The Arrogant British Medical Profession
Jon°
the complete contempt and arrogance portrayed by Shipman toward the police
and other none medically qualified people.
Whilst Shipman was an extreme example of this high and mighty attitude in
the ranks of doctors....I do not think this type of arrogant behaviour, in
the medical profession, is (and was) just restricted to Shipman .. Many
doctors practising in the UK show arrogance and an air of supremacy. Why is
this? You may ask. I believe it is one of the by-products of the British
National Health Service.
Many doctors today seem to act as if they are dispelling largess to the
masses. Many have no real respect for their patients, they seem to act as
if patients are just bodies on a production belt. They are kept waiting for
hours (after appointment times) for consultations.... They are often treated
with disdain, patronised and the whole general air of many medical
practitioners is "just do as you are told". If those patients were actually
paying them, the whole scenario would change.
With the attendee's settling their own fees, medical practitioners attitudes
would change over-night.. Respect would suddenly show it's polite head and
all those who attended a doctor would be treated with cutesy.
I know many of you are going to say that we must have a free health service
and that it is totally necessary that doctors be paid by the state. Just
think a little though, would it not be far better if we were allowed to join
our own medical insurance scheme and then have a real choice of which doctor
or hospital would receive the benefits of our insurance payments? Of
course, this would mean that the state would have to allow us to opt-out and
then stop deducting the payments we make toward "state-monopoly-doctoring".
Our medical insurance payments would also have to become income tax
deductible.
What a difference to the profession's attitude this would make. Suddenly
patients would regain their own economic power and be able to demand
appropriate and polite treatment.
The results would be a health service that competed with the best in the
world. American doctors and hospitals put ours in the shade. A basic
medical provision would of course have to be made for those that wished to
stay in the NHS. However why should those of us who wish to look after our
own medication have to suffer because some do not want to look out for
themselves, or are unable to do so?
Those who have ever attended a private hospital, such as BUPA, will have
noticed the total different way they were treated. Staff are attentive,
doctors are charming and the whole atmosphere is welcoming and spirit
raising.
Doctors, just like us all, are all selling something. (Re: Henry Ford)
Therefore market forces apply just as much to them as they do to any other
member of society. Many of them have become bigoted and arrogant because
they feel they are "giving" their services to their patients, they look on
the state as their financial provider. Accepting of course for the extra
"dosh" they earn moonlighting in private hospitals.
"At a stroke" ( If doctors knew we were paying them) the patronising air,
that so many of them adopt, would be discarded. We could then expect to
be looked after in the same excellent fashion, which is the norm, that most
service providers, who compete with one another, provide
Under Nu Labour though (who rely on pandering to the lowest common
denominator so as to secure their votes) we will never have a really first
class medical establishment in the UK.
Paul Helm
> [ . . . ] arrogance portrayed by Shipman
> toward the police [ . . . ].
Harold Shipman first worked as a General Practitioner in the West
Yorkshire town of Todmorden. Perhaps he spoke German?
> Under Nu Labour though (who rely on pandering to the lowest
> common denominator so as to secure their votes) we will never
> have a really first class medical establishment in the UK.
It is true that we would probably get better health care simply by
abolishing the National Health Service. The Health Service panders to
the British anti-Medical sentiment, which apparently pre-dates the Health
Service, but in so doing, has made psychobabble a national disease.
We almost blame ourselves for everything, going to the doctor to ask what
we did to cause old age, and repeatedly telling ourselves conditions like
hyperactivity (not that hard to recognise) do not exist.
Without the state leading us, we probably, hopefully, would not waste our
own money on useless psychiatry - most of it is NOT evidence based - but
we are allowing the government to abuse us and our resources with self-
blame, or to use the medical term, psychiatry.
Seriously.
--
http://www.paul.helm.rbhousing.biz/
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Mark, Devon
to join
our own medical insurance scheme and then have a real choice of which doctor
or hospital would receive the benefits of our insurance payments?>>
In the USA it costs approximately twice as much as a percentage of GDP to
provide private health care than the cost of the NHS in the UK. If we raised
taxes to invest more into the NHS it would be money well spent.
No, it would not be far better to join our own medical insurance schemes.
This is the sort of 'no such thing as society' trash that all Mark
Thatcherites support.
--
Mark
"Jon°" <topj...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4225...@212.67.96.135...
Blewyn
> Whilst Shipman was an extreme example...
Nice of you to concede that your anecdotal example isn't necessarily
representative of the profession as a whole......
> They are often treated
> with disdain, patronised and the whole general air of many medical
> practitioners is "just do as you are told". If those patients were
actually
> paying them, the whole scenario would change.
Indeed. Those with money would get their bums kissed, and their egos
stroked, those without would get no medical care at all.
> With the attendee's settling their own fees, medical practitioners
attitudes
> would change over-night.. Respect would suddenly show it's polite
head and
> all those who attended a doctor would be treated with cutesy.
Respect born from a desire to get paid is not respect at all, and a
decent human being would not expect to waste a doctor's time indulging
their own feelings of importance while the doctor could be treating
others.
> I know many of you are going to say that we must have a free health
service
> and that it is totally necessary that doctors be paid by the state.
Just
> think a little though, would it not be far better if we were allowed
to join
> our own medical insurance scheme and then have a real choice of which
doctor
> or hospital would receive the benefits of our insurance payments?
No show without Punch, and here he is - your prime concern is a feeling
of ownership and control (or at least the appearance of it), not
clinical need or health.
> Of
> course, this would mean that the state would have to allow us to
opt-out and
> then stop deducting the payments we make toward
"state-monopoly-doctoring".
> Our medical insurance payments would also have to become income tax
> deductible.
HAHAHA ! It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY isn't it ? Nothing to do with any
concern for the health of the nation......hey did you know you can
already go private ? All you have to do is pay for it.
> What a difference to the profession's attitude this would make.
Suddenly
> patients would regain their own economic power and be able to demand
> appropriate and polite treatment.
SHITE. Doctors freed from NHS control over their remuneration etc
would implement a market system, and healthcare costs would rocket.
Less profitable treatments would disappear, and a massive quack
industry would form.
> The results would be a health service that competed with the best in
the
> world. American doctors and hospitals put ours in the shade.
No they don't, not on average. Their best are better than ours, but
their standards vary wildly.
> A basic
> medical provision would of course have to be made for those that
wished to
> stay in the NHS. However why should those of us who wish to look
after our
> own medication have to suffer because some do not want to look out
for
> themselves, or are unable to do so?
Because the people of the UK have decided, democratically, that it
should be so. Besides, what do you mean 'look after our own
medication' ? It's still the doctor that does the work - any control
you may think you have is purely illusory.
> Those who have ever attended a private hospital, such as BUPA, will
have
> noticed the total different way they were treated. Staff are
attentive,
> doctors are charming and the whole atmosphere is welcoming and spirit
> raising.
And it's only available to those that can afford it. Can they provide
the same level of comprehensive care that the NHS can ? What's their
research budget ?
> Doctors, just like us all, are all selling something.
Only complete philistines and sociopaths reduce everything to a sales
argument.
> Therefore market forces apply just as much to them as they do to any
other
> member of society.
Market forces apply to every person in society to the same degree - the
degree to which the government allows.
Look at it another way - socialist policy is a market force.
> Many of them have become bigoted and arrogant because
> they feel they are "giving" their services to their patients, they
look on
> the state as their financial provider.
Many people behave like this, unfortunately. Self-importance and
pomposity is becoming a common facet of British life, no doubt directly
linked to the breakup of our traditional communities.
> "At a stroke" ( If doctors knew we were paying them) the patronising
air,
> that so many of them adopt, would be discarded. We could then
expect to
> be looked after in the same excellent fashion, which is the norm,
that most
> service providers, who compete with one another, provide
Most grownups are big enough to understand that
a) ass-kissing doesn't matter, treatment does
b) doctors are busy, have better things to do than kiss ass
Your post says WAY more about you than it does about the NHS. I think
you should go for some counselling, but on the NHS. I am afraid that
if you pay for it, you'll insist that the counselor only tell you nice
things.
Blewyn
Roger Dewhurst
That is one extreme. At the other extreme the patient alone pays the
doctor.
There is a compromise which works quite well here. The patient pays part of
the doctor's fee and the taxpayer subsidizes the remainder. The patient can
generally choose which practice and doctor to go to and rarely has to wait
more than a couple of days for a non-urgent appointment. Waiting times
rarely exceed half an hour.
R
Mark, Devon
administrative burden that is the private health care system in the USA to
be inflicted on the British people? Typical right-wing non-thinking Mark
Thatcherite/Pinochet-loving 'no such thing as society' approach. Think
market forces are the be-all-and-end-all don't you? Market farces more like.
Typical, and very predictable.
--
Mark
"Jon°" <topj...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4225...@212.67.96.135...
arealman
I can tell you that my wife has seen the same Consultant both on the NHS and
privately.
He could almost have been two different people.
As an NHS man, he had no time for her, would not look you in the eye,
delegated the job to an underling.
Privately, he stood up when we entered the room, shook hands, engagaed in
some small talk and finally proceeded to administer first class traetment
which he openly admited, was simply not available NHS. They would not spend
the money on the equipment he used.
--
Another day, another failure, thats the way, of Bliars New Labour.
arealman
Buy a newspaper - keep up with topical events
http://www.conservatives.com/siteimages/home/fp/blair_nose.gif
----
Any resemblance to persons living or dead or events past and present is
entirely coincidental.
Should this post bear similarities to actual topical events, it in fact
remains fiction
and its entire purpose is to allow the intelligent reader to consider the
wider possibilities
attaching to the hypothetical events herein portrayed.
"Jon°" <topj...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4225...@212.67.96.135...
arealman
What a jerk off !
How did you escape from my kill file section marked " Lunatic "
Back in the box you go.
DO NOT ESCAPE AGAIN OFR I WILL SET THE DOGS ON YOU !
"Mark, Devon" <coop...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d056er$4u4$1...@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Mark, Devon
--
Mark
"arealman" <Ma...@PlayboyInternational.Int> wrote in message
news:d058eh$pvc$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Blewyn
> If the state pays the doctor the doctor works for the state not the
patient.
> That is one extreme. At the other extreme the patient alone pays the
> doctor.
So what if the doctor works for the state ?
> There is a compromise which works quite well here. The patient pays
part of
> the doctor's fee and the taxpayer subsidizes the remainder. The
patient can
> generally choose which practice and doctor to go to and rarely has to
wait
> more than a couple of days for a non-urgent appointment. Waiting
times
> rarely exceed half an hour.
I agree that this sounds like a good option - but the privately-paid
part of the fee should be fixed and small, or it will simply deter the
poor from seeking treatment. In a country as densely populated as the
UK, do you want someone running about with a contagious disease for
weeks longer than necessary because of the doctor's fee ?
Blewyn
Blewyn
you......
You neglected to mention the nature of the treatment......was it
cosmetic, or otherwise low-priority for the NHS ?
Blewyn
Roger Dewhurst
"Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1109798777....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> So what if the doctor works for the state ?
The doctor's loyalty is to the state and not the patient.
>
> > There is a compromise which works quite well here. The patient pays
> part of
> > the doctor's fee and the taxpayer subsidizes the remainder. The
> patient can
> > generally choose which practice and doctor to go to and rarely has to
> wait
> > more than a couple of days for a non-urgent appointment. Waiting
> times
> > rarely exceed half an hour.
>
> I agree that this sounds like a good option - but the privately-paid
> part of the fee should be fixed and small, or it will simply deter the
> poor from seeking treatment.
It ranges between about NZ$20 to NZ$45. Children are treated free.
>In a country as densely populated as the
> UK, do you want someone running about with a contagious disease for
> weeks longer than necessary because of the doctor's fee ?
Don't they run around for a while anyway, waiting for an appointment, and
then crammed in a waiting room with dozens of others?
It will not be too densely populated after the Asian bird flu gets there!
Perhaps that is just what Britain needs, a halving of the population. Then
it would not be necessary to cover the whole of the south east with concrete
and tarmac.
R
Blewyn
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1109798777....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > So what if the doctor works for the state ?
>
> The doctor's loyalty is to the state and not the patient.
I think this is where the communication breaks down when trying to
explain socialist ideas to free-marketeers. Can't you imagine a
society where a doctor's loyalty is to the oath of his profession, and
to his patients, even if he is paid by the state ? I would guess that
the majority of British doctors feel such a loyalty.
> > > There is a compromise which works quite well here. The patient
pays
> > part of
> > > the doctor's fee and the taxpayer subsidizes the remainder. The
> > patient can
> > > generally choose which practice and doctor to go to and rarely
has to
> > wait
> > > more than a couple of days for a non-urgent appointment. Waiting
> > times
> > > rarely exceed half an hour.
> >
> > I agree that this sounds like a good option - but the
privately-paid
> > part of the fee should be fixed and small, or it will simply deter
the
> > poor from seeking treatment.
>
> It ranges between about NZ$20 to NZ$45. Children are treated free.
That's about right - enough to deter the timewasters but not to deter
the poor.
> >In a country as densely populated as the
> > UK, do you want someone running about with a contagious disease for
> > weeks longer than necessary because of the doctor's fee ?
>
> Don't they run around for a while anyway, waiting for an appointment,
and
> then crammed in a waiting room with dozens of others?
Depends on the symptoms one describes I guess. I've never had to wait
long for an appointment.
> It will not be too densely populated after the Asian bird flu gets
there!
> Perhaps that is just what Britain needs, a halving of the population.
Then
> it would not be necessary to cover the whole of the south east with
concrete
> and tarmac.
You're a really nice person you are.
Blewyn
Roger Dewhurst
> Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> > "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1109798777....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > So what if the doctor works for the state ?
> >
> > The doctor's loyalty is to the state and not the patient.
>
> I think this is where the communication breaks down when trying to
> explain socialist ideas to free-marketeers. Can't you imagine a
> society where a doctor's loyalty is to the oath of his profession, and
> to his patients, even if he is paid by the state ? I would guess that
> the majority of British doctors feel such a loyalty.
Doctors are businessmen. A large part of the loyalty goes to whoever writes
the cheque. Certainly many will feel a conflict of loyalties but of the
three parties, the government, the profession and the patient, the latter
may attract the least.
>
> >
> > It ranges between about NZ$20 to NZ$45. Children are treated free.
>
> That's about right - enough to deter the timewasters but not to deter
> the poor.
That is so.
>
> > >In a country as densely populated as the
> > > UK, do you want someone running about with a contagious disease for
> > > weeks longer than necessary because of the doctor's fee ?
> >
> > Don't they run around for a while anyway, waiting for an appointment,
> and
> > then crammed in a waiting room with dozens of others? As for the filthy
hospitals!!!
>
> Depends on the symptoms one describes I guess. I've never had to wait
> long for an appointment.
>
> > It will not be too densely populated after the Asian bird flu gets
> there!
> > Perhaps that is just what Britain needs, a halving of the population.
> Then
> > it would not be necessary to cover the whole of the south east with
> concrete
> > and tarmac.
>
> You're a really nice person you are.
Realism is rarely nice or PC.
Britain is headed for ever increasing beastliness borne by an ever
increasing number. It has to stop somewhere, sometime. Of course if the
climatic doomsayers are right the sea level will rise by 100 metres or so.
That will concentrate the population even more. Just how much of Britain is
above the 100 metre contour? In the short term however an interracial
bloodbath is on the cards. For that of course you will be able to blame
your socialist government.
Why is it that you socialists wish to achieve equality of unpleasantness for
all, except for your political leaders of course, rather than some
inequality superimposed on overall average better quality of life?
R
arealman
"Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1109799619.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> And it didn't occur to you for a second that he was SELLING to
> you......
Every service anyone anywhere receives whoever from is in a buyer/seller
situation so the point you are making is not at all clear to me.
>
> You neglected to mention the nature of the treatment......was it
> cosmetic, or otherwise low-priority for the NHS ?
That's a matter between myself, my wife and the Consultant however I am
prepared to tell you it was not cosmetic.
My wife is in no need of cosmetic surgery. As my wife never seems to age,
increasingly I am more likely to be mistaken for her father. lol
It will be me who needs a face lift.
> Blewyn
>
israel
> That's a matter between myself, my wife and the Consultant however I am
> prepared to tell you it was not cosmetic.
So get it done as a private patient.
Why expect the taxpayer to subsidise you ?
Blewyn
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1109799619.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > And it didn't occur to you for a second that he was SELLING to
> > you......
>
> Every service anyone anywhere receives whoever from is in a
buyer/seller
> situation so the point you are making is not at all clear to me.
WRONG. Public servants do not SELL their services, at least not
individually. When an NHS doctor meets a patient, there is no sale
taking place.
When the doctor saw you privately he wanted to make sure that you would
come again, and pay him for his services. That is why he's polite to
you, because he is SELLING his services to you - services that you
could get elsewhere - so it's in his interest to make you feel good.
Some people will buy anything as long as you make them feel good.
> > You neglected to mention the nature of the treatment......was it
> > cosmetic, or otherwise low-priority for the NHS ?
>
> That's a matter between myself, my wife and the Consultant however I
am
> prepared to tell you it was not cosmetic.
You're an online anonymous entity called Arealman. Hardly going to go
and talk to your neighbours about it....
So was it a treatment that the NHS classes as low-priority ?
> My wife is in no need of cosmetic surgery. As my wife never seems to
age,
> increasingly I am more likely to be mistaken for her father. lol
> It will be me who needs a face lift.
Maybe hiring a handsome young gardner would be cheaper...
Blewyn
John
news:d05iqo$b7u$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Away and shag a flightless bird ya tosspot.
And don't post yer rubbish to SCS.
Blewyn
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1109801751.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Roger Dewhurst wrote:
> > > "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1109798777....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > So what if the doctor works for the state ?
> > >
> > > The doctor's loyalty is to the state and not the patient.
> >
> > I think this is where the communication breaks down when trying to
> > explain socialist ideas to free-marketeers. Can't you imagine a
> > society where a doctor's loyalty is to the oath of his profession,
and
> > to his patients, even if he is paid by the state ? I would guess
that
> > the majority of British doctors feel such a loyalty.
>
> Doctors are businessmen.
WRONG. Flat-out, plain WRONG. Maybe in your country they are, but in
the UK the doctoring profession is highly regarded for its social
status, job security and good pay, but most of all its noble aim.
Doctors in the UK (publc sector, which means the majority) are NOT
businessmen because they do NOT chase money or run businesses, they
doctor.
> A large part of the loyalty goes to whoever writes
> the cheque.
Depends what the cheque-writer demands - can you imagine an employer
that pays doctors to determine their own best clinical practices
according to need ?
> Certainly many will feel a conflict of loyalties but of the
> three parties, the government, the profession and the patient, the
latter
> may attract the least.
In what type of situation could this division of loyalty cause conflict
? What 'loyalty' does the patient need that the doctors can't provide
?
> > > It will not be too densely populated after the Asian bird flu
gets
> > there!
> > > Perhaps that is just what Britain needs, a halving of the
population.
> > Then
> > > it would not be necessary to cover the whole of the south east
with
> > concrete
> > > and tarmac.
> >
> > You're a really nice person you are.
>
> Realism is rarely nice or PC.
Realism is simply an excuse for greed and moral cowardice. Life is
what you make of it, and the world is what we make of it together.
> Why is it that you socialists wish to achieve equality of
unpleasantness for
> all, except for your political leaders of course, rather than some
> inequality superimposed on overall average better quality of life?
Inequality is relative. There will always be those who think that the
status quo is too equal, and vice versa. Socialism concerns itself
with the greatest good for the greatest number, within limits of
quality (ie you can't have 90% comfortable and 10% in slavery..) and
limits of human nature (make people comfortable and they won't want to
work).
Blewyn
Jon°
.....
Well I knew that Malcolm and Adam Whyte-Settlar were weird but I did not
think that they removed the wings from our feathered friends before giving
them one?
Transvestite Quiz...........Guess who's who below.
http://www.fatchicksinpartyhats.com/images/fathat52.jpg
"John" <gui...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:38siiaF...@individual.net...
Pemo
"Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Socialism concerns itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,
Tell that to the good folks of Eastern Europe and China.
Socialism concerns itself with the greatest good for the smallest number -
those in whose grasp the power resides in a death-grip.
Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Brezhnev, Nicolescu, Hortha, Jaruzelski, Mao Zedong,
Li Peng, Hoxha, Milosovic, Ulbricht, Honnecker ............
Pemo
--
,-._|\
/ Oz \ Melbourne
\_,--.x/ Australia
v
John
news:d0c854$5cb$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
>
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Socialism concerns itself with the greatest good for the greatest number,
>
> Tell that to the good folks of Eastern Europe and China.
>
> Socialism concerns itself with the greatest good for the smallest number -
> those in whose grasp the power resides in a death-grip.
>
> Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Brezhnev, Nicolescu, Hortha, Jaruzelski, Mao
> Zedong,
> Li Peng, Hoxha, Milosovic, Ulbricht, Honnecker ............
Yawn.
Had any good sheep recently?
Blewyn
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Socialism concerns itself with the greatest good for the greatest
number,
>
> Tell that to the good folks of Eastern Europe and China.
Those are communist countries, not socialist.
> Socialism concerns itself with the greatest good for the smallest
number -
> those in whose grasp the power resides in a death-grip.
Absolute shite. You can't judge an ideology by the behaviour of those
who hijack it for their own purposes.
> Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Brezhnev, Nicolescu, Hortha, Jaruzelski, Mao
Zedong,
> Li Peng, Hoxha, Milosovic, Ulbricht, Honnecker ............
The names I recognise on this list were/are all communists and
dictators, not socialists.
Blewyn
Pemo
"John" <gui...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Had any good sheep recently?
Yup. The England cricket team.
Our velcro gloves got a real good work-out with them.
Pemo
"Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Absolute shite. You can't judge an ideology by the behaviour of those
> who hijack it for their own purposes.
Socialism isn't an ideology. It's a fairy-tale told by the cynical to con
the gullible.
> The names I recognise on this list were/are all communists and
> dictators, not socialists.
Historical revisionism is a feature of socialism.
Peep over the edge of your intellectual rut. You lost. They've gone.
They're discredited.
John
>
> "John" <gui...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Had any good sheep recently?
>
> Yup. The England cricket team.
>
> Our velcro gloves got a real good work-out with them.
What is ... 'cricket'?
Other than a kind of grasshopper?
Blewyn
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Absolute shite. You can't judge an ideology by the behaviour of
those
> > who hijack it for their own purposes.
>
> Socialism isn't an ideology. It's a fairy-tale told by the cynical
to con
> the gullible.
Rubbish. It's a noble ideology that accommodates both individual
ambition/greed and the good of society as a whole.
> > The names I recognise on this list were/are all communists and
> > dictators, not socialists.
>
> Historical revisionism is a feature of socialism.
I think you're confusing socialism with communism. There is no
revisonism. France and Britain currently have socialist governments
(OK the British agruably veering towards the conservative), but you
could hardly say they are similar to the governments of the individuals
you listed.
Blewyn
Blewyn
> On 5 Mar 2005 00:25:55 -0800, "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Doctors are businessmen.
> >
> >WRONG. Flat-out, plain WRONG.
>
BTW
> the NHS was expressly and deliberately set up in such a way as to
allow
> their lucrative schemes to prosper.
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/nhs_at_50/special_report/newsid_119000/119803.stm
>
> Bevan kept the consultants on side by "stuffing their mouths with
gold".
How does that translate to "deliberately set up in such a way" ? The
NHS forced doctors out of private practice and quackery into proper,
regulated public sector practice. Are you surprised that doctors
opposed the changes ? Why ?
> You really need look no further for the reason of the dire and
inhuman
> level of treatment in the NHS.
Yes you do. There are many more reasons, not least increasing
longevity, the increased number and variety of treatments available and
performed, and the massive increase in violent crime.
> It is to encourage fee paying treatment
> of a proper standard in proper conditions.
Agreed, may be many consultants and managers working to undermine the
service. That's a damn good reason not to vote Tory.
> How else can you explain
> this? http://snipurl.com/a0je It's my local hospital, BTW where my
> wife's father breathed his last because he was infected with MRSA.
Broken link. MRSA is a new problem. You can't expect the NHS to be
clairvoyant.
> Just last month my wife was charged £210 for an 11 minute private
> consultation with a surgeon who basically said "It's got to come out"
a
> conclusion she knew already from the results of an ultrasound
> investigation 10 days previous.
If she already knew the conclusion why did she go see the consultant ?
> 20 years ago her mother before her went through a series of various
> operations on the NHS before she died (gall bladder, hysterectomy,
both
> arthritic knees). In every case she had to have a private
"Consultation"
> like the one my wife just had, and pay the consultant his fee of
about
> £80 for a ten minute patronising chat, in order to skip about half
of
> the NHS waiting list. This little wheeze is still going on. It
happened
> to a work colleague recently. The consultant even asked for his "Fee"
in
> used notes in a brown envelope, the same guy was charged £200 for a
> consultant to give an injection of steroids into in his arthritic
knee,
> plus £180 for the steroid medicine irself, all this as a pre-amble
to
> getting an NHS fast track knee replacement operation.
Did you or he or your mother report any of this ?
> > Maybe in your country they are, but in
> >the UK the doctoring profession is highly regarded for its social
> >status, job security and good pay, but most of all its noble aim.
> >Doctors in the UK (publc sector, which means the majority) are NOT
> >businessmen because they do NOT chase money or run businesses, they
> >doctor.
>
> How naiive you are.
How tediously paranoid and cynical you are.
Blewyn
Jackie Mulheron
> Pemo wrote:
>> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Absolute shite. You can't judge an ideology by the behaviour of
> those
>> > who hijack it for their own purposes.
>>
>> Socialism isn't an ideology. It's a fairy-tale told by the cynical
> to con
>> the gullible.
>
> Rubbish. It's a noble ideology that accommodates both individual
> ambition/greed and the good of society as a whole.
>
>> > The names I recognise on this list were/are all communists and
>> > dictators, not socialists.
>>
>> Historical revisionism is a feature of socialism.
>
> I think you're confusing socialism with communism. There is no
> revisonism. France and Britain currently have socialist governments
Do stop trolling.
Blewyn
Blewyn
Jackie Mulheron
> I'm being perfectly serious. Butt out.
That Tony Blair is socialist?
Blewyn
I.d.i.d.y.n.t s.a.y. t.o.n.i.b.l.a.i.r. .w.a.s. .a. f.u.c.k.i.n.g
s.o.c.i.a.l.i.s.t.
I said "socialist government" which, on balance, I think we just about
still have (the definition being they believe in an active
interventionist government, not minimal government)
Blewyn
Jackie Mulheron
> Jackie Mulheron wrote:
>> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:1110129683.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > I'm being perfectly serious. Butt out.
>>
>> That Tony Blair is socialist?
>
> I.d.i.d.y.n.t s.a.y. t.o.n.i.b.l.a.i.r. .w.a.s. .a. f.u.c.k.i.n.g
> s.o.c.i.a.l.i.s.t.
He selects the Government.
> I said "socialist government" which, on balance, I think we just about
> still have (the definition being they believe in an active
> interventionist government, not minimal government)
Like the US then?
Blewyn
> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1110194438.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Jackie Mulheron wrote:
> >> "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1110129683.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > I'm being perfectly serious. Butt out.
> >>
> >> That Tony Blair is socialist?
> >
> > I.d.i.d.y.n.t s.a.y. t.o.n.i.b.l.a.i.r. .w.a.s. .a. f.u.c.k.i.n.g
> > s.o.c.i.a.l.i.s.t.
>
> He selects the Government.
SO if the man who selects the government isn't a socialist that means
the government isn't either ? I still wouldn't say he's a
socialist....but he's not far from it, and I believe his government IS
socialist (though v centre and not v left).
> > I said "socialist government" which, on balance, I think we just
about
> > still have (the definition being they believe in an active
> > interventionist government, not minimal government)
>
> Like the US then?
Unlike the US.
Blewyn
Blewyn
> On 6 Mar 2005 08:02:10 -0800, "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Bevan kept the consultants on side by "stuffing their mouths with
> >gold".
> >
> >How does that translate to "deliberately set up in such a way" ?
>
> Did it happen? -Yes. Did they intend it to happen - Yes. QED.
Hmm and there was me thinking that it was st up that way because Bevan
genuinely wanted a free health service for all, and felt he had to give
the consultants that concession to get it done or risk total failure.
Clearly the service was not "deliberately set up in such a way", but
deliberately set up in such a way as to remove the profit motive from
the health industry and attract professionals who are motivated by the
nobility of their calling, rather than money (while at the same time
paying them a good wage). That the consultants had to be allowed to
keep private patients to agree to the idea was just a political reality
of the time, a concession that had to be made.
> >The
> >NHS forced doctors out of private practice and quackery into proper,
> >regulated public sector practice. Are you surprised that doctors
> >opposed the changes ?
>
> No
>
> >Why ?
>
> They are greedy, robbing, money grubbing bastards, that's why.
There's a rather better explanation than that - people always react
against something when they perceive things being taken from them.
That's why the internet is teeming with reactionaries who think that
taxation is unfair, that other people getting benefits is unfair etc
etc If anyone proposed privatisation today, I think you will find that
doctors would flatly oppose it.
> >> It is to encourage fee paying treatment
> >> of a proper standard in proper conditions.
> >
> >Agreed, may be many consultants and managers working to undermine
the
> >service. That's a damn good reason not to vote Tory.
>
> It's a better reason to emigrate if you are young enough. (And take
your
> student loan with you) !
Haha there's LOTS of reasons to emigrate and that's just one of them..
>
<http://www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=876234>
>
> That is OK ATM (17-00 hrs). Would you work in bloody place like that?
> It's actually the biggest teaching hospital in Europe.
I wouldn't trust a newspaper report like that to be indicative of the
whole hospital - maybe just a rogue cleaner in that particular ward,
not doubt under pressure from the gang leader of the lowest-price
contractor the hospital could find to clean as many wards as possible
in the shortest time. Now if there was a proper study of the overall
level of cleanliness throughout the hospital.....
> >MRSA is a new problem.
>
> It's not. Literally *everywhere* else in western Europe is doing
much
> better than we are. The Dutch have ***ONE FIFTIETH*** of our rates of
> infection.
>
Do we know why ?
> >> Just last month my wife was charged £210 for an 11 minute private
> >> consultation with a surgeon who basically said "It's got to come
out"
> >a
> >> conclusion she knew already from the results of an ultrasound
> >> investigation 10 days previous.
> >
> >If she already knew the conclusion why did she go see the consultant
?
>
> Because the medical establishment won't work any other way, if you
don't
> play ball you don't get your operation. He has the absolute
entitlement
> to be given the opportunity to collect his bloated "consultation"
fee.
> In southern Italy it would be called " La Bustarella" , "The little
> envelope".
Hmm...guess I'll take your word for that as I don't know either way.
> There are around 30 medical schools in the UK and the number of
places
> are strictly regulated by the government so that the number of
medical
> students equals the number of doctors required in the future. So, you
> are pretty much guaranteed a job when you qualify.
>
> Ends************************
>
> Kushty, or what...
>
> In reality the numbers are set by the government acting in collusion
> with the doctors trade union.
>
> So who is to be blamed if we are in a shortage of doctors now?
>
> Clue: = It's a 4 year course, Who was setting the parameters 4 years
> ago? Can't blame that on Margaret Hilda or Shagger Major, now can we?
This system has been in place much longer than 4 years, and it's a 5-6
year course, not 4 year. You want to ask students to study for 5-6
years, with no grants, building up massive debts, with the possibility
that they might not pass, with no guarantee of a job at the end ?
How many do you think would apply ?
> Nothing to report, it is normal proceadure, that is what is supposed
to
> happen the system is set up expressly to make provision for it.
The guy asks for the fee in an envelope in used notes and you think
that's legal ?
Blewyn
Dr A. N. Walker
Blewyn <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Clearly the service was not "deliberately set up in such a way", but
>deliberately set up in such a way as to remove the profit motive from
>the health industry and attract professionals who are motivated by the
>nobility of their calling, rather than money (while at the same time
>paying them a good wage).
Umm. Perhaps you need to learn a little more about the
hospitals and doctors that we had before the NHS? The system was
far from perfect, but "charity" in those days did indeed "begin at
home". I have quoted previously in this group from the Annual Report
of Nottingham General Hospital in the 1770s -- a time when doctors
and nurses gave their services free, poor patients were treated free,
and wealthy patients were expected to subscribe/contribute. From
"<c0j378$54k$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>":
" The "welfare state" merely shifts the charitable burden from
" responsible individuals to taxpayers in general, and the delivery
" of those services from the charities to the state. To regard one
" as better than the other reflects changes in society rather than
" any objective change in the service. "
What makes you think that doctors "then" were any more motivated by
money, as opposed to their calling, than they are now?
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Blewyn
I don't think they were - but that doesn't mean that a modern
privatised health industry today would be less motivated by profit than
the NHS is.
I don't think that Aneurin Bevan had the trouble he did because doctors
were motivated by money, it's just that people like control, and
generally oppose it being taken from them.
Blewyn
Frank F. Matthews
Blewyn wrote:
An attitude limited to the few who think that they have some sort of
control. Sometimes I think that folks who like control are exactly the
ones who should not have it.
Joe Hutcheon
news:gMFXd.63238$SQ4....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> Blewyn wrote:
>
> > Dr A. N. Walker wrote:
> >
> >>In article <1110197528.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> >>Blewyn <ble...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> " The "welfare state" merely shifts the charitable burden from
> >> " responsible individuals to taxpayers in general, and the delivery
> >> " of those services from the charities to the state. To regard one
> >> " as better than the other reflects changes in society rather than
> >> " any objective change in the service. "
> >>
> >>What makes you think that doctors "then" were any more motivated by
> >>money, as opposed to their calling, than they are now?
> >
> >
> > I don't think they were - but that doesn't mean that a modern
> > privatised health industry today would be less motivated by profit than
> > the NHS is.
> >
> > I don't think that Aneurin Bevan had the trouble he did because doctors
> > were motivated by money, it's just that people like control, and
> > generally oppose it being taken from them.
>
> control. Sometimes I think that folks who like control are exactly the
> ones who should not have it.
Only sometimes?
Frank F. Matthews
Joe Hutcheon wrote:
Yeah! Even I will admit that occasionally it is useful to have a
control freak. Not often but occasionally.
Jon°
medical profession. I find nothing wrong with this. However it just goes to
show that doctors, the same as all of us, are motivated by self gain.
Why should they not be?.....Are some saying that they are saints and far to
high in the "do-gooders" stratosphere for lesser mortals to understand?
"Joe Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:398nreF...@individual.net...
Blewyn
> Amongst the biggest investors, in America, on the Dow Jones, are
the
> medical profession. I find nothing wrong with this. However it just
goes to
> show that doctors, the same as all of us, are motivated by self gain.
> Why should they not be?.....Are some saying that they are saints and
far to
> high in the "do-gooders" stratosphere for lesser mortals to
understand?
No, I'm saying that the British and American cultural traditions are
different, and the societies are different. For each research doctor
working to make the patentable AIDS cure to make million$, how many
work in small towns serving the local populace, happy with their
station in life ?
Of course if you are a driven, selfish person then it will be hard for
you to understand those that aren't.
Blewyn
Pemo
"Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com> described socialism:
> ....... It's a noble ideology that accommodates both individual
> ambition/greed and the good of society as a whole.
I had said:
> > Historical revisionism is a feature of socialism.
to which Blewyn replied:
> I think you're confusing socialism with communism. There is no
> revisonism.
Your attempt to disassociate from the failed decades-long
socialist/communist experiments in eastern Europe is itself revisionism. In
their hey-day communism and socialism were embraced as synonymous terms
(albeit with some semantic and arcane differences). Since the collapse of
the workers' paradise that created the Zil and Chernobyl, apologists have
zipped themselves into their cocoon of denial.
Peep over the edge of your intellectual rut. Ther's a real world out there.
israel
> For each research doctor
> working to make the patentable AIDS cure to make million$, how many
> work in small towns serving the local populace, happy with their
> station in life ?
I think that a lot of them are UNhappy with their station in life.
Blewyn
> On 11 Mar 2005 04:42:51 -0800, "Blewyn" <ble...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> >No, I'm saying that the British and American cultural traditions are
> >different, and the societies are different.
>
>
> > For each research doctor
> >working to make the patentable AIDS cure to make million$,
>
been
> working on AIDS research since 1980/81.
I'm talking about motive, not the fact that research is taking place
per se.
> I went to San Francisco in 1983 to get some training in AIDS
diagnosis.
>
> > how many work in small towns serving the local populace,
>
> Doleing out cough bottles and arthritis tablets?
Yes. Anything wrong with that ?
> Occasionally getting to mumble "There's a lot of it about"...
>
> > happy with their station in life ?
>
> Who am I to say?
Some people are happy with their lives you know, quite a lot in fact.
> >Of course if you are a driven, selfish person then it will be hard
for
> >you to understand those that aren't.
>
> Maybe you are right.
>
> BTW do you want a medicinal cure for AIDS to be developed (at someone
> elses expense) or do you not? You are not making yourself clear.
Of course, but that's not the topic of this thread. Why 'at someone
else's expense' ?
Blewyn