Women shrieking In the Sport of Tennis Compared to other Sports.

bogbrush wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You should have gone to SpecSavers.

Or Vision Express.

Oh how would I choose? I mean, it's medical, right?

HM Murdock wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:But I do think, as many others do, that when it comes to healthcare there is a real issue with having the profit motive driving everything.

This is a huge flaw in your argument. Profit already saturates healthcare and with good effect.

It costs pharmaceutical companies hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug to market. They only do this because they have the chance to make a profit. If drug development were left to non-profit state organisation, medicine would be light years behind where it is now.

NHS consultant doctors earn between £75k and £100k per year. They are earning a 'profit' on this salary i.e. it does more than meet their costs. What do you think the size and motivation of the work force would be if people with the talent and intelligence to be consultant doctors only got paid minimum wage?

Consider also that every bed, thermometer, X-ray machine, light bulb and toilet roll used by the NHS was sold to it at a profit. The need to make a profit forced the manufacturer to make the best product they could at the best price.

The profit motive has benefited health care enormously. As far as I can tell, the problems facing the NHS stem more from the functions that government controls.

.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You should have gone to SpecSavers.

Or Vision Express.

Oh how would I choose? I mean, it's medical, right?

I've given many examples and explanations on how it's hard for the public to really know for sure the private hospital is working in their best interests or trying to get more profit; you ignored those and literally talk to yourself.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I see you have the party line well settled.

Funny how the BMA is quite happy to endanger all the patients with exhausted doctors, so long as the pay is right for Saturdays.

It's not the party line, I'm talking about problems that are happening now, even without the new contracts.
This is from 2013, talking about the problem of exhaustion long before any change in contract:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2278685/Exhausted-junior-doctors-working-100-hours-week-putting-patients-lives-risk.html

The new contracts will make the problem even worse... talking about BMA arguing for Saturday pay is like them trying to quickly go into the kitchen and save the microwave before a hurricane smashes the whole house; the new contracts will make it less likely people will go into specialities such as emergency medicine which are already suffering from a recruitment problem, which means doctors in A&E will be have to be working even longer to make up for the lack of staffing and gaps in rotas.

bogbrush wrote:
Your 'examples' were hypothetical.

bogbrush wrote:
I'm interested how we know these guys aren't ripping us off, or making crap glasses for inflated prices. I mean, they're doing it for (quakes) profit, so it must be bad, right?

bogbrush wrote:
But they'll do it for more money.

Kind of like a girl who says she's not a prostitute, at least not on those prices.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
Your 'examples' were hypothetical.

No, I've seen them with my own eyes, it's reality. Why wouldn't they, the general public would have no idea (in fact many are pleased when they are put through more procedures/ get antibiotics or pills unnecessarily as it's reassuring) and it would improve profits. Are you the one arguing that private hospitals  are altruistic ?

bogbrush wrote:
I'm interested how we know these guys aren't ripping us off, or making crap glasses for inflated prices. I mean, they're doing it for (quakes) profit, so it must be bad, right?

Because when you put your glasses on, you can see everything very clearly Bogbrush.
Opticians don't have the scope to overcharge massively, it doesn't have other factors such as charging someone per day they stay in hospitals, or charging people for a more invasive expensive procedure than an alternative which has the same effect but less profit etc.

Johnyjeep wrote:And then, even more astonishingly, after saying "if you believe everything you read in the media" to undermine a point made that disagrees with yours, you post a link to the Daily Mail to emphasis yours!!!  Genius. Obviously I haven't read it.

Johnyjeep wrote:That's not what I'm saying. More in the context of what they've been offered. Not more in the context of the old contract.

Johnyjeep wrote:
Fairly obviously, right now, working in public sector is not great. I work considerably more hours than I'm contracted for. So what. Boo hoo. By working in the public sector, especially on the front line, everyone is putti their neck on the line if they make a mistake. That is the nature of the beast. Don't like it? Move on. But, the books have to be balanced. This is an attempt at that. Those who are in it for the money, will leave. Those who are not, will not.

bogbrush wrote:
You think they couldn't cobble together a way to rip you off? No problem, they could sell you glasses that lose integrity faster do you keep coming back, or they could tweak your prescription when you come in to sell you more glasses.
Problem is, they have aggressive competitors offering two for one sales and great service. So they protect their brand and keep customers coming back. Now they'll do your ears too, I understand. I bet they could do a great deal more (and even keep their appointments!).

bogbrush wrote:
You keep on using defective systems to prove a point.

temporary21 wrote:What, presicely, is being debated here?

Johnyjeep wrote:This is like Turkey's voting for Xmas. You fail to see the bigger picture. This isn't just about the NHS. There are so many posts in the public sector outside of the NHS where a simple mistake can cost lives, it is not even worth engaging in a discussion to try and determine why a mistake caused by a Doctor leading to a death is more or less tragic than say an administrator misreading an allergen update from a food manufacturer.causing a child to eat something they shouldn't. The Department for Health hasn't even seen their budget decimated anywhere near the same extent as other Departments. So yes, very much boo hoo.

temporary21 wrote:What, presicely, is being debated here?

AN NHS whistleblower who raised concerns about patient safety was told she was “too honest” to work there, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Maha Yassaie, chief pharmacist at the now defunct Berkshire West Primary Care Trust, was spoken to by an investigator, Kelvin Cheatle, brought in from a private law firm to examine bullying claims against her.
According to a transcript created and circulated by one of Mr Cheatle’s colleagues, at a meeting on August 15, 2012, the investigator queried whether it was right for Mrs Yassaie to have raised concerns about her colleagues.
“I may know for a fact that some of the neighbours on my street are underpaying their taxes,” he said.
“If I report them I will probably never be invited to a street party or any other event. And this is essentially what you do. It is obviously not wrong, but it alienates your colleagues.”
Mrs Yassaie replied: “Surely you would feel you did the right thing though, if you reported your neighbours?” The investigator responded: “After listening to all this, I am thinking that if I had your values I would find it very difficult to work in the NHS.”
Leading a team at her trust, Mrs Yassaie first alerted senior management to a string of concerns in 2011. These included claims that a colleague was taking money from drug companies to prescribe certain products and that a GP was accessing controlled drugs and had used them to attempt suicide.
Mrs Yassaie said that she was asked to participate in Mr Cheatle’s independent inquiry – believing it would address the concerns she had raised – only to find she had become the target of separate disciplinary action, having been branded a “bully” by management after she made her protected disclosures.
Kelvin Cheatle, brought in by the NHS to investigate Maha Yassaie, said her values had made her work difficult.
It has since emerged Mr Cheatle appeared to coach witnesses against Mrs Yassaie and encouraged them to “rehearse” statements.
“We need to discuss their evidence with them and ask them to focus on why [Mrs Yassaie] cannot return to work. I have held Friday pm, Monday pm, Tuesday and Wednesday and
potential slots to rehearse… They should be asked to address their statements and how they feel relations have broken down,” he wrote in one email to the trust’s HR department.
Mr Cheatle failed to uphold bullying claims but concluded that Mrs Yassaie’s relationship with the trust had broken down. She was suspended from work, then dismissed.
She went to an employment tribunal and in 2014 Mrs Yassaie was awarded £375,000. The Department of Health was forced to admit that “the investigation and disciplinary processes… were, in some respects, flawed”.
After Mr Cheatle’s inquiry had concluded, a second inquiry by the pharmacists’ regulator, the General Pharmaceutical Council, was opened.
This concluded in February this year and upheld only one of 17 misconduct allegations against Mrs Yassaie.
Mrs Yassaie accused the NHS of carrying out a “deliberate hatchet job” and of “covering up” her allegations.
A spokesman for Capsticks, the legal firm where Mr Cheatle works, said that the report he produced was “wholly independent and based purely on witness evidence, objectively obtained”.
They said that the “case was the subject of an internal process and was considered by an independent panel”.