asperity Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 OOOhh errrr missus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Obviously, you either don't get it or are prepared to sanction clear conflicts of interest where NHS funds (our money) could be (quite legally) directed towards increasing their share profits. As for your reference to Gadafi: corruption is one of the reasons for the rebellion, something unlikely ever to occur here based on your servile attitude. You haven't answered my questions, just fudged as normal. I was referring to the Dictatorship bit, as I believe when Leader your fight against expenses etc didn't succeed. Corruption is rife everywhere, so I am surprised that you are surprised. I would be more impressed if you started a campaign against GP's et al for having more than one job and more than one surgery. And don't forget, they have extended families living abroad who they have to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 What surprise? It merely confirms my cynism of such things and folk's docile acceptance of them. It's certainly no surprise to me that a Tory Gov is introducing fundemental changes to the NHS that places total control of budgetry spending in the hands of GPs who could have an interest in where tax-payer's money is directed. The proposed legislation makes no reference to this anomoly or any clause to outlaw such conflicts of interest. The private sector providers (as reported in this BBC piece) are now queing up to exploit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Obs, how can you have such misgivings when it was a Labour government which created NHS Trusts which in turn created copious levels of management earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from taxpayers money and that then went on to also re-write the GPs contracts which basically gave them a 6 figure basic salary for a 40 hour week with the option of opting out of any overtime! And you say the Tories have it in for the NHS? The bloody Labour government had to increase the funding year on year to the NHS to keep up with the ever rising management costs.... look back at the news through 2008, 2009 and see where the trusts we already having to start making savings because the money was running out long before Cameron got near it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Don't dispute that Baz; they've both made a dogs breakfast of things over the years - but Dave's in charge now, and didn't he say prior to the election - "the NHS is safe in his hands"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 the NHS is safe in his hands He did say that Obs, but only Baz believed him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 the NHS is safe in his hands He did say that Obs, but only Baz believed him I didn't believe him and still don't....... but you can't just keep pumping billions into something which is obviously not working and is top heavy with 6 figure salaried managers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 The government has been promising to sort out the NHS for donkeys years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Which is precisely the problem, ideology driven micro-management of an institution that has no mission boundaries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 I thought its mission was to save peoples lives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 ... as in IVF and trans-gender operations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Nowt wrong with IVF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Not essential or life saving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2011 Report Share Posted March 6, 2011 Neither is treating old people for Hyperthermia, because they can not afford to stay warm at home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Loathe as I am to correct you yet again LtKije, but I think you mean hypothermia. Hyperthermia is something quite opposite to being unable to heat your home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Neither is treating old people for Hyperthermia, because they can not afford to stay warm at home Hypothermia is life threatening, the cause may not be! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 suggest treating a case of hypotherma is, by definition, life saving, as none treatment will result in death! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Would it not be cheaper to treat the course of the problem, Rather than the outcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Would it not be cheaper to treat the course of the problem, Rather than the outcome Obviously, (I assume you mean 'cause' ) but it is often something that happens without the sufferer realising how poorly they have become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I think people know when they are cold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 This has probably already been said and appologies for my rant if it has but I for one do not think it is right that the government bailed the banks and now the same banks are paying the likes of one fat cat banker a ?5.5 million in one BONUS. Maybe the bailed out banks or indeed the bankers who get these extortionate payouts and who wouldn't have had a job now should be donating their huge bonus payments back to the likes of the our NHS, Navy etc etc who are facing huge financial cuts because the government have NO MONEY LEFT !!!!!! I agree that they are a business so their main objective is to make money... but if they can make enough to pay these types of bonuses why on earth did they need bailing out in the first place ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 but if they can make enough to pay these types of bonuses why on earth did they need bailing out in the first place ?? A very good point, and why are they paying bonuses when they should be paying us back first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 The problem with the Banks Diz is, that they are simply too big to be allowed to fail; thus high risk irresponsibility and arrogant bonus payments will continue in the knowledge that the good old tax-payer will bale them out. You'll recall some ideas voiced by Vince Cable PRIOR to the Election which have now been quietly forgotten:- to break up the banks to split the investment element from the high street and to reduce their size, thus making them small enough to fail. He also suggested a levy on their profits and a tax on bonuses - all now forgotten. Could it be that these Masters of the Universe, who warrant a ?14.5million bonus; have more power and influence than our "elected" representatives? There would seem to be enough cash around to fund public services and pay off the national debt, but it appears to be monopolised by a minority of the population, and ?'s appear to carry more weight than votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I never understand WHY bonuses are that big anyway. What can they spend the money on? It's obscene. And YES, I would refuse it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 It doesn't happen often Peter, but I agree with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.