RBS Have a Heart?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is anyone else cynical about the Royal Bank of Scotland donating a heart scanner to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on the condition that their staff get first dibs (25% of usage has to be set aside for them).

I can't make my mind up - if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be a scanner at all, but at the same time "conditional philanthropy" seems to go contrary to the way that society has been run in the past.

Are we now in a genuine two tier society, where the poor have to rely on crumbs from the rich man's table? Or has it always been like that - maybe just not as blatant.

I have to lay my cards on the table and say I detest RBS and the "Brave New World" they stand for. I see their headquarters at Gogar as nothing more than Camelot, those loyal to the organisation are entitled to priviledges such as a leisure club and nursery for their offspring.

I see an organisation which is trying to set up it's own little republic, and which is now starting to construct its own health service.

[steakbake]

I wonder if you will be charged £30 if you spend too long on the machine or if you get a letter from the consultant (£30)?

I think it is easy to be cynical when a big business donates a piece of kit like this.

Then your cynicism is confirmed when you see their conditions attached to their donation.

But mind, ye canna complain because it'd aa been set oot in the sma' print.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wonder if you will be charged £30 if you spend too long on the machine or if you get a letter from the consultant (£30)?

I think it is easy to be cynical when a big business donates a piece of kit like this.

Then your cynicism is confirmed when you see their conditions attached to their donation.

But mind, ye canna complain because it'd aa been set oot in the sma' print.

When you consider the dosh they are making from the PFI deal to build the hospital in the first place, you might think they are starting to get a bit greedy. But you could never say that about banks could you?

They are philanthropists of the highest order.

[steakbake]

When you consider the dosh they are making from the PFI deal to build the hospital in the first place, you might think they are starting to get a bit greedy. But you could never say that about banks could you?

They are philanthropists of the highest order.

A right bunch of bankers.

[Peevemor]

Is anyone else cynical about the Royal Bank of Scotland donating a heart scanner to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on the condition that their staff get first dibs (25% of usage has to be set aside for them).

I can't make my mind up - if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be a scanner at all, but at the same time "conditional philanthropy" seems to go contrary to the way that society has been run in the past.

Are we now in a genuine two tier society, where the poor have to rely on crumbs from the rich man's table? Or has it always been like that - maybe just not as blatant.

I have to lay my cards on the table and say I detest RBS and the "Brave New World" they stand for. I see their headquarters at Gogar as nothing more than Camelot, those loyal to the organisation are entitled to priviledges such as a leisure club and nursery for their offspring.

I see an organisation which is trying to set up it's own little republic, and which is now starting to construct its own health service.

I agree, there is something that niggles about it. However, if you view at as that the RBOS have bought a scanner for their staff, but are allowing the public to use it gratis 75% of the time, then it doesn't seem so bad.

If the equipment in question had been, for example, a minibus adapted for wheelchair users, the issue wouldn't be so emotive IMO.

[McSwanky]

Is anyone else cynical about the Royal Bank of Scotland donating a heart scanner to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary on the condition that their staff get first dibs (25% of usage has to be set aside for them).

I can't make my mind up - if it wasn't for them there wouldn't be a scanner at all, but at the same time "conditional philanthropy" seems to go contrary to the way that society has been run in the past.

Are we now in a genuine two tier society, where the poor have to rely on crumbs from the rich man's table? Or has it always been like that - maybe just not as blatant.

I have to lay my cards on the table and say I detest RBS and the "Brave New World" they stand for. I see their headquarters at Gogar as nothing more than Camelot, those loyal to the organisation are entitled to priviledges such as a leisure club and nursery for their offspring.

I see an organisation which is trying to set up it's own little republic, and which is now starting to construct its own health service.

It's an interesting one, do RBS not offer private medical doo-dahs to its staff anyway?

I have been thinking about this a bit since the news broke at the weekend, and I'm struggling to decide whether it's immoral or not.

What if they'd bought 4 machines, donated 3 to the NHS and one to say Murrayfield hospital for use for RBS folks on private healthcare plans only? Would this be ok? Or would this also be classed as 'philanthropy with conditions'?

It's obviously a positive thing for the NHS to have access to this machine, albeit only 75% of the time. Ach, I can't make my mind up.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree, there is something that niggles about it. However, if you view at as that the RBOS have bought a scanner for their staff, but are allowing the public to use it gratis 75% of the time, then it doesn't seem so bad.

If the equipment in question had been, for example, a minibus adapted for wheelchair users, the issue wouldn't be so emotive IMO.

Hear what you're saying.

There is just one flaw in that argument - RBS don't own a hospital, or indeed employ any trained medical staff. At the same time, they make top dollar on the hospital they built for us.

They've donated the scanner, will they pay the costs of operating it? Will they expect their staff to jump queues for treatment, if the scanner shows something untoward?

I suppose what is sticking in my craw is how these people have us by the short and curlies, and want us to fall at their feet for the slightest hint of giving back a little proportion of the money they are stealing (sorry, using the free market to obtain) from us.

It's time for people to wake up to the inequitable distriburtion of wealth in this country. To stop accepting that where you live and work are acceptable determinants of how long you live.

[Peevemor]

It's an interesting one, do RBS not offer private medical doo-dahs to its staff anyway?

I have been thinking about this a bit since the news broke at the weekend, and I'm struggling to decide whether it's immoral or not.

What if they'd bought 4 machines, donated 3 to the NHS and one to say Murrayfield hospital for use for RBS folks on private healthcare plans only? Would this be ok? Or would this also be classed as 'philanthropy with conditions'?

It's obviously a positive thing for the NHS to have access to this machine, albeit only 75% of the time. Ach, I can't make my mind up.

Very good ananananology. :agree:

[Peevemor]

Hear what you're saying.

There is just one flaw in that argument - RBS don't own a hospital, or indeed employ any trained medical staff. At the same time, they make top dollar on the hospital they built for us.

They've donated the scanner, will they pay the costs of operating it? Will they expect their staff to jump queues for treatment, if the scanner shows something untoward?

I suppose what is sticking in my craw is how these people have us by the short and curlies, and want us to fall at their feet for the slightest hint of giving back a little proportion of the money they are stealing (sorry, using the free market to obtain) from us.

It's time for people to wake up to the inequitable distriburtion of wealth in this country. To stop accepting that where you live and work are acceptable determinants of how long you live.

I agree with what your saying re. the issues of staffing the scanner, I'd thought of that and, as I said, there is something about the deal that doesn't sit easy with me.

However, it's not all bad.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I agree with what your saying re. the issues of staffing the scanner, I'd thought of that and, as I said, there is something about the deal that doesn't sit easy with me.

However, it's not all bad.

I agree, it's an amazing piece of kit. It will bring more benefit than harm, but we need to keep a close eye on this sort of thing.

How long till RBS start supplying other pieces of kit, and then demand a wing of the hospital for their staff only?

Personally I feel the whole thing is crass and vulgar.

[Dashing Bob S]

I agree, it's an amazing piece of kit. It will bring more benefit than harm, but we need to keep a close eye on this sort of thing.

How long till RBS start supplying other pieces of kit, and then demand a wing of the hospital for their staff only?

Personally I feel the whole thing is crass and vulgar.

It's way beyond that, FR, its insidious and divisive crap. Why should somebody who works for the RBS recieve better health care than somebody who works for say, Standard Life?

If they were philanthropists, they'd donate this equipment, no questions asked. Now its a shallow move to position themselves as a caring employer. Health care should be the states responsibility for its citizens and not bestowed by self-righteous employers or be subject to how much money you have.

Apos to all for the rant, but I feel strongly about this.

[--------]

It's way beyond that, FR, its insidious and divisive crap. Why should somebody who works for the RBS recieve better health care than somebody who works for say, Standard Life?

If they were philanthropists, they'd donate this equipment, no questions asked. Now its a shallow move to position themselves as a caring employer. Health care should be the states responsibility for its citizens and not bestowed by self-righteous employers or be subject to how much money you have.

Apos to all for the rant, but I feel strongly about this.


What you said, Bob. Absolutely right. :agree:

[Jack]

There's a number of issues mentioned here.

First of all I’m for it. 75% of something is better than 100% of nowt.

Then there are the likes of the hospital consultants, the vast majority of whom do private work a day or so a week. A day would equate to 80% NHS 20% private. Its gone on since the start of the NHS.

Most GP surgeries are small businesses run by the GPs and have a contract with the NHS to provide the services you receive. 100% privately owned! Again this has gone on since the start of the NHS.

Gifts and donations are a daily occurrence in the NHS from sweeties for the nurses after a stay in hospital to more substantial things for doctors and consultants to major equipment and even buildings being gifted or donated. This has gone on since before the NHS.

What about all these charities that work to provide all sorts of stuff for the NHS? There's thousands of them providing £1Ms.

I’m sure I read somewhere that the 25% of the scanner that will be RBS time will be worked in the same way as NHS facilities are sometimes ‘rented’ for private work except in this instance it wont be charged for. If something is found they'd maybe be off to a private hospital to get it fixed that would be upto the RBS. The 25% is really of no concern to the NHS.

I’m not very keen on the RBS either but I really don’t see what the fuss is really all about given what I’ve said above.

[johnbc70]

Surely the NHS has a heart scanner that a few weeks ago they never had? Is that not a good thing?

I am sure if some of you who object to this needed to use the scanner or someone in your family needed to use the scanner then you would be grateful it was there rather than being told the existing one was not available/not working.

[Andy Bee]

Surely the NHS has a heart scanner that a few weeks ago they never had? Is that not a good thing?

I am sure if some of you who object to this needed to use the scanner or someone in your family needed to use the scanner then you would be grateful it was there rather than being told the existing one was not available/not working.

As opposed to being told "sorry mate, RBS employees only this month" :dunno:

[GreenandGlaikit]

Surely the NHS has a heart scanner that a few weeks ago they never had? Is that not a good thing?

I am sure if some of you who object to this needed to use the scanner or someone in your family needed to use the scanner then you would be grateful it was there rather than being told the existing one was not available/not working.

Its undermining a basic NHS egaltarian tenet which says 'need' is the criteria which determines the care provided. The RBS thing is introducing a 2 tier concept - where preferential treatment is being provided simply because a patient works fir a Bank. :ill:

Unethical, IMO.

[hibsdaft]

how can this work in practice?

if theres a queue for example of 100 people waiting to use the kit, and it just so happens that RBS staff make up numbers 75 to 100 in the queue, do they get to jump it so to meet the Condition? its not just the bit of kit - NHS staff will operate it, are they part of this deal too?

this sort of thing is very dangerous imo, a dodgy road to go down. RBS should be told that they must drop the clause and we'll see whether they are genuinely philanthropists or not.

[johnbc70]

This is 2008 not 1948. There has been a 2 tier health system for years and I still say the NHS now has 75% + use of a machine that is recognised as one of the best in the world, cost £1.6M and something the NHS never had a few weeks ago. (also note the total donation by RBS was £4M)

OK there was some conditions attached but I am sure if you or your family need to use it then you will be thankful RBS spent £1.6M on it.

Everyone will have different opinions on this but I am taking the positive view that Edinburgh has a state of the art heart scanner than can only be a good thing.

[Phil D. Rolls]

This is 2008 not 1948. There has been a 2 tier health system for years and I still say the NHS now has 75% + use of a machine that is recognised as one of the best in the world, cost £1.6M and something the NHS never had a few weeks ago. (also note the total donation by RBS was £4M)

OK there was some conditions attached but I am sure if you or your family need to use it then you will be thankful RBS spent £1.6M on it.

Everyone will have different opinions on this but I am taking the positive view that Edinburgh has a state of the art heart scanner than can only be a good thing.

RBS don't run the health service, however, by demanding that certain conditions are met on this scanner, they are starting to get involved in the management of the hospital.

At the same time, they want the kudos for a philanthropic act. They don't get it both ways.

[Godsahibby]

Well i'm ok because i'd be one of the lucky 25%.

This can be looked at in 2 serperate ways i'm of the opinion the Hospital now have a state of the art machine which they didnt have a few weeks ago which the public get use of which will certainly help the NHS. Fair enough 25% has to be kept for staff but I really cant see that much ever being used!

This has been donated to the RIE the same machine could have been istalled at the Health and Fitness centre out at Gogarburn for RBS staff only.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Well i'm ok because i'd be one of the lucky 25%.

This can be looked at in 2 serperate ways i'm of the opinion the Hospital now have a state of the art machine which they didnt have a few weeks ago which the public get use of which will certainly help the NHS. Fair enough 25% has to be kept for staff but I really cant see that much ever being used!

This has been donated to the RIE the same machine could have been istalled at the Health and Fitness centre out at Gogarburn for RBS staff only.

You have a lot of cardiologists working out there then? You must be getting better paid than we thought!

[Godsahibby]

Actually you will be surprised 3 Cardiologists and a couple of Neurosurgeons are employed by the gym.

I never really thought about who would opperate it typical RBS thinking!

[Phil D. Rolls]

Actually you will be surprised 3 Cardiologists and a couple of Neurosurgeons are employed by the gym.

I never really thought about who would opperate it typical RBS thinking!

No, because RBS operate everything. Can you have a word with Fred and ask him what happened to the 14:07 from Kirkcaldy?

[sleeping giant]

Banks eh ?
They lend us money that never existed then charge interest on it.
Who's the fools?

[RyeSloan]

The state should pay for the all the healthcare of it citizens?? Why?

I can't believe the people should attack a company for looking after it's staff....I think it should be encouraged not attacked. If by doing so they provide free of charge a resource to the NHS then surely this can only be good.

Wealthier people will always have access to better healthcare...be that at a national or international level, nothing will ever change this as modern healthcare is expensive. Free healthcare to all does not automatically mean that there should be the best available no matter what the cost healthcare to all.

Our healthcare is miles better than say somewhere like Burma..this is all paid for by tax paid by citizens and corporations. Companies like RBS actually provide the wealth for the NHS in the first place, how else does the government get all of it's billions to spend as it likes?

The NHS is the most perfect example of public inefficency. I completely agree with the ideal that everyone should have access to an accepted level of healthcare but the way it is provided in Britian is a monumental waste of money.

[Jack]

IMO what we get for the money that gets spent is pretty good value and compares favourably with the per head of population of what other western countries spend.

There is waste, in an organisation that employs 160,000 people (I thought it was just 130,000 but saw the higher figure quoted this week) that’s inevitable. I don’t think there is a large organisation close to that size in the world that could claim to have no waste.

But lot of the money that goes to waste in the NHS is wasted by the public misusing the NHS;

Plain and simple theft, it costs millions.

Fraud – claiming to be exempt from prescription charges when they're not, for example.

Folk ‘forgetting’ to take the likes of crutches back.

Folk not taking their medicine as prescribed. More likely to become more ill and cost even more than they had already cost.

Folk not turning up for appointments. Estimated at over 1,500,000 the last time they were counted in GP surgeries alone so there are the hospital ones on top of that.

Folk demanding house calls when they could get to the surgery – there was even a case when the doctor called the patient was out – at the hairdressers!!!!

Folk turning up for appointments when there's nothing wrong with them or alternatively when a wee trip to the chemist for over the counter pills would be just as effective.

Folk calling out ambulances when its not necessary, as well as the hoax calls.

Folk assaulting NHS staff, meaning they're off work but still getting paid.

That’s all I can think of just now I’ll bet you can all think of others.

[RyeSloan]

Proof if proof was needed that no healthcare system should governed by politicians and governments...

Spending on the NHS (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/18/health.politics)

[johnbc70]

RBS is the largest taxpayer in the UK. It more than pays its share to fund the NHS, infact the RBS tax bill in 2007 would equal the total amount of capital spending in the NHS.

[Barman Stanton]

This looks just like another boring attack on the big bad banks.

I dont really see the issue. The NHS now has another piece of equipment that they didnt have before. If it saves any lifes at all then it has to be a good thing surely?

[jonty]

As opposed to being told "sorry mate, RBS employees only this month" :dunno:

As opposed to being booked in on a machine that never used to exist.
Or having to travel to another part of the country?

The bottom line is that the hospital now has acess to a machine, on site, for more time than it ever used to have. For free.

I really can't see what the problem is. The NHS benefits, which means that (I'm guessing) a large proportion of us benefit.

It's RBSs money and they can pretty much do what they like with it. :confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

A new cardiac scanner is a good thing.

I don't think anyone is objecting to that. My objection is the crass way that RBS are trying to appear philanthropic. Can I remind everyone once again, that because of PFI, RBS are making a lot of money out of the New Royal?

If you follow the line that the amount of tax they pay entitles them to priviledges, then surely that also means they get first dibs on other services such as the police and the army.

As for saying the NHS is a waste of public resources, then you could say that schools are a waste of public resources, or social work is a waste of public resources.

People in this country still claim to want some sort of equity in society. Hell, even the Tories are playing a social justice card. How can that equity ever exist when something like health care - a basic human right (IMO) is subject to how much money you have?

Sorry, the NHS is something worth fighting for - yes it's cumbersome and inefficient, but to me, it is one of Britain's greatest achievements. If only the likes of RBS could run there business as efficiently, then they wouldn't have to rip off the ordinairy Joe to cover the crazy decisions they have made in the past.

Having worked in financial service for a long time, I can say that the waste and inefficiency I saw there was mind blowing. Here's an example - Standard Life want you to pay for a stamp to reply to letters they send. (This is cost efficiency).

Standard life send five people to Edinburgh Airport at 4:30pm in five seperate taxis. (This is not particularly cost efficient).

ps for Standard Life, you can insert RBS, HBOS, Aegon, Scottish Widows or any other big company that acts carelessly with other people's money.

[RyeSloan]

A new cardiac scanner is a good thing.

I don't think anyone is objecting to that. My objection is the crass way that RBS are trying to appear philanthropic. Can I remind everyone once again, that because of PFI, RBS are making a lot of money out of the New Royal?

It wasn't the banks that created PFI it was the government. PFI deals were procured and signed by the government. Who's at fault here if the bank are making inoridante profits from any deal? Are you suggesting that providing a huge amount of capital is should be something that a bank should not make money from?

If you follow the line that the amount of tax they pay entitles them to priviledges, then surely that also means they get first dibs on other services such as the police and the army.

No the tax argument was there to show that the bank through corp tax and by creating wealth by paying thousands of people large amounts of money more than contributes already to the funding of the NHS. Thus any extra service they provide, i.e this scanner is over and above and people had no objection then for the bank to have some sort of say as to how it was used.

As for saying the NHS is a waste of public resources, then you could say that schools are a waste of public resources, or social work is a waste of public resources.

No one is arguing the fact that health care (just like education or social work) should not exist what I am saying is that the current way of providing it IS a waste of resources...read the article in the link and tell me if you are happy with use of money to provide healthcare

People in this country still claim to want some sort of equity in society. Hell, even the Tories are playing a social justice card. How can that equity ever exist when something like health care - a basic human right (IMO) is subject to how much money you have?
Of course access to proper healthcare is a paramount right but you can't simply say everyone must have access to nothing but the best....it's not pratical or acheivable.


Sorry, the NHS is something worth fighting for - yes it's cumbersome and inefficient, but to me, it is one of Britain's greatest achievements. If only the likes of RBS could run there business as efficiently, then they wouldn't have to rip off the ordinairy Joe to cover the crazy decisions they have made in the past.

RBS have indeed made some mistakes recently but what bank hasn't but over the piece RBS has done superbly well in a very difficult market. Scotland is a funny place, we want the best of everything 'free' from our governement but positively attack the companies that actually create the wealth. Most countries are proud of their big companies as even they understand the importance to their economy, in Scotland it seems like profit is a dirty word. For a nation that taught the world modern economics it's a sad and surprising state fo affairs.

Having worked in financial service for a long time, I can say that the waste and inefficiency I saw there was mind blowing. Here's an example - Standard Life want you to pay for a stamp to reply to letters they send. (This is cost efficiency).

Standard life send five people to Edinburgh Airport at 4:30pm in five seperate taxis. (This is not particularly cost efficient).

ps for Standard Life, you can insert RBS, HBOS, Aegon, Scottish Widows or any other big company that acts carelessly with other people's money.

You seems to have a wee chip on your shoulder about financial companies. Dont' forget that most of the money you claim they all act carelessly with has been given to them by those same people through choice not force.

All companies have inefficiences that's life but for you to try and say the NHS is ran more efficiently that say RBS or any of the above is taking it a bit far I would say!!


In other words I think we might have a different view on this :wink::greengrin

[JimBHibees]

As opposed to being booked in on a machine that never used to exist.
Or having to travel to another part of the country?

The bottom line is that the hospital now has acess to a machine, on site, for more time than it ever used to have. For free.

I really can't see what the problem is. The NHS benefits, which means that (I'm guessing) a large proportion of us benefit.

It's RBSs money and they can pretty much do what they like with it. :confused:

Certainly wont be for free, the cost of running these machines will be enormous. I tend to agree good one them for donating it however dont think they should then be able to say who gets priority.

[Jack]

Originally Posted by Filled Rolls & SiMar
A new cardiac scanner is a good thing.

I don't think anyone is objecting to that. My objection is the crass way that RBS are trying to appear philanthropic. Can I remind everyone once again, that because of PFI, RBS are making a lot of money out of the New Royal?

It wasn't the banks that created PFI it was the government. PFI deals were procured and signed by the government. Who's at fault here if the bank are making inoridante profits from any deal? Are you suggesting that providing a huge amount of capital is should be something that a bank should not make money from?

Points scored on both sides there. In fact well done the RBS in comparison with their other partners in this consortium who have done nothing similar. Perhaps, though I doubt it, RBS are a shade embarrassed by the profits they are making on this venture. You’ve got to see though that all big companies do similar things; Microsoft, BP, etc.

If you follow the line that the amount of tax they pay entitles them to priviledges, then surely that also means they get first dibs on other services such as the police and the army.

No the tax argument was there to show that the bank through corp tax and by creating wealth by paying thousands of people large amounts of money more than contributes already to the funding of the NHS. Thus any extra service they provide, i.e this scanner is over and above and people had no objection then for the bank to have some sort of say as to how it was used.

As for saying the NHS is a waste of public resources, then you could say that schools are a waste of public resources, or social work is a waste of public resources.

No one is arguing the fact that health care (just like education or social work) should not exist what I am saying is that the current way of providing it IS a waste of resources...read the article in the link and tell me if you are happy with use of money to provide healthcare

I’m with FR. There's nothing to prove that the way the NHS is run is wrong and that running the NHS through private companies would be any better. When they're not being charitable private companies are out to maximise profits for their shareholders. If they were running the NHS that would have to come at the expense of care – where else? There's nothing to suggest managers in private or public sectors are any better or worse than each other and there are many, even in the NHS, who have worked in both.

There is a current train of thought that suggests managers in the public sector have to work in a way that many in the private sector cant understand. In the private sector there is one motive – profit and one customer. In the public sector there are many customers (the public; the board and / or those who are monitoring performance; Government Ministers and Members of the Scottish Parliament) all vying for the same pound and keeping the balance isn’t easy when each demand a different outcome (the private sector single equivalent to profit).

People in this country still claim to want some sort of equity in society. Hell, even the Tories are playing a social justice card. How can that equity ever exist when something like health care - a basic human right (IMO) is subject to how much money you have?
Of course access to proper healthcare is a paramount right but you can't simply say everyone must have access to nothing but the best....it's not pratical or acheivable.

Health care is not a basic human right. We might think it is in this country but we pay for it. In many countries around the world, including western countries and particularly the USA, health care is not available as a right and many millions in the USA go without.

If we in this country wont pay for prescriptions that will make us better what must it be like for those in countries around Europe who pay up front to see a doctor or stay in hospital ABOVE the equivalent of what we pay? Don’t even start on the USA model of not providing health care!


Sorry, the NHS is something worth fighting for - yes it's cumbersome and inefficient, but to me, it is one of Britain's greatest achievements. If only the likes of RBS could run there business as efficiently, then they wouldn't have to rip off the ordinairy Joe to cover the crazy decisions they have made in the past.

RBS have indeed made some mistakes recently but what bank hasn't but over the piece RBS has done superbly well in a very difficult market. Scotland is a funny place, we want the best of everything 'free' from our governement but positively attack the companies that actually create the wealth. Most countries are proud of their big companies as even they understand the importance to their economy, in Scotland it seems like profit is a dirty word. For a nation that taught the world modern economics it's a sad and surprising state fo affairs.

Not that cumbersome or inefficient FR, well done the RBS.

Having worked in financial service for a long time, I can say that the waste and inefficiency I saw there was mind blowing. Here's an example - Standard Life want you to pay for a stamp to reply to letters they send. (This is cost efficiency).

Standard life send five people to Edinburgh Airport at 4:30pm in five seperate taxis. (This is not particularly cost efficient).

ps for Standard Life, you can insert RBS, HBOS, Aegon, Scottish Widows or any other big company that acts carelessly with other people's money.

You seems to have a wee chip on your shoulder about financial companies. Dont' forget that most of the money you claim they all act carelessly with has been given to them by those same people through choice not force.

You have a hard job getting by these days without a bank account. See below also.

All companies have inefficiences that's life but for you to try and say the NHS is ran more efficiently that say RBS or any of the above is taking it a bit far I would say!!

SiMar source?

Black Wednesday?

In years gone by all the recommendations were that you had a private pension and a endowment mortgage. I suspect more billions were lost then than now. That wasn’t just carelessness but gross negligence and arrogance of the very companies you say are run better than the NHS.

It could be suggested that while health care has consistently improved year on year, decade on decade the financial industry are lurched from crisis to crisis.

However, as I’ve said above the two companies (NHS & RBS) are run for entirely different purposes so a comparison of any sort between them is a not worth the cyber space such an argument takes up.

Perhaps that’s all contradictory.

[jonty]

Certainly wont be for free, the cost of running these machines will be enormous. I tend to agree good one them for donating it however dont think they should then be able to say who gets priority.

OK - the initial outlay is free :wink:. Still saving on a good few thousand quid.
And the hospital could have said no.

As for priority - again the hospital could have said no.

If the unit had been bought by Ninewells (NHS), the unit based in edinburgh and time shared 50/50 between edinburgh and dundee then I don't think anyone would be complaining that edinburgh got a bad deal out of it.

As it is the NHS gets something for nothing. Who knows - they may have planned to get one next year.

At the end of the day it's a good thing.
As for the RBS - well - it's a fraction of their profits. If they had any balls they'd drop their mortgage rates :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Excellent debate on the go here. Hands up, I don't have a chip on my shoulder about financial services, I have a whole sack of tatties.

What pisses me off is the way those companies come on with the "we're great guys" routine (see Howard with his comically large glasses). At the same time they are shafting everyone they can - usually the weakest in society, who don't have the money to fight back.

Just ask the people classified as "lemons" who can't get bank accounts, because they don't have enough money. If you don't have a bank account it is very hard to get out of the poverty trap.

So they'll tell you they are not charities and social responsibility is not their worry. The thing is, with the money they generate it could be.

I'll confess that much of my objection to this is based on ideology (sp). It's about distribution of wealth. There is also the aspect of hypocrisy, and the sheer heartlessness that means people feel that being part of the winning team is enough to absolve them of their basic humanity.

I believe and a lot of other people believe that health care is a basic human right, like a shelter from the elements and clean water to drink. What makes us different from animals is that we have the ability to care for our sick. Again it depends where you're beliefs come from, but to me it is beyond question.

The problem is capitalism isn't based on human rights but the profit principle.

Yes, the government were complete planks inviting the big companies to get involved in public projects. My approach would have been to nationalise the ********s and shoot anyone that objected. At the same time though, saying that they couldn't look a gift horse in the mouth is a wee bit like the sort of excuse they used at Nuremberg.

Obviously it's a hard one to back up, but I would say the NHS is run more efficiently than the financial services companies. For the simple reason that it doesn't have money to waste. Every penny has to be accounted for in the Health Service, many employees are acutely aware that waste deprives patients, and (I know this is hard for some to believe) a lot of people are in the NHS because the primary driver in their life is care.

I've quoted the example of Standard Life's crazy use of resources on taxis. I'm sure anyone who works in a financial services company can come up with similair examples - it could be the amount of unused paper that gets trashed, it could the thousands spent on team building junkets with no specific objective set and no evaluation of their effectiveness. What about the wasted electricity because people can't be arsed switching off their PC at night? It goes on and on.

Just look at any internal telephone directory and see how many people in the company have the job title "training" next to their name. These people tend to be paid reasonably good salaries, yet how often are they held to account for their contribution to the business?

I'm picking on training, because that's what I used to do - I got big money for sitting doing **** all from one year to the next. I'm sure people can come up with similar job titles in their organisation where people are collecting their dosh and no-one knows what they do (special projects, internal affairs, corporate affairs, communication) are just a couple that spring to mind.

Sorry, I don't think financial institutions are too efficient. Just look at the way insurance companies got found out when the government introduced stake holder pensions. All of a sudden they couldn't charge 90p in the pound for looking after people's money.

An efficient organisation would have reacted quickly trimming all the unnecessary jobs to maintain their profit. The place I worked spent £150 million on consultants to tell them that they were overstaffed, when it was obvious to a 12 year old child.

In summary, everyone (except for their employees) knows they are immoral, cheating baw bags that are very happy for poverty to exist as long as they have someones money to play with. I'd say fair play to them if it wasn't for the fact they want to be loved for it too.

ps I don't like RBS in particular, their Camelot out at Gogar reminds me of the way Koreans run their business. I wouldn't be surprised if they have to sing the company song in the morning. It's a matter of time before they have company housing on the site, then it won't be necessary to venture into the real world ever again.

[RyeSloan]

Financial exclusion is an issue of course but you will find that it is much lower in an 'rich' country like the UK than most of the world, this is beacuse we have a developed banking system. I'm not here to support the morals of bankers (they are called that for a reason :wink:) but I do think that companies that create wealth and look after their staff should be valued not castigated.

Public ownership is route one to inefficiency and waste, thankfully most of the UK's behemoths have fallen by the way side (British Leyland anyone?). The NHS is really the last example, probably because of it's unique postion and set up. There is no simple answer to healthcare provision but when you consider the NHS budget has trebelled under Labour I'm pretty sure our current set up is one titanic waste of money.