Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington (Post 741442)

Good question Jaysay, they could have saved the money and asked those poor s*ds running round like headless chickens to get jobs done......the answer is get rid of some of the tiers of management and spend the money that is saved on grass roots care and services.......but that is too simple.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 741466)

'The government says it has rejected advice from management consultants to cut the NHS workforce in England by 10% over the next five years.'

Laughable.

It's the management consultants who should be cut...by 100%.

Originally Posted by SPUGGIE J (Post 741477)

The NHS has become so bloated that the chances of any worthwhile and benificial chanes will be blocked by the suit and tie brigade at the top. To me who knows best what the patient needs the medical staff or some business graduate. Granted the NHS should be run as a business but even businesses need to go on a diet when needed. When it comes to losing the excess fat the top has the most. G if it wasnt laughable that the govenment rejects the report then we would be crying. The govenment wants an efficient NHS yet does not want to put in on a diet in case it becomes anorexic. It seems like the NHS is heading for a banks style meltdown.

Patiants come first not some targets set that become a noose around the medical staffs necks. The comments that Jaysay made in another thread shows how screwed up the system has become. I do not like the idea of people losing jobs but sometimes the fews sacrifice will be for the better of the many. Get rid of these stupid reports suited slave drivers and let the people who do the front line job of fixing our illness wounds etc. Then maybe the dreaded postcode lottery will end as the money freed can be used where it is needed most.

Originally Posted by Eric (Post 741587)

Just a comment in the form of a question: do you realise that the private health care lobby in Washington pumps more money into the Republican Party coffers than does the oil industry? And all this to maintain a system which is far more wasteful and inefficient than the NHS?

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb (Post 743081)

Originally Posted by Tealeaf (Post 743089)

Some of us here have, over the weekend, been reading about an American-style cash payment for clinical teatment. In this instance, it involved an eminent oncologist paid money by a foreign government to offer a diagnosis which spiced up the true state of the patients condition. That patient was a Libyan national held in a Scottish jail and as a consequence he is now back in Libya. I'm sure you know to whom I am referring.

Personally, I prefer to see patient care the British way, which is according to need.The American way, is of course based on the profit to be gained by clinicians, insurance companies and now dodgy political regimes.

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb (Post 743133)

There's a lot going on here that we don't know about yet - since the Scottish government isn't releasing details. My understanding is that there were four specialists but only one of them was willing to support the claim that Megrahi had just weeks to live. As the person in question has not been named, we don't know if he or she was employed by the NHS, the Libyans or Megradi's legal team. Yep, it definitely smells fishy.

I prefer the American way prior to 1965 when patients paid doctors directly and filed their own insurance claims. A good system relies on an involved and well informed consumer. Once you take the consumer out of the loop problems can and do develop. By the way, there is nothing wrong with making a profit. Profits make possible reinvestment in new facilities and equipment, expanded services, more jobs and higher wages. It's a bad idea to exclude hospitals and doctors from that model. Free enterprise is more nimble and its competitive and innovative nature surpasses all other delivery systems.