well, no.
it's nowhere near as simple as that. It's really too complex to break down, but I'm sure they haven't just bought iPads to save money on printing. Also, printing doesn't just cost 1p a page. People have to be paid to do the printing/copying/whatever. Maybe they are cutting a few staff in the print/repro room and that's the saving?

also, there's absolutely no indication that your medicine delay is anything to do with cost. It might be approval based. Anyway, the cost/benefit analysis of treating chronic indications is massively complex. This drug might be better, but given what you have, it's unlikely to be much better, yet might cost the taxpayer a fortune. And while I've got every bit of sympathy for your conditions, there are other options available for at least some of the things then massively expensive drugs, mate.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:39, 1 reply, 15 years ago)

I wouldn't attempt to justify any public service IT spending.

(PsychoChomp, Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:41, Reply)

It's no better or worse than most commercial companies.
You've got a point, but it's ridiculous to compare something like this when what you have is "Journalist takes something that he wants to seem like a waste of public funds and writes story to make it so" .. it's meaningless without context.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:43, Reply)

It worse than every private company I've worked in.
I'm in the NHS though which is notorious for promoting clinicians into IT, and underpaying IT staff so they get shit.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:45, Reply)

That's because only fuckwits would work for the government

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 14 Jun 2011, 16:57, Reply)