On 24/09/2021 1:43 am, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <ir1krqFcpumU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>> Trying to think just why you'd need 30 minutes with your GP?
>
>> **Quite a bit. I needed to discuss the use of a medication for a short
>> period, some treatment of Solar keratoses on my face (froze with liquid
>> nitrogen), a discussion of my recent blood tests and subsequent dietary
>> alterations (no more chocolate!!!!)
>
> And your GP did all this treatment? If not, surely talking to the
> specialist who did more to the point?

**My GP is excellent. Really excellent. Smart guy. He did a course (in
Australia) on skin cancer (Australia being the skin cancer capital of
the world), which means he can treat minor things like Solar keratoses.

>
>
>> and, of course, a short discussion of how his wife is coping (she is a
>> doctor in a major hospital). Oh and if my suggestions re. repairs to
>> his car are going (the air bag warning light is permanently on). My
>> suggestion to replace any electrolytic caps in the control unit was
>> bang-on. So, quite a bit to squeeze into 30 minutes.
>
> Right. ;-)
>

**Apart from being an excellent GP, he is a nice guy. I could tell, very
quickly, that he cared about my health, rather than just ticking boxes
and moving through the queue in the waiting room. FWIW: My GP works in a
practice that consists of 3 GPs, a nurse and a few assistants. When my
last GP retired from that practice, it took management almost a year to
find a suitable replacement. I suspect their selection criteria is
stringent.

On 24/09/2021 6:08 am, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <597088bd6bdave@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <59705d6fedbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
>
>>> At a time of a major health crisis and the annual cry of 'Winter
>>> crisis ahead, we need more money'. How can they decide to spend
>>> huge sums of money on a rash 'diversity managers'?
>
>> I know the cry always goes up that the NHS should spend money on
>> medical staff rather than admin. But without decent admin there
>> would be far fewer fewer patients treated properly at a large
>> hospital. As the doctors etc would have to do their own.
>
> The NHS is knee deep in admin staff and managers earning more than
> the PM.

**Your point being? Senior civil servants, here in Australia, earn more
than our PM too. They're also vastly more intelligent and talented on
the whole. From what I can see of Boris is that he is a smart guy, but
works very much on the 'smoke and mirrors' method. Much like our PM here
in Australia. Except our PM is an idiot. Severely deluded, distrustful
of science and an all-round arsehole. Not surprising that is an
ex-advertising executive, whose sole aim is to remain in power,
regardless of the consequences and who gets shafted. Yet the muppets
vote for him.

You'll also have your work cut out to explain to me why the
> NHS is taking on diversity managers at a reported 70K each or why it
> is re-writing its paper work for "pregnant people".
>
> Objective truth has no meaning and priorities are screwed in modern
> woke Britain. Idiocy is now the norm.

**One could argue that the problem begins at the top (with Boris).

In article <614af830.7530765@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
<spam@spam.com> wrote:
> Also, new treatments tend to be technological and expensive. The money
> for that has to come from somewhere and while demand is not widespread
> it is reasonable and cost-effective to leave it outside the mainstream
> of the NHS. So for specialist treatment, I have no problem with
> sub-contraction to the private sector.

I agree with your first statement, but not your inferences.

The development of medications is wildly over-costed by the way the
companies operate.

cf "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre

Also note that the basic mode of operation of medical companies is
fundamentally anti-competitive. Designed to make competition with them
costly.

They use your presumtion as a cover story.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59705d6fedbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> It is not possible to give the NHS *enough* money because new
> treatments, poor management, empire building and waste will always soak
> it up. Each department must make sure that its budget is spent in full
> each year to avoid a budget cut, that's the nature of the public sector.

That's certainly one aspect of the problem.

Add in decades of UK Government policy wrt funding.

They set 'targets' for each year, and set what the hospital will be paid
for the work. But keep assuming an annual "Efficiency Increase". i.e.
assume the hospital can always "do more for the same money" each year. So
the Hosptial either has to do "more" or have its income cut.

However they 'kindly' allow the hospitals to borrow money to cover
shortfalls. Which are now routine, and have been for many years. The
hospitals then have to pay interest on the loans, of course. Increasing
their costs.

The result is that 'loans' from the Gov can be used by UK Gov to 'offset'
the total of the National Debt! Making UK Gov look better - at the cost of
hospitals paying ever more for bigger loans as they get into debt. They
then 'blame the victim' saying "medical care costs tend to go up" without
mentioning their role in *driving* that!

For decades UK Govs of all colours have played this game. Maybe if "Yes
Minister" was made now, an episode would use it.

Similarly, Hospitals and boards are only allowed to pay NHS nurses, etc,
the set rates. This tends to rise slower than inflation. And to add insult
to injury, Studen nurses don't get the same deal now as other students.

The 'solution' has been that staff quit as NHS employees, and work for an
'outsourcing' company because that pays more, and allows more flexible
hours. The company then charges *far more* per hour to provide staff which
the hospital needs to fill the gaps. Cost more because of the 'profit'
creamed off in addition to the higher pay for the individual worker. (If
the hospital fails to deliver its set targets it will be fined by UK Gov,
and have a lower income to spend!)

Similarly, equipment may be rented, not bought. etc, etc.

The result is a rising flow of the NHS's financial life-blood into the
private 'outsourcing' companies - often owned by USA Healthcare Companies
or other non-UK corps.

As I've pointed out, the NHS still uses leeches - just that they leech
money from all of us via sucking it from the NHS.

Curiously, various MPs get payments, company consultancies, directorships,
'free' advisors, etc, from the companies involved. Odd, that, innit!

So in essence, the hospitals and boards are in a "ye cannae win" situation
because the outsourcing companies, and politicians the companies, erm,
'advise' run the real show from behind the scenes.

Similar arises when it comes to new medications. The companies can 'big up'
their costs in various ways, and use that as a smokescreen for getting high
prices to give great dividends, pay politicians, etc.

The situation in the UK is better in many ways than the USA. But that's
where we've been heading - directed by stealth - for decades now. One of
the worries currently is that the USA may demand we adopt their laws on the
IPR on medications if we want a decent trade deal. That will stop us buying
generics that save the NHS a huge amount per year compared with their USA
prices.

I should say that my wife was for some years on one of the old Health
Councils (unpaid volunteers who were meant to 'oversee' the Boards who
nominally were the people running the system) so got to see a lot of this
from that side as well as being a patient. If you talk to staff and
mid-level managers they can tell you how things are rigged in the UK.

The outcome is sufficient to let the journalists tell us that "Costs are
high and will go higher". But not for the reasons people get told...

Ben Goldacre only looked at one side of this.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5970058f8bdave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <iqskf5Fdt2cU1@mid.individual.net>, Trevor Wilson
> <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> > **Yep. FWIW: My current GP is a refugee from the UK. He spent 22 years
> > working in the NHS. He reckons the NHS is excellent, but the Aussie
> > system is superior. I can spend 30 minutes with him. Apparently, that
> > doesn't happen in the UK system.

> Trying to think just why you'd need 30 minutes with your GP?

> Few years ago I went to my GP with what turned out to be a fairly major
> thing. After 5 minutes chat she decided a specialist was the way, and I
> was in hospital having all the appropriate tests and checks done within
> a week. With treatment started soon afterwards.

This varies from case to case, depending on the nature of the illness. But,
for example, assessing some mental health problems can take a lot longer
than spotting a broken leg. Thus can be easier for a pressurised GP to
simply write a prescription for a 'tranquliser' or give

"Standard Response No1" = "No idea, cannae be bothered. Piss off and come
back and see me sometime if it gets worse"/

Referrals to a specialist cost the practice *money* these days. So they
tend to avoid it. Just as they get paid on the basis of how many patients
they see, etc.

So it's a matter of 'luck' in terms of what GP you have and what their
practice is like, as well as the nature of your medical problem.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:58:24 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <614af830.7530765@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>> Also, new treatments tend to be technological and expensive. The money
>> for that has to come from somewhere and while demand is not widespread
>> it is reasonable and cost-effective to leave it outside the mainstream
>> of the NHS. So for specialist treatment, I have no problem with
>> sub-contraction to the private sector.
>
>I agree with your first statement, but not your inferences.
>
>The development of medications is wildly over-costed by the way the
>companies operate.
>
>cf "Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre
>
>Also note that the basic mode of operation of medical companies is
>fundamentally anti-competitive. Designed to make competition with them
>costly.
>
>They use your presumtion as a cover story.
>
>Jim

If these high tech companies were forced to work for minimal profits,
none of this new stuff would ever appear. If they can make a decent
buck while providing new cures for diseases, good luck to them.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Trevor Wilson wrote:
================
>
> **Your point being? Senior civil servants, here in Australia, earn more
> than our PM too. They're also vastly more intelligent and talented on
> the whole. From what I can see of Boris is that he is a smart guy, but
> works very much on the 'smoke and mirrors' method. Much like our PM here
> in Australia. Except our PM is an idiot. Severely deluded, distrustful
> of science and an all-round arsehole. Not surprising that is an
> ex-advertising executive, whose sole aim is to remain in power,
> regardless of the consequences and who gets shafted. Yet the muppets
> vote for him.
>

See vid today of said delusional "idiot" .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0ftwevZbU

Exactly how is presents himself, all the time.

FYI:

The ABC is notoriously left wing while our PM is not.
How odd.

...... Phil

In article <5970a06548bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <597088bd6bdave@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <59705d6fedbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,

> > > At a time of a major health crisis and the annual cry of 'Winter
> > > crisis ahead, we need more money'. How can they decide to spend
> > > huge sums of money on a rash 'diversity managers'?

> > I know the cry always goes up that the NHS should spend money on
> > medical staff rather than admin. But without decent admin there
> > would be far fewer fewer patients treated properly at a large
> > hospital. As the doctors etc would have to do their own.

> The NHS is knee deep in admin staff and managers earning more than
> the PM. You'll also have your work cut out to explain to me why the
> NHS is taking on diversity managers at a reported 70K each or why it
> is re-writing its paper work for "pregnant people".

I'm not qualified to say why the NHS needs diversity managers. Are you?

It is IIRC the biggest employer in the UK, and needs decent admin to work
properly. The majority who do this work at grass roots level are not
highly paid.

> Objective truth has no meaning and priorities are screwed in modern
> woke Britain. Idiocy is now the norm.

The real problem is finding out the truth in any matter. And it is a very
difficult thing to do. Everyone has their own agenda.

I'm sure the NHS could be made more efficient. Same as any large
organisation. But then efficiency means different things to different
people.

> Bob.

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <5970ee8ba5dave@davenoise.co.uk>,
Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5970a06548bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > The NHS is knee deep in admin staff and managers earning more
> > than the PM. You'll also have your work cut out to explain to me
> > why the NHS is taking on diversity managers at a reported 70K
> > each or why it is re-writing its paper work for "pregnant people".

> I'm not qualified to say why the NHS needs diversity managers. Are
> you?

In a way yes. As yet I've not caught the terrible woke virus and
therefore I still have reason, logic and objective truth. Things like
- if you're pregnant you're a woman, whatever anyone would prefer.

> It is IIRC the biggest employer in the UK, and needs decent admin
> to work properly. The majority who do this work at grass roots
> level are not highly paid.

They're not the problem. It's the empire building upper managers on
huge salaries that are spending money not on health care but on
political ideology as above.

> > Objective truth has no meaning and priorities are screwed in
> > modern woke Britain. Idiocy is now the norm.

Bob.

In article <5970ee8ba5dave@davenoise.co.uk>, Dave Plowman (News)
<dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm sure the NHS could be made more efficient. Same as any large
> organisation. But then efficiency means different things to different
> people.

Indeed. To the UK Gov an "efficiency saving" is when they tell a trust that
they assume the trust will be X percent more "efficient" next year. i.e.
They either do X percent more operations, etc, or get their income cut
rather than kept as was and do just as much as last year! It is taken for
granted that this will happen every year. No negotiation, just decided by
Gov..

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <614d8f36.5790281@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
<spam@spam.com> wrote:

> If these high tech companies were forced to work for minimal profits,
> none of this new stuff would ever appear. If they can make a decent buck
> while providing new cures for diseases, good luck to them.

I simply don't believe the first assertion above.

FWIW my brother-in-law was Prof in Pharmacology, etc, at Glasgow Uni and
the reality is that many medications and treatments can be, and often are,
developed at Unis at much lower cost than by the large companies.

That said, the big pharma cos have their fingers in that till, as well. And
often control what the Unis can do. Again if you read the book you can see
this documented for case after case.

A lot of the high costs Big Pharma say they have to face are
self-inflicted. e.g...

Each large company has a 'bank' of a lot of chemicals. They then test all
of these to see which ones might have a useful effect on some condition.
This takes a lot of time and money. They then patent the ones that hit the
bell. But *keep secret* the list of hundreds of other chemicals that
didn't, or gave problems.

This forces any competitor to test all those *again* in a search for an
alternative they can patent. And each company does this. They then pass the
costs on to us via the prices of what they can sell.

The result is gross inefficiency with the same large set of tests done
over, and over, and over again, meaning the 'costs' have to be endured
multiple times. All of which is paid by the end-user.

Publically funded research can publish all the results, avoiding that. It
could then, in turn, recover the money which need only be recovered for
*one* search. And those results then aid other searchs for other purposes.

Big Pharma use various means to deter or prevent this. Sometimes illegally.
read "Bad Pharma" to seem more examples that you can shake a stick at!

The big companies also often fund dodgy studies whose outcome is used to
cast a shadow on medications leaving patent - so they can then switch
people to newer ones that have a long time to come still in patent. In
effect, the regulators are 'captured' by the companies, as are some uni
researchers, etc.

I have personal experience of some of these things, and know of others
via my BoL, and you can find examples in the book. Plus all kinds of
other things that rather undercut what people are given to assume about
the Pharma Companies, etc. Do not believe the PR from those who make
big income from having you accept it.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 10:05:21 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <614d8f36.5790281@news.eternal-september.org>, Don Pearce
><spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> If these high tech companies were forced to work for minimal profits,
>> none of this new stuff would ever appear. If they can make a decent buck
>> while providing new cures for diseases, good luck to them.
>
>I simply don't believe the first assertion above.

My post was in reference to high tech, not pharmaceuticals, where I
agree with you.

Small volume, expensive machines carry an immense R&D and production
overhead, much of which is hard to predict. Unless you can put a very
decent margin into the price, and agree the worth of that price before
you start development, it simply isn't going to happen.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

In article <59716732bfbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <5970ee8ba5dave@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <5970a06548bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
> > Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> > > The NHS is knee deep in admin staff and managers earning more
> > > than the PM. You'll also have your work cut out to explain to me
> > > why the NHS is taking on diversity managers at a reported 70K
> > > each or why it is re-writing its paper work for "pregnant people".

> > I'm not qualified to say why the NHS needs diversity managers. Are
> > you?

> In a way yes. As yet I've not caught the terrible woke virus and
> therefore I still have reason, logic and objective truth. Things like
> - if you're pregnant you're a woman, whatever anyone would prefer.

Ah. Right. So reading between the lines you are no more qualified than
anyone else?

> > It is IIRC the biggest employer in the UK, and needs decent admin
> > to work properly. The majority who do this work at grass roots
> > level are not highly paid.

> They're not the problem. It's the empire building upper managers on
> huge salaries that are spending money not on health care but on
> political ideology as above.

How do you build an 'empire' out of what is already an empire?

> > > Objective truth has no meaning and priorities are screwed in
> > > modern woke Britain. Idiocy is now the norm.

>

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.