How can this be defended?

[See-Goals]

In fact, are you a bin man?

No, I'm one of those high paid desk mounted public sector workers.

 

[Il Duce]

So basically the only person allowed an opinion is ... God? This is NSC for f***'s sake, not Parliament. Ranting is all part of the fun!

 

[mattb]

Agreed, I can't top your argument. If (like you) I had extensive working experience across all public sector organisations and varied roles throughout said organisations and THEN managed to mirror that experience in ALL private sector organisations that could offer a competitive service then I could also make such sweeping statements.

No need to get so defensive. You have said you work in the public sector, it's not your child that needs your love and protection.

It doesn't take work experience in both public and private fields to know that a VAST MAJORITY (as I said in my previous post) of services would be more adequately and efficiently provided by the private sector.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It doesn't take work experience in both public and private fields to know that a VAST MAJORITY (as I said in my previous post) of services would be more adequately and efficiently provided by the private sector.

I'd suggest the exact opposite is true; the public service is there primarily to serve the public, whereas the private sector is there primarily to serve the shareholder (the public gets whatever's left over). The private sector will provide the lowest level of service it can get away with under its Service Level Agreement without jeopordising the contract.

 

[steward 433]

I was off sick for over 200 days in 2007 and the doctors were concerned that I returned to work too early.

Jesus christ N that's a bit bloody different isn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was off work for over eight months after my bike accident not with a f***ing cold or the shits ffs

 

[barney]

I'd suggest the exact opposite is true; the public service is there primarily to serve the public, whereas the private sector is there primarily to serve the shareholder (the public gets whatever's left over). The private sector will provide the lowest level of service it can get away with under its Service Level Agreement without jeopordising the contract.

what, if there is competition in the market you think the firms will offer a poor service to the consumer?

 

[algie]

what, if there is competition in the market you think the firms will offer a poor service to the consumer?

COCK

 

[mattb]

I'd suggest the exact opposite is true; the public service is there primarily to serve the public, whereas the private sector is there primarily to serve the shareholder (the public gets whatever's left over). The private sector will provide the lowest level of service it can get away with under its Service Level Agreement without jeopordising the contract.

There is no competition for public companies - hence, lazy, inefficient, bureaucratic. Private companies have to perform, as there tends to be competition and there is a choice for the consumer. Whilst the private firms will attempt to do as little as possible, at least they get it done.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

what, if there is competition in the market you think the firms will offer a poor service to the consumer?

Cheapest tender will win the contract. Then they can do whatever they like, just so long as they stick to the bare bones of the contract.

 

[mattb]

are you forgetting return custom? companies don't operate that way as no clients would return for repeat business...

 

[barney]

Cheapest tender will win the contract. Then they can do whatever they like, just so long as they stick to the bare bones of the contract.

what contract? there is already more than one private healthcare company.. if the NHS folded, they would flood in

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

There is no competition for public companies - hence, lazy, inefficient, bureaucratic. Private companies have to perform, as there tends to be competition and there is a choice for the consumer. Whilst the private firms will attempt to do as little as possible, at least they get it done.

Where public safety is concerned, I'd vote for public services over the private sector every time. British Rail had many many faults, but public safety was always paramount. Now the unions are about the only guardians of not allowing these safety standards to drop. Same with air traffic control. since it was privatised, the controllers and their union(s) are continually have to stop the bosses chipping away at the safety margins in pursuit of pure profit.

And there's so many companies falling over themselves to move work offshore, that the offshore companies are now regularly moving the work even further offshore where costs are even cheaper. Soon it'll be the Amazonian Indians doing all the work in all the world - and only then until they can train the anteaters to do it...

 

[mattb]

Where public safety is concerned, I'd vote for public services over the private sector every time. British Rail had many many faults, but public safety was always paramount. Now the unions are about the only guardians of not allowing these safety standards to drop. Same with air traffic control. since it was privatised, the controllers and their union(s) are continually have to stop the bosses chipping away at the safety margins in pursuit of pure profit.

And there's so many companies falling over themselves to move work offshore, that the offshore companies are now regularly moving the work even further offshore where costs are even cheaper. Soon it'll be the Amazonian Indians doing all the work in all the world - and only then until they can train the anteaters to do it...

Yeah, I'm sure you're right about safety standards. I was only really talking with regard to prices and quality of service.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

what contract? there is already more than one private healthcare company.. if the NHS folded, they would flood in

Sure, they'd flood in. But they'd only give you Special Price if you had the equivalent of five years no-claims bonus. You got any kind of heriditary illness, or you're too fat, or you smoke or drink, and your premiums go through the roof. And if there's something seriously wrong with you they won't want to know. They'll mark your cards as non-cost-effective and palm you off to the NHS - if it still exists.

 

[clapham_gull]

Private hospitals spend far less on healthcare per patient than the NHS. They also provide a better service.

Out of interest, bearing in mind the public health service treats millions more people (and those who couldn't afford private health care) - how do you come to the conclusion that they provide "a better service".

I would imagine it far easier to manage and plan a private hospital. You know for example exactly who is likely to come through the door.

If the private hospitals had to deal with the millions that public ones do, can you prove they would perform in the same way ?

From personal experience, I had a problem with my arm a few years back and went private through work.

The treatment I got wasn't any good, so I simply stopped that (even though I wasn't paying for it) and had much much better treatment on the NHS.

 

[clapham_gull]

are you forgetting return custom? companies don't operate that way as no clients would return for repeat business...

Except of course the private train companies who have virtual monopolies on their routes.

 

[barney]

Sure, they'd flood in. But they'd only give you Special Price if you had the equivalent of five years no-claims bonus. You got any kind of heriditary illness, or you're too fat, or you smoke or drink, and your premiums go through the roof. And if there's something seriously wrong with you they won't want to know. They'll mark your cards as non-cost-effective and palm you off to the NHS - if it still exists.

i think with healthcare, quality of service and speed of service are much more important than price, to someone with a serious illness

 

[mattb]

Except of course the private train companies who have virtual monopolies on their routes.

i've nowhere mentioned any support on monopolies - they're just as inefficient as public sector services.

 

[Il Duce]

I don't buy the safety issue at all. Mostly it is used by the unions as a tool to justify their existence. There is no way that a private company is going to want to jeopardise its reputation by compromising on safety. Do car manufacturers do it? No. Airlines? No. Proper, genuine privatisation (without the interfering and subsidies of government e.g. railways) will lead to better service, better safety standards, and greater efficiency. Trouble is that privatisation in this country has in general been a half-hearted, government puppet gathering of cock suckers.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Except of course the private train companies who have virtual monopolies on their routes.

Luckily we have nice SOUTHERN trains on the Brighton-London line. So the discerning punter can treat FCC's shabby cattle-trucks with the contempt they so richly deserve.

Just say no to FCC, kidz