Health Referendum

[Spl@!]

It does however, have it's very own downside.

Potentially life-and-death matters, having to back to head office to be discussed and what not, before decisions can be made.

Only if the system is messed up.

It's a government system.

[RogerTheIncredible]

It does however, have it's very own downside.

Potentially life-and-death matters, having to back to head office to be discussed and what not, before decisions can be made.

Only if the system is messed up.

It's a government system.

A decision to save a person's life when they are in hospital is made on the spot by the medical staff. At no point have they ever had to 'clear it with the boss'. If someones life is at risk the decision is theirs and the doctor's.

[Spl@!]

It's simply not that cut and dry under a bureaucracy...

do they go and buy a new dilation machine? heart monitor? etc when it breaks down..

There's plenty of issues that the old red-tape can make a curfuffle out of.

Probably the most notorious one is emergency patient transfers to other facilities.

[André Axe'm]

And would having someone else as head office actually solve that issue?

[Spl@!]

As strange as it sounds... it actually does.
But it's their but on the line if something goes wrong.

Given that the role would be that of a commercial CEO... they'd probably expect $12 bazillion bonus if the hospital turns a profit.