Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Unfortunately my job involves calling a lot of hospitals and GP's so I get exposed to a wide range of different automated and live systems

I also have that particular 'pleasure'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

I've been doing some reading on UK politics.... man... it's just as messed up as we are . Honestly, having a hard time keeping what's what straight.

Democracy was ok for the ancient Greeks but it has fallen over in the age of mass media. When sound bites and partisan point scoring are more important that actual policies then you know that something has gone very wrong. Hence the wonderful political systems that we have now

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm confused... is your "right-wingers" the same as ours?

Our Prime Minister has literally never met anyone working class socially. Same for the chancellor and about 40% of the cabinet (I can't remember the actual number).

The core of these form a clique around the prime minister with most of the rubbish/irrelevent jobs taken by token poor people.

This is just baseless Tory-bashing, like so many of your posts.

I don't like the tories. Sometimes they come up in a discussion and I express this. Problem?

I could come up with a list of conservatives I respect but that would be boring and pointless.

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm confused... is your "right-wingers" the same as ours?

Our Prime Minister has literally never met anyone working class socially. Same for the chancellor and about 40% of the cabinet (I can't remember the actual number).

The core of these form a clique around the prime minister with most of the rubbish/irrelevent jobs taken by token poor people.

This is just baseless Tory-bashing, like so many of your posts.

Its always annoying that you Brits have such excellent names for your political parties. I like to refer to ours as Political Party 1A and Political Party 1B.

Our political parties also have identical policies. And I'm not exaggerating, the labour party's policies are identical to the tories' in every single respect.

I follow politics like a hawk and I've not seen a single philosophical disagreement from labour with the government. Their "opposition" consists of calling the government incompetent.

At least you knew where Mitt Romney stood on Obamacare, taxation and foreign policy. flying rodent gak insane but still, you knew what he believed in.

Flying rodent gak insane might just be the most concise summery of the US political system I've ever heard.

That has to be the best auto-correct of a swear word i've ever seen

It makes good sense for minor ailments and the like, and for having prescriptions resigned. I mean, is anyone really going to argue that you need to see your doctor in person in order to get your standard prescription refilled? It's just a series of standard questions and a sign off, no checking for something the patient might have missed.

So really it comes down to execution - if certain types of services are put on-line that need face to face contact in order to reduce all possible risk, then there's an issue. But if they do a decent job of making this only for really run of the mill stuff then it'd be great.



All that said, the claim that it'd save several billion almost immediately is such terrible budgeting it makes me sad. Just deeply, professionally sad for whatever poor bastards put the costings together, only for their minister to come out and claim something so deeply stupid. Because when you make a process more efficient, you might say 'there'll be 8 million doctor hours and they cost 3 billion annually' but that doesn't mean the 3 billion stops getting paid. Those folk are still on the payroll. What you find is that those hours are now used to clear up any backlog, or to provide new services that previously couldn't be offered for lack of manpower. And possibly, over time, an effort to reduce the number of new doctors into the system reduce the payroll, but only over time, and only if there's an actual political effort to reduce FTE.

And then you hand all that detail over to a minister, and he stands up in front of the media and says 'we'll save 3 billion almost immediately' and all the people in the back office sigh and shake their heads.

I like this idea, you can easily catch minor ailments and not waste time on them, and if its something serious you can schedule a face to face appointment.

 Testify wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I'm confused... is your "right-wingers" the same as ours?

Our Prime Minister has literally never met anyone working class socially. Same for the chancellor and about 40% of the cabinet (I can't remember the actual number).

The core of these form a clique around the prime minister with most of the rubbish/irrelevent jobs taken by token poor people.

This is just baseless Tory-bashing, like so many of your posts.

I don't like the tories. Sometimes they come up in a discussion and I express this. Problem?

Yes, particularly because ignorant tribalists such as yourself are allowed to vote.

Press hysteria.

The online service takes the load off face to face appointments, it doesnt do away or 'ban' them.

it results in a saving through efficiency not an elimination of service. Try telling that to a lefty scaremonger though.

I'm not going to say that it's a good idea or a bad one, because we've yet to see in detail how it will work. It's a principle that could work though, certainly. It's an idea.

What I object to is the left wing in this country instantly jumping on anything the gov't suggests, like "Oh, that's a stupid idea, here's none of of our own." They're not offering alternatives, just opposition. Labour are quite obviously hoping they can can ride on the coat-tails of the 20 years of kneejerk anti-conservative sentiment they've been embedding within the public consciousness. Alastair Campbell explicitly stated that he HATED the Tories and wanted to ensure that they could never get back into power. That's not about policy difference, that's about hatred and prejudice. It's ugly.

I'll admit I'm fairly anti-Tory in terms of their historic stances on subjects but even I was willing to give them a chance...
There's a few ways they have left me pleasantly surprised and a few other ways I have been kinda disappointed...

Palindrome wrote:
Democracy was ok for the ancient Greeks but it has fallen over in the age of mass media. When sound bites and partisan point scoring are more important that actual policies then you know that something has gone very wrong. Hence the wonderful political systems that we have now

Yeah, democracy was so sensible and reasoned in ancient Greece.

 sebster wrote:

Yeah, democracy was so sensible and reasoned in ancient Greece.

 Albatross wrote:
What I object to is the left wing in this country instantly jumping on anything the gov't suggests, like "Oh, that's a stupid idea, here's none of of our own." They're not offering alternatives, just opposition.

Isn't that basically what every opposition sounds like in it's first term out of government?

I mean, what ideas Labour had they would have put in place or at least tried to put in place when they were in government. Time in the wilderness is time spent building up a new collection of ideas.

 sebster wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
What I object to is the left wing in this country instantly jumping on anything the gov't suggests, like "Oh, that's a stupid idea, here's none of of our own." They're not offering alternatives, just opposition.

Isn't that basically what every opposition sounds like in it's first term out of government?

I mean, what ideas Labour had they would have put in place or at least tried to put in place when they were in government. Time in the wilderness is time spent building up a new collection of ideas.

The problem is that we're at something of a crossroads as a nation - this is a time for co-operation and constructive criticism, not to mention a little honesty, from Labour. Look at the Iraq war - the Tories had the chance to effectively bring down the government by voting in opposition to it, but decided that the country could ill afford such a crisis at such a pivotal moment. I wish I had confidence that Labour would do the same, should a similar situation arise. Frankly, I think they're just smarting from defeat and lashing out like a wounded beast. They won't behave reasonably 'til the last Blairites have been taken out and shot. Politically speaking, of course.

Labour's future is in people like Chuka Ummuna, not Balls, Milliband, Harman et al. They're toxic, and frankly, unelectable. The brains walked out the door when Brown took over.

Milliband should never have got the job...
His brother was a far better alternative...

Well, the way things look now, there is no way the tories are getting elected in 2015 so we had better hope Labour can come up with some good ideas.

Back on topic, though, I don't understand what the whole thing is supposed to be about.

Through our collective wisdom we have rightly concluded that face-to-face appointments are required and will continue for important consultations, while internet based consultations or screening will be able to replace trivial appointments.

We've already had this system in place for several years via NHS Direct.

Is it just another case of a minister crapping out of their mouth because modern government is all about announcing important initiatives rather than making real decisions that actually matter?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, the way things look now, there is no way the tories are getting elected in 2015

Really? I know that the Lib Dems are probably never going to get into power in the next 20-30 years, but I didn't think it was looking like either Labour or the Conservatives were really pulling ahead of one another.

Yeah, I'm pretty confident we'll get back in actually. Or, at the very least, we'll end up in coalition with UKIP, despite all the paper talk.

There is no way Labour will win the next election. Not with that goon in charge. His brother maybe, but not him.

 Orlanth wrote:
Press hysteria.

The online service takes the load off face to face appointments, it doesnt do away or 'ban' them.

it results in a saving through efficiency not an elimination of service. Try telling that to a lefty scaremonger though.

how? How are they going to tell if you're sick online?

 Albatross wrote:
Or, at the very least, we'll end up in coalition with UKIP, despite all the paper talk..

The very possiblity gives me nightmares.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, the way things look now, there is no way the tories are getting elected in 2015

Really? I know that the Lib Dems are probably never going to get into power in the next 20-30 years, but I didn't think it was looking like either Labour or the Conservatives were really pulling ahead of one another.

I am only going by the Evening Standard, which is moderately right wing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Press hysteria.

The online service takes the load off face to face appointments, it doesnt do away or 'ban' them.

it results in a saving through efficiency not an elimination of service. Try telling that to a lefty scaremonger though.

how? How are they going to tell if you're sick online?

There's a large percentage of visits that new requires face-to-face to renew perscription. Doing that online can give GP more efficiencies....

I can see the more "visual" oriented specialist take advantage of this... ie, dermatologist.

If anything, the can review online order some test, then schedule a face-to-face once the test results comes back.

But, it'll certainly won't be used to completely replace everything.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Press hysteria.

The online service takes the load off face to face appointments, it doesnt do away or 'ban' them.

it results in a saving through efficiency not an elimination of service. Try telling that to a lefty scaremonger though.

how? How are they going to tell if you're sick online?

There's a large percentage of visits that new requires face-to-face to renew perscription. Doing that online can give GP more efficiencies....

I can see the more "visual" oriented specialist take advantage of this... ie, dermatologist.

If anything, the can review online order some test, then schedule a face-to-face once the test results comes back.

But, it'll certainly won't be used to completely replace everything.

Really, I renew my prescriptions online what do you need the doc for?
Any checkup requires multiple tests. Can't do those online. I'm still confused.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Press hysteria.

The online service takes the load off face to face appointments, it doesnt do away or 'ban' them.

it results in a saving through efficiency not an elimination of service. Try telling that to a lefty scaremonger though.

how? How are they going to tell if you're sick online?

There's a large percentage of visits that new requires face-to-face to renew perscription. Doing that online can give GP more efficiencies....

I can see the more "visual" oriented specialist take advantage of this... ie, dermatologist.

If anything, the can review online order some test, then schedule a face-to-face once the test results comes back.

But, it'll certainly won't be used to completely replace everything.

Really, I renew my prescriptions online what do you need the doc for?
Any checkup requires multiple tests. Can't do those online. I'm still confused.

Depends on state and your condition.

If it's anxiety pills... then, yeah a phone call would suffice.

But, if it's a steroid regimen or an expensive therapy, GP may be required to have a face-to-face electronically. It just depends.

The goal for something like this is to help streamline the workflow so that the GP can have more time to see more patients.

ok i think I get you.

 Frazzled wrote:
ok i think I get you.

No problemo... this is sort of in my wheelhouse (healthcare IT), so if you have questions... just ask.

Albatross wrote:What I object to is the left wing in this country instantly jumping on anything the gov't suggest...

Orlanth wrote:Try telling that to a lefty scaremonger though.

You did both notice that this article is in the Daily Express right?

Note for the unfamiliar: The Express is a right wing newspaper with at least one ex Conservative (Tory) minister on its staff.

 George Spiggott wrote:
You did both notice that this article is in the Daily Express right?

Of course I did, I line my bed with The Express. I say 'bed'. More of a kennel.

I meant the Left in general - I wasn't speaking specifically about 'that paper'. They're just general scaremongers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Palindrome wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Or, at the very least, we'll end up in coalition with UKIP, despite all the paper talk..

The very possiblity gives me nightmares.

Well pour yourself a cup of cocoa, because bedtime's coming. Mark my words. You think we're bad now?