be paid out in reduction of tax on higher earners" and encourage them to spend more overseas.


-------------

I think it is time to bring back the work houses, that will teach the lazy buggers.


Perhaps, the local hospital near you can have a new ward named "Expeditious Euthanasia Parlour". It could be used improved the speed and efficiency of the birth to burial procedure.

Wonder what the profit margin would be.

cynic is not a relation of mine. Anyway he is a cut ahead of me.

You sure?

RK and Stan,

"Stan - does H/S presently have a health problem that is terminal ?


Yes he does.

Living and nowhere to go!

fred - do you think that throwing money at NHS (or schools for that matter) would actually go anywhere near solving their problems? .......

vaguely linked to that, to what level would you raise taxes - no good just trying to soak the rich as that produces peanuts even if good political capital in certain quarters - without it becoming counter-productive? ...... inter alia, making it even less worthwhile to work, unless you are happy to slash benefits for the unemployed too

Hopefully there will be an outright Conservative majority at the next election. Then we will see some sensible policies.

chuckle chuckle chuckle!
that would be a first from almost ANY party!

cynic
My tongue was a long way into my cheek.

Thanks for the comments/feedback - I'll make sure I watch it.

Cynic,

I will partially answer what I think about the NHS.

Money is only a part of the problem in the NHS. It is inefficient, partially to the lack of will by those involved in it at ground level.

The major problems in both institutions are due to the constant reorganisations both have suffered over the last 20-30years. (Revolution, rather than evolution comes to mind). The constant changes have lowered moral and sense of responsibility and sometimes direction of the "workforces".

Also, many problems are due ham-fisted administration with lack of necessary “ethos” and/or "ground level knowledge" to be able to make appropriate judgements and decisions.

The changes in work practices in the NHS and the "crazy salary increases" of a few years ago and are now being paid to doctors and some NHS managers, while at the same time reducing disproportionally ongoing responsibility have also caused many problems.

Again, the intake of medical schools has shifted over the years and appeals to many who are more interested in the pay cheque at the end of the month than the “field or occupation” itself. Contracts have changed and they work their hours and clock off and often able to leave their responsibilities behind. (Maggie Thatcher’s principles.)

Again, some of the targeting has been crazy and the data collection falsified in order to satisfy disconnected administration has caused its own problems.
I think there has to be a review of management and inclusion of all "groups" working in the NHS, but with greater involvement of Public Health.

Also, needed are the reintroduction of Ward Sisters with authority, and a greater sense of responsibility to all rather than self, by all Medical staff in decision making would be desirable.

Again, there should be a rapid reduction in use of Agency Nursing Staff and Agency Medical Staff with the return to the old system of Matron and Hospital Management Committee as “managers” of staff.

Again, other than in a few specific areas the return from parts of the service which have been outsourced to private profit money concerns, to be returned to direct management of the NHS.

This all means an improvement of management, with greater involvement in those in Public Health.

The above is a quick short list of difficult problems, and addressing those would probably reduce the wastage and costs of the NHS.


I could provide similar breakdown of education and other professional services.

The raising of taxes and fair taxation would take even longer.

But then you are asking the question which means you are recognising that there are problems in defining fair taxes, or the fare for benefitting from the society you wish to live in.

The differential in incomes and wealth will have to be addressed over the next years, if you wish to live in a harmonious society.

Phew. Where are my notes?

OBC,

Cyners asked if you thought throwing money at NHS would help solve their problems. He didn't ask you to repeat three chapters of War and Peace!

A good ol' fashioned YES or NO would've been OK.

Hairy One,

Are you getting your knickers in a twist again.

--------------------

You don't have to read it, but if did you will see that it contains the answer.

Please be my guest and squelch me.

fred - i did read it, and actually you didn't address the question or problem at all .... to be fair, it is far more complex than is obvious on the face

taxing people to oblivion is a damn stupid suggestion/solution as, apart from being electoral suicide, creates far more problems than it solves

i guess that that then leaves you with a second-rate USA system which is not palatable either, especially if you are fundamentally opposed to the idea of private health care - don't deny that you are, because reality dictates that you are or would be

Back to the Royal Mail. Is anyone bothered if the service is cut back after privatisation? I am happy with domestic mail reducing to say three deliveries a week. There is no money in delivering letters anymore. Labour's view just outlined on BBC news is that it is a move loved national institution. Much loved it may be, but why. Life has moved on. I remember several deliveries a day. You could post a letter with LOCAL written on it and it would be delivered the afternoon of the same day. Email is king now.

US Rejects Syria's 30-Day Weapons Deadline
Sky NewsSky News – 1 hour 14 minutes ago
US Rejects Syria's 30-Day Weapons Deadline

US Secretary of State John Kerry has rejected Syria's pledge to hand over information on its chemical weapons in 30 days.

Speaking at a news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he noted that it was standard procedure for a country to submit its weapons data a month after signing an international chemical weapons ban.

But he said: "There is nothing standard about this process. The words of the Syrian regime in our judgement are simply not enough."

He warned that the US could still launch a military strike if Syria's President Bashar al Assad reneged on his promises, and said the US was wary of any stalling process.

"There ought to be consequences if it doesn't take place," he warned.

Mr Lavrov, who addressed the briefing first, said: "The solution of this problem makes unnecessary any strikes on Syria. I am sure that our American partners ... are strongly in favour of a peaceful way to regulate chemical weapons in Syria."

Earlier, Mr Assad agreed to sign up to an international agreement that would put his weapons under UN supervision - and said he would hand over information on them in 30 days.

"Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision," he said in the interview with Russian state TV.

Mr Kerry is in Geneva for high-stakes talks with Mr Lavrov to discuss Russia's four-point plan to place Syria's chemical stockpile under international control.

He arrived some hours ago before Mr Lavrov.

Sky's Robert Nisbet, in Geneva, said Mr Lavrov's delay was "embarrassing" for the US and showed Russia has the diplomatic upper hand in the talks.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the plan faced "immense practical difficulties", although obstacles could be overcome "with sufficient international unity and goodwill".

He warned the initiative would require a "complete change of approach" by the Assad regime.

The Russian plan was met with a "definitive rejection" by Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Supreme Military Council, while Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said the Syrian regime had "won time for new massacres".

The first stage of the four-point plan has already been fulfilled - with Syria sending a letter to the UN signing up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.

The second stage is for Syria to declare what chemical weapons it has. The third is for UN inspectors to visit the country and verify Mr Assad's declaration, and the last stage is for the weapons to be destroyed - either in Syria or abroad.

Meanwhile, Russia's Moskva missile cruiser has reportedly passed through the Straits of Gibraltar and is now heading toward the eastern Mediterranean to assume command of the seven-strong Russian naval force there.

Another two vessels, the landing ship Nikolay Filchenkov and the guard ship Smetlivy, will join the naval unit later, Russia Today added.

The recent deployments are aimed at "complex monitoring" of the situation around Syria, military sources told the Interfax news agency.

The talks between Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov follow Russian President Vladimir Putin's warning that a US attack on Syria without UN approval would result in more innocent victims and an escalation in violence in the Middle East.

Writing in the New York Times, he said there is "every reason to believe" it was rebel forces, not the Assad regime, who used sarin nerve gas in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people in Damascus on August 21.

He said a strike would "increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism" and claimed America would increasingly be seen "not as a model for democracy but as relying solely on brute force".

White House spokesman Jay Carney said there was "great irony" in Mr Putin placing his opinion piece in the New York Times. He said it reflected a freedom of speech in the US that Russia lacks.

Dr Anna Neistat, an associate director of Human Rights Watch, said: "There is not a single mention in Mr Putin's article ... of the egregious crimes committed by the Syrian government ... (including) deliberate and indiscriminate killings of tens of thousands of civilians, executions, torture, enforced disappearances and arbitrary arrests."

Labour 'could renationalise Royal Mail after 2015'
Labour leader Ed Miliband is under pressure to agree to renationalise Royal Mail if he wins the next election.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/10298811/Labour-could-renationalise-Royal-Mail-after-2015.html

Ed miliband if he wins the next election - ha, ha, ha, aaaaaaaaaaaaa

Ed you are being a total ------- You are hanging yourself.

When has Labour ever repealed any Conservative legislation. Thatcher cut the power of the unions with a raft of laws. None of them were reversed by Labour. The truth is that the Conservatives do what Labour are too frightened to do because of the union backlash.

Cynic,

I think a NHS is a fundamental requirement of a "decent" society.

There are problems with the increasing sophistication of diagnosis and then treatment and also the increasing expectations of the public.

This in some ways means increasing overall costs of the NHS out of general expenditure and perhaps "hard decisions" about availability of certain treatments has to be considered against cost and the overall benefits, or detriments to society.

However, the pace of advancements in medicine over the last 20 years and
especially 5-10 years are astounding.

Guessing, I expect treatments based on greater understanding of the individual genome and titration of treatments accordingly may improve the efficiency and eventually reduce the costs of therapy and possibly reduce the amount and costs of "invasive", or surgical interventions.

The main problem seems to me is how to relate to an ever increasing and ageing population in "humanitarian manner".

Hence my remark early.
==========

My brother was a doctor and he had a private and NHS practice.

My parents paid for private medicine and surgery up until my father retired, but even then paid for his wife's care until she was terminally ill and was admitted to a NHS hospital.

Strangely enough, my brother who is long retired has alway used the NHS for treatment when it is beyond his own ken, and similarly for his family when necessary likewise.

I personally use the NHS, when it is necessary, but have no wish to ban private practice, as long as it is not subsidised by the state, which at the moment it is.

Again I won't go into the details.

Taxation.

Is a thorny subject.

Way down inside me, I have a "feeling" that measuring one's success by "possessions" is less satisfying than to have others sitting at one's table and enjoying one's hospitality.

I have sat at many tables of "poorer" friends and strangers and felt that "warmth".

I feel the same about taxation.

Those are personal feelings, and I am reasonably careful with my own money and don't believe in squandering or raising unnecessary taxation.

Nor do I believe in ducking and diving and hiding my income from the taxman, or planting it abroad.