Public sector strikes on Wednesday
- Thread starter makster
- Start date
It's an interesting point you make about the emotional attachment to a state-run health service technodup. I'm all for privatising in a big way - many local council services for example - but I seem to have a nagging doubt about doing the same to the NHS, even though rationally there shouldn't be any difference.
I do think there is a hybrid model that would work - a small, lean, central state-run hub, (council, NHS trust etc.) administering a variety of contracted out private sector service providers. With watertight procurement practices and Service Level Agreements I bet the end service would be as good or better than we have now at a lower cost to the taxpayer. And don't forget the private companies running the services will be paying tax back to the country on their profits. However, I've so little faith in the population at large's appetite for, or ability to deal with, radical change that I know it'll never happen.
I do think there is a hybrid model that would work - a small, lean, central state-run hub, (council, NHS trust etc.) administering a variety of contracted out private sector service providers. With watertight procurement practices and Service Level Agreements I bet the end service would be as good or better than we have now at a lower cost to the taxpayer. And don't forget the private companies running the services will be paying tax back to the country on their profits. However, I've so little faith in the population at large's appetite for, or ability to deal with, radical change that I know it'll never happen.
^^^ Anyone can take a picture of a particular moment and make it say whatever they want.
However, elected officials will not lose their jobs... they don't have to worry.
Did anyone see that thing on T.V. a few weeks ago, where by they are doign something called 're-balancing' or some other ridiculous term for making people redundant to save money? Just ANOTHER example of the dishonesty that the gov is using in order to try and sugar coat the need to ditch people (Because people are the quickest way to do it).
However, elected officials will not lose their jobs... they don't have to worry.
Did anyone see that thing on T.V. a few weeks ago, where by they are doign something called 're-balancing' or some other ridiculous term for making people redundant to save money? Just ANOTHER example of the dishonesty that the gov is using in order to try and sugar coat the need to ditch people (Because people are the quickest way to do it).
Rumble":1yxyhx3o said:
Water tight procurement. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please don't forget once again that private business is there FOR THE MONEY. Just look at America and the complete disgrace that there system is in, where sometimes they'll literally put you back out on the street if you can't afford it. example.. Relatives kidney stone removal... $80,000. I think it's at least $15,000 to have a baby if you don't have insurance. All well and good, but you can't always get a good job, and most of your wages would go to insurance to get any decent level of cover. A government run with contractors would be a bad idea.. they just put the costs up. Or even worse... they will work in extra work clauses so if it's busy... they'll charge excessive amounts. Don't believe me, go and look at what consultants in hospitals do.. they DELIBERATELY don't work full time so they can keep the prices high.
Private sector competition for business with consumables.. good. Private sector for essential services... bad. (IMHO)
You're right, my mistake was that I said it would work - I should have said it could work.
Hypothetically, contacts could be written to protect services with penalties for failures and regular reviews of performance, break points to replace providers, fixed/capped pricing etc. You're right that a private sector company's primary objective is to make money, but I've worked in a couple, and can think of others examples where this is achieved without screwing anyone over (Fair Trade for example, but lets not start another debate on that). Simply write the contracts in a way that allows a company to make money (that much will provide the competition required to keep the price down) and ensure that they have no option but to perform or be replaced (that will keep the service levels up). In the private sector you're often only as good as the last service you provide - don't do something well/cheap/fast enough and your customer will find someone who will and next time you get zip. In the public sector money keeps coming in no matter what (yes, it may well be less money, but still it's not as drastic as the consequences for failure in private companies).
Like I said, never going to happen though.
Hypothetically, contacts could be written to protect services with penalties for failures and regular reviews of performance, break points to replace providers, fixed/capped pricing etc. You're right that a private sector company's primary objective is to make money, but I've worked in a couple, and can think of others examples where this is achieved without screwing anyone over (Fair Trade for example, but lets not start another debate on that). Simply write the contracts in a way that allows a company to make money (that much will provide the competition required to keep the price down) and ensure that they have no option but to perform or be replaced (that will keep the service levels up). In the private sector you're often only as good as the last service you provide - don't do something well/cheap/fast enough and your customer will find someone who will and next time you get zip. In the public sector money keeps coming in no matter what (yes, it may well be less money, but still it's not as drastic as the consequences for failure in private companies).
Like I said, never going to happen though.
technodup
Senior Retro Guru
Rumble talks sense imo.
We were given brains for a reason. The only example I can think of where heart sometimes rules head (for me) is with women. And it's usually wrong.marky2484":1r4fsbhh said:
And you think it's cheaper here? Operations cost shitloads wherever you do them, it's the funding method that's in question. That sort of hyperbole is exactly what I'm talking about with emotive language. The NHS isn't free.Scougar":1r4fsbhh said:
Hyperbole? I was giving an actual example.
I never said the NHS was free, we all pay contributions and tax that fund it. The point is if I were to get kidney stones, I wouldn't have to pay the amount of money personally. I highly doubt that it would cost that much either, that just what they 'can' charge rather than what the 'do' charge to keep costs down.
I never said the NHS was free, we all pay contributions and tax that fund it. The point is if I were to get kidney stones, I wouldn't have to pay the amount of money personally. I highly doubt that it would cost that much either, that just what they 'can' charge rather than what the 'do' charge to keep costs down.
technodup":3f1p13us said:
But the full cost is not bore by the person, family or wider local community. In the US you have people who simply cant afford treatment for fear of the financial cost to them or their loved ones. It is a situation that no one should find themselves in. Systems that blanket allow this by manifest should not have a place in a civilised society.
Yes, there are treatments not available on the NHS due to cost, but there's an awful lot that is provided which would under an insurance based scheme be potentially unobtainable to a large percentage of the population.
We_are_Stevo
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
Tory 'Divide and Conquer' rhetoric certainly seems to be effective on here... :?
