KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:
BT, Ofcom and the ASA don't class them as lo-call.  Only Communication Providers use this term because it implies it's a low cost call.

You should be aware that I've actually made an official complaint to Trading Standards over your claims that 0844 is lo-call even though BT, Ofcom and the ASA disagree with this.

Using logic, the term 'lo-call' implies the cost of the call is low but as a geographical call can be made for around 3p/min from a landline (less on some other landline providers) but yet your 0844 numbers cost 5p/min from BT landline but upto 40p/min from a mobile so surely you can see for yourself that NEG are incorrectly describing 084x numbers and this is what I mentioned to Trading Standards and why they are investigating it.

I believe the reason for Communication Providers (CP) such as NEG to continue these lies is that it's good selling practice.  You would have major trouble selling these numbers by saying "they cost more than a local/national call" even though this is the truth - instead you tell potential customers (ie surgeries) that they can get a brand new system for free (self funding) and all their patients pay is a lo-call (or local/national as you've used in the past)

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:25pm:


Of course we are suspicious when you can only succeed in selling your rotten product by lieing to doctors and to the NHS about the real cost of 5p per minute 0844 calls and the fact that they are actually covert premium rate calls with a small p (see the dictionary definition of the word premium).  Most despicable is the fact that you could probably at least have used an 0845 number at 3p per minute and the economic model would still have worked but the greed of NEG's directors stopped it from doing so.  Instead you take many multiples of the amount the doctors receive to pay for their overpriced "free" switchboard" which their patients have to pay for 5 or 6 times over in extra priced covert premium rate phone call costs.

Quote:


My brother in law worked for a couple of years at a so called market research company of the kind you mention. He left in a disgust after a couple of years to retrain as a teacher due to his unhappiness at the way he was constantly asked to fiddle the research to produce the results his clients wanted.  We all know what the answer would be if 1,000 patients were asked if they wanted to call a normal priced 01 or 02 number or a higher priced covert preium rate 0844 number costing up to 40p from mobiles and uncontactable from overseas!

Ms Simons you are the last of the bouncy unstoppable sales people who simply keep up on springing up with the same misleading message no matter how often you are knocked down because you have no conscience and no principles that prevent you from doing so.

What did you sell before this.  Double glazing or timeshares perhaps?

simond001 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 5:13pm:


Since you apparently and remarkably welcome the 01/02 alternatives number search side of this website could you possibly be good enough to provide us with a spreadsheet of the geographic 01/02 alternatives for all of NEG's Surgeryline practices?

Then patients could take a view as to whether the so called enhanced networking queuing features of your 0844 product are actually worth paying for or whether they would rather take their chances with an old fashioned 01/02 number and the engaged tone.

How you can possibly, and with a clear conscience, subscribe to your own fixed price 01/02 calls plans on your home landline and then use this website to avoid as many other 084/7 numbers as possible yourself, while then spending all your time converting doctors surgeries to 0844 numbers for which NEG withholds the alternative numbers, is utterly beyond me.

Clearly you seem to lack an ability to focus on what is morally consistent or principled and instead seem to focus only on what brings you in a large salary to fund your own probably quite unnecessarily high spending lifestyle.

Oops sorry.

I confused your post with one from KVSimons who has just made several posts in another this thread.

Sorry I didn't mean to do that

But as to why NEG's scheme is worse than others its because it involves scamming elderly and sick doctors patients who have little choice but to call the 0844 number and usually little alternate choice of doctor's surgery if they do not drive.

KVSimons wrote on Aug 13^th, 2007 at 4:11pm:
No it isn't. You are a LIAR. You use these lies to exploit the patient. Don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good LIE.

From watching this debate, I see two separate issues being discussed.


The first is the question of whether NHS GPs should use "state of the art technology" to provide the best service to patients, at a price which those responsible for managing NHS budgets find reasonable. I cannot see the problem, nor understand what legitimate interest NEG could have beyond this point.

The second is the contentious political issue of NHS funding - is this about the quality of service that NHS GPs provide to their paying customers?


As citizens we may all express personal views on this subject. I cannot see why a company, or someone speaking as its representative rather than as a citizen, would wish to get drawn into a political debate. Perhaps the NEG representative could explain this to me, either directly or through the forum.


I offer thoughts on the second issue, as a citizen.


We have become trained to see ourselves as consumers of services provided to the public. We behave accordingly, demanding "value for money" and "choice". It is therefore natural that many reject the principle of funding NHS services through taxation.


It is absurd to offer "value for money" by providing the most health care to those who pay the most tax, as they may not want it. "Value for money" is only delivered if those who use NHS services the most are those who pay the most.

Unless some options are inferior, there is no meaningful "choice". "Value for money" demands that we pay less for an inferior service (e.g. a doctor using an inadequate telephone system for booking appointments).


Charging fees for booking appointments can help meet the objective of ensuring that people only see their doctor when they really need to. For a serious "choice" to be made when considering booking an appointment, some alternative potential expenditure must have to be sacrificed.

This does not work when the level of the fee is insignificant. The NEG survey referred to in this thread shows that only 18% are sufficiently poor or miserly to be put off from using their doctor with the fees for calling 0844 numbers at their present level.

The NEG representative admits that the fee is too low to affect their own behaviour. The 18% reduction in those competing for the doctor's time actually helps to make it even easier for them to get through to book an unnecessary appointment.

The market is not working properly, as a considerable amount of resource may be being wasted.


To be properly effective, the appointment booking fee would need to be set at a level where all but the very rich (immune to any effect on behaviour by financial imposition) were discouraged from wasting money on unnecessary appointments.

This would also provide an additional benefit by placing doctors under pressure to deliver "value for money" to their customers. If the customer only pays the doctor a few pence for the appointment, demanding "value for money" does not compel the highest standards of care.


If a practice set its charges at an appropriate level it would probably get rid of some patients altogether, which would naturally improve the quality of its services still further. The principle of "choice" would not be lost for the poor and miserly as the demand in the market would doubtless be met by the charitable sector, or private social entrepreneurs, staring up alternative "free to use" services outside the administrative constraints of the NHS.


As NEG appears to wish to claim credit for having helped bring financial pressure to bear on as many as 18% of potential time-wasters, then it is perhaps to be congratulated on this modest achievement.

NEG is a business that is responding to the consumer society. It operates in a free market providing services that its customers choose to buy.

One must assume that NEG is sufficiently open and honest about the prices of its services to its customers to remain within the law. These customers fail to declare the prices they charge to those who become their own customers, or even fail to disclose the fact that they are making any charge. That is however not NEG's responsibility, unless it wishes to admit complicity in this fraud.


Picking a fight over unexceptional levels of hyperbole and misrepresentation in marketing, when NEG has what is seen as convincing consumer research to show the effectiveness of its solution, seems to be a rather fruitless exercise in a consumer society.


If PCTs and other NHS commissioning bodies allow GPs to raise revenue by charging fees, then it is for them to defend this decision against any challenge, through their own channels of accountability. NEG is only accountable through the market, to its potential future customers.

Let the government and the NHS organisation openly declare adoption of consumerism in the NHS. Let them confirm and salute the consumerist definition of "democracy" which proudly allows the preferences of the majority to override the interests of a minority as significant as 18%.

Let us decide whether we wish to be regarded as citizens or consumers in our relationship with the NHS and other public bodies. As with Ofcom's statutory principal duties (repeatedly referred to in this thread), these are distinct roles that may conflict.

(As I am formally retired from campaigning efforts, I cannot conduct extended discussion of these points in this public thread. I can be contacted by email.)

David

Here! Here! NGM's Ghost!   A couple of points to the preceding post by Silentcallervictim - 1) It is NOT miserly to resent being charged twice for the same service ie by call package charge and then being charged again for a particular call, especially when this is for an essential service where one may have no real choice of provider.   2)   The point about NEG providing services in a free market to those who are prepared to pay is nonsense - those who are paying are PATIENTS WITH NO CHOICE!   If the doctors were paying for the systems, yes, that is up to them but that is not the case here, they are choosing to buy the system, their patients are paying for it.   3) Why this reference to a "majority" and an 18% minority being insignificant - these figures produced by NEG were based on a sample of a few hundred and cannot legitimately be translated for represent the views of nearly 60 million people!   (yes, they are ALL patients, as you don't have to be an elector participating in democracy to be affected, babies are!)  Also, does anyone on this forum know anyone who was surveyed on behalf of NEG for this poll - I wasn't and I don't?   The question was also so slanted, most people, when asked the question about should doctors used latest technology would think of medical equipment NOT phone systems!

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 14^th, 2007 at 11:45am:


SilentCallsVictim,

Anyone is allowed to express their views in this forum, including those from the opposition such as employees of NEG or other NGN number vending and installing organisations.  This is not a forum of the moderator on drugs who regularly closes threads just because the discussion goes in a direction that disagrees with their personal opinions.

However I find it very hard to comprehend that anyone who is opposed to large faceless marketing organisations randomly making unidentified calls to private residences does not also have a problem with a company that has persuaded endless doctors surgeries to change to using a covert premium rate number (see the dictionary definition of premium) covertly.

You even seem to also fall for the "its only a few pence per call extra for this call so what are you complaining about" argument, which seems to show a total lack of appreciation of the scale of the covert premium rate 084/7 abuses in the UK and the £100 to £200 per annum that they add to most UK domestic phone bills that would not be there if the calls were not at a normal price.

Patients of doctors do not pay a price for the service and cannot easily shop around and anyone who tries to move doctors without having also moved addresses is usually regarded with suspicion by the doctor they want to move to as probably being a troublemaker.  This indicates that GP services have all the hallmarks of a state controlled, state run system as in the private sector businesses are nearly always happy and faling over themselves to see new customers.

I applaud and support your succes on your Silent Calls campaign but I am puzzled that you now of your own volition bring yourself to this site and yet do not seem to properly embrace our opposition to all premium rate services operated by private businesses which are covert (by using 084 and 087 numbers) and to all premium rate services operated by any sector of government or any government agencies be they covert or overt.