Be Excellent To Each Other

I saw this petition - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Homeopathy1/#detail - on the PM's site, which slightly annoyed me. Homeopathy is complete bunk of the worst order and should not be offered on the NHS (or at all, if you ask me).

I'm thinking to put up a counter petition and so far came up with:



If anyone wants to correct spelling, grammar or add anything please do.

Good stuff, can't see much space for improvement there. Though you could add in the No.10 post a DVD of that Seinfeld episode where Costanza goes to a homeopathy practitioner to sort out his tonsils, with terrible yet hilarious consequences.

Or the one where Kramer put the balm on.

Thanks Pete, I'll launch it now! (David Cameron can buy his own DVD's, though )

*edit*

No I won't. They've removed the ability to create petitions until some "later date"

*holds up gun* take that apostrophe back, bitch.

Edited:




How does that sound?

Well I don't know what other hokum the NHS provides, but efficacy is definitely an "is" rather than an "are" (I think.).



DVD's? That one?

*pulls back hammer*

Whats ( ) wrong with it? DVD's, Book's, Game's, CD's, MP3's, DRM riddled download's - all perfectly acceptable misuse's of the appostrophe!

Thank fuck for that.

Petitions are less useful than a million people protesting on the streets of London.

Psychiatry?

Pointless antibiotic prescriptions to people with viral infections just to shut them up and get them out of the GP's office?

Ooh! Ooh! Cosmetic surgery!

Homeopathy is the very least of the NHS' problems - at least some people find this useful, for whatever reason. Even if such reasons are little or nothing more than placebo effect, they're still beneficial.

Want to save money on the NHS? Sack a good proportion of so-called 'managers' and other useless Russian Doll structures-in-structures that Labour and their self interested union pals have inserted these past 13 years, and drag in modern, commercial working practices and contracts for those front end staff that remain. Of those few managers that are left within this new, horizontal management structure, as administered by BUPA, make damn sure that they're actually any good at man-management and have proven track records within the Private Sector. Remove all final salary pension schemes, for both existing and new staff. Dramatically curtail union powers within the NHS through legislation. Cut GPs' and Consultants' grossly swollen renumeration under Labour and make them serve their clients at decent times of the day and evening, to suit working people, for no additional expenditure. Stop paying over the odds to big pharma companies and their gravy train; force GPs to prescribe generic drugs EVERY time, on pain of disciplinary action. Stop bankrolling dubious practices like sex change ops, cosmetic surgery (except reconstructive surgery after cancer ops etc.) and providing drug addicts with the means to maintain their addictions (the NHS should only be used for getting people OFF drugs). Stop using expensive hospitals as de facto old peoples homes. Increase perscription charges for those who can afford it. Stop financing the building of new hospitals via ludicrously expensive schemes such as PFI.

Do all of the above successfully, in a structured and meaningful way, and we could have all the homeopathy, acupuncture, physiotherapy and psychiatry we could ever want, not to mention NHS dental and eye care.

BZZT!

Why should some people get cosmetic surgery?

Because they are uggos.

I'd say it's reasonable if half your face has had to be cut off to get at a throat tumour, but not if you're a bit unhappy at the size of your ta-tas. No?

Cos a fox ate their face off, so they wanted bigger boobs to compensate for that?

Depends, man. How can you say that someone is going to be more unhappy with only half a face than, say, one giant boob and one tiny one?

The whole paying Pharma companies over the odds for drugs argument has little weight imo. The companies need to charge high rates so they can recoup what they invested in the drug and other failed drugs before the patent runs out and someone else can just come along and manufacture it for a fraction of the cost. Otherwise the Pharma companies won't have any money to pool into research for new stuff.

Foxes are Britain's dingos.

I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about reconstructive surgery, which I think was also what Cavey meant. Carving skin off your arse to patch your face over because leaving you without a face would tend to be something of a medical issue.

Yeah, alright. CARRY ON.

IVF is a bigger waste of money than cosmetic surgery anyway.

I am violently against IVF.

Really? What violence has occurred as a result?

[edit]Also: IVF on the NHS (TLA, FFS), or IVF at all?

IVF on the NHS. People can do what they want with their own money.

AGREE.

We've been over this before. The doctors said it only works on women; your choice to go ahead anyway was your own stupid fault.

Yeah, you tell me that after I'm sat in a paddling pool with a turkey baster up my arse.

Mental images I don't want when I'm contemplating breakfast #32 in a continuing series.

Meh, you're joking, right? Have you seen how much money these big pharmaceuticals actually make in profit, and that's after all the massive investment they make in their premises/employee sports centres/work environment/staff pensions, healthcare and benefits, shareholder dividends and all the rest? I've done loads of work in the past for one such company, and their site was like a veritable palace.

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem at all with private companies making very healthy profits, in fact I welcome it with open arms. However, said profits cannot be largely as paid for out of the public purse, the NHS in this instance. We've got quite enough to pay for already, thanks.

The problem is how you regulate that - if you start enforcing a "you must sell at cost price to the NHS" clause in the agreements with the pharma companies, why would they bother?

Quite so; of course I wouldn't begrudge some poor sod reconstructive surgery after being ravaged by some dreadful disease or other, or indeed after suffering burns or an accident etc.

But I would begrudge some bint cosmetic surgery, 'cause she doesn't like the fact one of her dirty pillows is bigger than the other, or some geezer decides he really should be a woman, or some smackhead needs his methadone etc. etc., although I'm well aware that the NHS does pay for shit like this. Of course, if we're talking gross birth deformities, even if these do not impair quality of life in any physical way (e.g. a giant mole covering half the face etc.), then even these should be dealt with too. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I suggest as far as the hard pressed NHS is concerned, that line isn't where it needs to be right now.

Ah now, this is dangerous territory. Who is to say that the guy with the mole is more upset by it than the girl with the different-sized boobs? Or the woman that gets her nose mashed up in a car accident?

What if they're absolutely fucking massive & causing back problems? IIRC that's one of the main causes of taking unscheduled time off work (back trouble, not massive mammaries). Surely reducing the risk is in the NHS' & the national interest?

The NHS has huge purchasing power, regardless of whether or not it decides to use it? Yes, some drugs are unique to one company, whilst within the patent period, but if the NHS buyers played hardball (as they bloody well should), there are plenty of ways of securing a much more competitive single supplier 'package' price for a combination of drugs that include those that can be sourced elsewhere etc., and as I've said, the maximised use of cheap, generic, non proprietary drugs etc.

In terms of regulation, this could potentially consist of a maximum of xx% return on sales, with an indepedent assessment of true development and manufacturing costs. (This is certainly faff, but given the amount spent on pharma, I imagine it would be well worthwhile). These guys make too much money off the NHS, and therefore all of us, that much seems obvious to me.

Reducing breast size should be illegal.

All doctors should be like to doctor who did cosmetic sugery on my colleague Liz, who asked to go from an A cup to a C cup and got a set of double D's instead. Quality work.

I've already covered the mashed up nose thing; of course this should be covered.
What's needed, of course, is a clear set of guidelines for referring GPs as to what the NHS will, and will not pay for, just like we get guidelines set for everything else. And those guidelines need to exclude the kind of stuff I mention IMO, as well as IVF too, for that matter. We're paying for far too much of this and we cannot afford it.

Breast reduction should be a capital offence.

Buy two get one free, also.

Isn't it typically the drugs that are within the patent period that cost the NHS so much money? I'm currently on medication that costs something like £1000 per month, because there is no cheap generic alternative because it's new. The fact that we're constantly breaking new ground in treatment means that we're obliged to use stuff that's only recently approved, which means it's fucking expensive.

Erk. What if the company is the only one that makes said drug, and says "no"?

Why, though? I can't see why "mashed nose in accident" is more worthy than "mashed nose from birth".
Assuming there are no medical reasons, surely every case has to be done on a psychological basis, as I believe it is now?

[edit]I don't disagree with you, however I think there should be no line, rather than 'one that shifts around depending on the opinion of the person in charge'.

Exactly, and IIRC the patent period for new drugs is 20 years - sounds like a good screw to me.

Frankly Craster, unless your condition was acute, I personally don't think the taxpayer should be forking out £1000/month on drugs, that's ludicrous. (Soz mate, no offence).

Either the drug company sharpens its pencil (back to the xx% ROS example I gave earlier, as independently assessed), or we don't buy it at all, end of. How did we manage 5-10 years ago? Can't we use a (much) cheaper alternative treatment?

???
The link's NSFW! btw.

People died?

Then unless it's a genuine life-saving drug, we don't buy it.
If it IS a life-saving drug, we still buy it BUT we don't buy anything else from that company, as a matter of policy, unless there's no alternative. Given the size of the NHS' buying power, I would have thought this would carry some weight.

From non life threatening conditions?
(I did say NON LIFE THREATENING).

Oh, none taken - but it is both acute and chronic. And trust me, those costs are a bargain compared to what gets shelled out elsewhere.



Typically there is no equally effective alternative treatment - medical science, particularly medication, has taken astonishing strides over the last few decades. We're constantly on the leading edge, and the NHS trusts are constantly faced with decisions between funding new medications and allowing people to die/suffer.