Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

They already do that.
Private hospitals do some operations and are paid by the NHS/government for it.
I suppose it helps reduce waiting times and such...

purplefood wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

They already do that.
Private hospitals do some operations and are paid by the NHS/government for it.
I suppose it helps reduce waiting times and such...

...and if increasing the amount that it is done helps to make our NHS more efficient, then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

Albatross wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

They already do that.
Private hospitals do some operations and are paid by the NHS/government for it.
I suppose it helps reduce waiting times and such...

...and if increasing the amount that it is done helps to make our NHS more efficient, then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

Of course.
Though there are some parts of the NHs and surrounding parts it would be better to nationalise or privatise...
It does need some measure of reform.

Orlanth wrote:While everyone except a union twit would likely understand that the comment is nort to be taken literally, the strike is not as popular as they are making out, and it is not justified. Civil Servants; its time you paid for your pensions like the rest of the tax paying populace.

Is it? Maybe it's time you stopped licking the boots of your leash-holders like a whipped dog and demanded the same rights as civil servants instead of spitting on them for standing up for themselves.

e; I suppose it's reasonable to think the pensions are the sole purpose of the strike if you read nothing but rightwing propaganda and haven't paid any attention to statements made by some of the parties involved, but due to the absurdly restrictive laws regarding unions in this country, pensions are the only thing right now that a general strike can be called over. Workers can't strike (officially) about the NHS breakup, or the housing cuts, or the planned recindment of life-sustaining medications to terminal patients, or the fact that 27,000 British households will have to chose between eating or heating their homes this winter, or the mass layoffs, or the coalition's plans to draft the unemployed as unpaid labour for private companies (while laying off increasing numbers of people... gosh, wonder if there's a correlation there?) but they can hold a general strike over pensions, and a lot of workers taking part in the general strike did so in solidarity with other causes above and beyond the pension issue.

Hmmm law breakers eh!?! Shot them, shot them now in front of.........too soon eh?

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?

I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.

The proposal to allow pharmaceutical companies access to NHS patient data is actually one of the best ideas for a long time.

If the data is properly anonymised you get some of the largest sets of field trials results in the world, with no risk to patient privacy.

Britain has a pretty strong pharmaceutical industry. It's one of our more successful areas of research, development and export earnings. The industry will benefit from the additional data.

The NHS will benefit from being paid for the data.

Patients will benefit in the long run with better subscribing and treatments.

It's a win-win-win situation.

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?

I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.

I think (speaking from experience here in the US) that making it an us/them argument doesn't serve your cause.

I can also say (speaking from experience here in the US) that a for-profit based system for healthcare means money gets sucked directly away from care to go to shareholders and executives, and companies are incentivized to provide less care, even to people who need it. Healthcare should be government, or at least Nonprofit. Profit shouldn't take priority over people's health any more than it does over fighting fires, stopping crime, or national security.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Maybe it's time you stopped licking the boots of your leash-holders like a whipped dog and demanded the same rights as civil servants instead of spitting on them for standing up for themselves.

Needlessly rude tone aside, its also a flat out ridiculous thing to say. You dont even know Orlanth personally, how do you know he licks the boots of his leash holder? Because he happens to have a job?

By your logic, everyone in the world who works for a private company licks the boots of their leash holders, so does that mean that every public servant is a militant union supporting gangster who is only interested in getting their fat fingers into the state cookie jar?

Seeing as your logic is flawless, maybe you can answer this question for me, because I can't get my head around it.

The bosses of the unions love talking about greed. They never shut up about greed, bankers are greedy, politicians are greedy, Cameron is greedy apparently, even though he is trying to balance the books of the country. He isnt trying to stiff the public sector because then he gets ten million pounds put into his bank account to buy a rolls royce is he? He is trying to stop our entire nation from haemorrhaging money because it has catastrophic effects on the nations economy. How is that him being greedy when he personally doesn't get a penny of the money saved? How do you square that circle?

But public sector workers... Teachers, firemen, what do they REALLY want if not money? Namely, more money off bankers, to be given to them? Surely its just about cold hard cash? Why are they against pension changes?

Money.

If Cameron gets a deal done and winds up not spending as many billions on the public sector pensions as he wants to, he personally makes nothing at all does he? He doesn't go "Nice one, I get 5 million pounds for a helicopter because every teacher in the UK is getting 40 quid less a month"

But if your a fireman and you go on strike, because you want 30k a year instead of 22k a year, then you personally are getting nothing other than money from the deal. Cold hard cash.

If your a teacher and you want to pay 5.4% of your yearly wage into your pension instead of 5.9% but get the same amount when you hit 65, then what are you gaining other than cold hard cash? Cash to buy Ipods, beer, designer clothes, fast cars, hookers, whatever floats your boat.

So tell me, because I am really interested to hear the answer.

How is it that a politician attempting to spend less on the public sector can be called "greedy" when he personally gains nothing from the deal, but a Fireman who goes on strike for the sole purpose of getting an 8 grand a year pay rise isn't?

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

Orlanth wrote:While everyone except a union twit would likely understand that the comment is nort to be taken literally, the strike is not as popular as they are making out, and it is not justified. Civil Servants; its time you paid for your pensions like the rest of the tax paying populace.

Is it? Maybe it's time you stopped licking the boots of your leash-holders like a whipped dog and demanded the same rights as civil servants instead of spitting on them for standing up for themselves.
.

Your lot sold our gold reserves squandered the nation into debt and Brown had no balls to take on the unions, thus the current unsustainable pension packet arrangement from 2009.
Its about time the lefties coughed up to help pay to get the nation out of debt, after all you 'benefited' from twelve years of glorious Blairism.

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?

I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.

I think (speaking from experience here in the US) that making it an us/them argument doesn't serve your cause.

I can also say (speaking from experience here in the US) that a for-profit based system for healthcare means money gets sucked directly away from care to go to shareholders and executives, and companies are incentivized to provide less care, even to people who need it. Healthcare should be government, or at least Nonprofit. Profit shouldn't take priority over people's health any more than it does over fighting fires, stopping crime, or national security.

I'm not suggesting that we should have a purely 'for-profit' healthcare system, Mannahin. I support the NHS wholeheartedly - I firmly believe it makes our nation great. However, I would like to see greater competition for the delivery of services within the NHS. Far too many people do not get the service that they deserve, nor that the amount of money we spend on it warrants. We spend a fortune on it, and the tendency of those in power is to simply view it as a financial black hole that will always demand more money. That, I feel, is a mistake. It can be made to work efficiently and effectively. For starters, I would like to adopt a similar strategy to the ones the Indians have started using, whereby they run ultra-specialised hospitals that focus on one specific area and deliver a high volume of operations - this has helped them keep costs down, and because the staff are focused on only a handful of similar operations, they become massively experienced at delivering good results. This would work extraordinarily well here in the UK, given our relatively small geographical area.

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Albatross wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:"Disband"? No, why would they? "Use to generate income for private investors and shareholders"? Absolutely.

God, somebody stop this evil! I think that farming out certain NHS services to private contractors could work, actually. There are things that the NHS does terribly.

If a private contractor screws up an operation and you go to the press/complain about it then they can sue YOU. NHS can't do that. Also, private companies are clearly only accountable to their shareholders, not to "patients" (customers.) And frankly, private companies are just as likely to screw up as a nationalised one. Ever been on a CHEAP bus or a CHEAP train? Ever read about the abuse inherent in the care system being run by private concerns? Wonder about the sheer profits being made by the companies contracted to work "for" the DWP as compared to their inability to perform?

I reject such pessimistic arguments. It is precisely this pessimism that the Left is relying on, and in this country we have it in abundance: 'Oh, what's the point? It'll probably be rubbish anyway.' It's a national cancer, our tendency towards navel-gazing. The fact is, it CAN work, and we should try to make it work - we should look for a way to make our health service more efficient instead of using the Labour tactic of attracting positive headlines by just shoveling more money into it.

These aren't "arguments".. these are actual occurrences of private companies given the reigns. The recent Winterbourne care home scandal is a great example of how badly a private company can treat "patients". Atos Healthcare have threatened legal action against websites for publishing factual accounts of their activities in "healthcare", and shut down several Disabled peoples internet groups for bad-mouthing the company, whilst being paid millions in taxpayers cash cocking up medical tests. Its not a great precedent for allowing greater private involvement in the NHS. That is not to say that the NHS is some kind of perfect model, or that it doesn't need organising properly.. it does. But there is great danger in allowing private companies to do it.

Just on the point about farming out services from the NHS to private companies - the hospital I work at transfers quite a number of patients out to the local private hospitals, who cherry pick the easiest, lowest risk patients who have been waiting the least amount of time, leaving all the complex, high risk, longest waiting patients to be done on the NHS.

The strange thing is that a lot of the surgeons working in the private hospitals are the same surgeons working in the NHS.

Another strange thing with the hospital I work at; they are just finishing up building a brand new hospital to combine the 3 sites the hospital currently runs in onto one site. A hugely expensive PFI project which, strangely enough, is providing less beds (despite higher demand), less theatre space (despite higher demand), and less jobs (as some wards are being merged as they are moved into the new hospital, etc). And the hospital will be paying for this for years, and paying a huge rent on it too. Oh, and far too few parking spaces; it is hard enough to park on the main site already, let alone with the other two sites moved down, and with only a handful of extra spaces.

Though at least it looks quite nice inside.

Ireland (Republic of) has the sort of two tier health system you are talking about Albatross. It is considered by pretty much everyone who comes in contact with it to be an unmitigated disaster. If there is some way to do it and make it less inefficient and corrupt (and really on a GW forum, are we really arguing that private companies are always more efficient?)

I dunno, I think it's a pretty massively complicated issue, but previous negative experience in privatisations (Rail in Britain is obscenely expensive, telecoms in Ireland are a joke) with no experience I can think of where privatisation improved something for the public, I am sceptical.

On the topic of public waste, the school I work at recently splashed out on a fancy new face recognition thingy for reception. God knows how much it cost, but it is less efficient than the old way of punching in a code (the software takes ages to work, so you get a big queue at the door at peak times when EVERYONE is in a hurry. And it doesn't work if you're too short. Or if you stand in the wrong place. )
Why do we have it? More secure apparently. Huh. Well. I guess it would also make the school more secure to have cameras and microphones in every class room, and doors I can lock automatically with a panic button. So we'll get those next, not the textbooks and computers I need for my lessons. Hooray!

In my job we have a private pension scheme organised by the company but run by a big insurance company.

The annual management fee is 0.25%. The pension is completely portable. Transfer or redemption value is 100% of current value. There are about 270 different funds on offer, which can be selected in automatic batches programmed according to your age, or controlled individually.

If you pay in 5% of salary the company matches that and doubles it, so you get an annual contribution of 15% of salary into your fund. (I pay in 10% owing to my age.) You can also make higher contributions according to the pension law.

That is pretty much the gold standard of modern pension schemes. It's personal, portable, flexible, and requires investment by the owner and by the employer.

If Britain has a problem with some pensions being too generous, it has a bigger problem of too many people with a crappy pension scheme if they are in one at all.

All those people are going to be on social security when they retire, so to a great degree the money saved on pensions is spent out on other forms of welfare.

Da Boss wrote:Ireland (Republic of) has the sort of two tier health system you are talking about Albatross. It is considered by pretty much everyone who comes in contact with it to be an unmitigated disaster. If there is some way to do it and make it less inefficient and corrupt (and really on a GW forum, are we really arguing that private companies are always more efficient?)

I dunno, I think it's a pretty massively complicated issue, but previous negative experience in privatisations (Rail in Britain is obscenely expensive, telecoms in Ireland are a joke) with no experience I can think of where privatisation improved something for the public, I am sceptical.

Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.

Albatross wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Ireland (Republic of) has the sort of two tier health system you are talking about Albatross. It is considered by pretty much everyone who comes in contact with it to be an unmitigated disaster. If there is some way to do it and make it less inefficient and corrupt (and really on a GW forum, are we really arguing that private companies are always more efficient?)

I dunno, I think it's a pretty massively complicated issue, but previous negative experience in privatisations (Rail in Britain is obscenely expensive, telecoms in Ireland are a joke) with no experience I can think of where privatisation improved something for the public, I am sceptical.

Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.

Internal to the UK there might be a case that ISPs give reasonable service, but compared to the rest of Europe its overpriced rubbish sold with lies. I think one of the more worrying aspects of "privatisation" can be found in the utilities area. Many "local" utilities such as water are owned by foreign concerns which basically use our money to subsidise themselves abroad... so the UK pays premium price for second-rate service. Granted we often pay that now for the current NHS, but at least we aren't funding a premium service for Germany or France.

Albatross wrote:Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.

Private schools also get to pick their pupils. Pupils that fail tests are often asked to leave. All bus services in the UK are privately owned, they were deregulated years ago, but it's pleasing that you've found one good one. A few profitable routes aren't proof of a god bus service, any fool can run the profitable routes.

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.

Private schools also get to pick their pupils. Pupils that fail tests are often asked to leave. All bus services in the UK are privately owned, they were deregulated years ago, but it's pleasing that you've found one good one. A few profitable routes aren't proof of a god bus service, any fool can run the profitable routes.

If the NHS charged for treatment on a scale comparable with private schools, most of us would be dead. Or we would be in America.

Where's this "good bus" anyway? Don't be greedy, share. We all want "good bus routes". Sadly, those aren't the same routes that First Mainline provide.

To heave this trainwreck back onto the rails, it's Clarkson. They asked JEREMY CLARKSON about PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS STRIKING. What did they expect him to say? "Oh, I wish them all well"?

Mr G. Carlin said it best: "You can be offended if you want. It's not like I committed physical violence against you, you're just offended."

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Albatross wrote:Private schools seem to regularly deliver good educational outcomes for their students, and there are private bus routes in Manchester that are excellent. I also think that internet service provision is a good example of a sector which delivers a vital service with competition at its heart, and which delivers a reasonably high standard of service to its users.

Private schools also get to pick their pupils. Pupils that fail tests are often asked to leave. All bus services in the UK are privately owned, they were deregulated years ago, but it's pleasing that you've found one good one. A few profitable routes aren't proof of a god bus service, any fool can run the profitable routes.

If the NHS charged for treatment on a scale comparable with private schools, most of us would be dead. Or we would be in America.

I wasn't asked to provide examples of cheap private public services, just ones which work, and private schools demonstrably do.

Where's this "good bus" anyway? Don't be greedy, share. We all want "good bus routes". Sadly, those aren't the same routes that First Mainline provide.

Ain't that the fething truth... The Transdev Burnley and Pendle services are great - clean, comfortable, frequent and and reasonably-priced. I also rate the Stagecoach services to South Manchester. You can pretty much get a bus any time, day or night, and they're cheap as chips. Also, the Metrolink is operated by a foreign contractor, and I happen to think it's fantastic. I've had nothing but good experiences with it. Once again - clean, comfortable, frequent and and reasonably-priced.

Its been pointed out (I can't remember if it turned up in this thread) that Clarksons comments were previously OK'd by the program editor.

Now if we assume that Clarkson is paid to be a Talking Head, and paid to be controversial in a similar manner to "shock-jocks" or certain stand-ups, and that his choice of words is not out of character for that, and that he was actually engaged in heavy sarcasm (which is clear from the full transcript.) and does not literally want to see strikers dragged out and shot, then we should instead look at who has hired him and paid him to make such commentary, and whether they are the ones who have acted inappropriately, or with poor timing?

If a Talking Head is just a box you put money in to say something "Clarksonian", did not the BBC act with poor taste by choosing him as the "celeb of the day"? and are they not the ones ultimately responsible for what is broadcast?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Its been pointed out (I can't remember if it turned up in this thread) that Clarksons comments were previously OK'd by the program editor.

Now if we assume that Clarkson is paid to be a Talking Head, and paid to be controversial in a similar manner to "shock-jocks" or certain stand-ups, and that his choice of words is not out of character for that, and that he was actually engaged in heavy sarcasm (which is clear from the full transcript.) and does not literally want to see strikers dragged out and shot, then we should instead look at who has hired him and paid him to make such commentary, and whether they are the ones who have acted inappropriately, or with poor timing?

If a Talking Head is just a box you put money in to say something "Clarksonian", did not the BBC act with poor taste by choosing him as the "celeb of the day"? and are they not the ones ultimately responsible for what is broadcast?

I have to agree with you here - he's Jeremy Clarkson, a notoriously outspoken right-wing TV presenter, with a deserved reputation for being controversial. They put him on a prominent BBC show on the same day that strikes were taking place across the country, and asked him to comment on it. What did they expect him to say? He's not exactly Ken Livingstone or Polly Toynbee, is he?

It's like asking Nick Griffin to comment on the Notting Hill carnival.

What this grinds down to is that the One Show wants to appear "edgy" instead of "This Morning" in the afternoon.