| Health communism 17:31 - Nov 16 with 6541 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
"If I was proposing the creation of the NHS today the Conservatives would call it health communism" Corbyn. |  |
| |  |
| Health communism on 13:39 - Nov 17 with 3002 views | jaykay |
| Health communism on 10:25 - Nov 17 by BlueBadger |
Ah, the old 'the private sector makes it cheaper' and more efficient' myth.
Circa £4BN a year is wasted on the tier of management dedicated to outsourcing services.
Privatisation has been bad for the NHS in general and disastrous for areas such as mental health, elderly care and children's services in particular with various companies having their own little corners of what are traditionally, very complicated patient groups with multiple needs - there's a massive loss of collaborative working, duplication of paperwork and management and oftentimes those with the most complicated needs end up being poorly served as there's always something which places them outside of the admission criteria of one particular firm's little fiefdom.
If you want a local example of how privatising services fails then look no further than community services round here - in 2012, the contract was awarded to Serco, after they undercut the NHS provider's bid by £10M - the first thing the did was announced across-the-board(frontline and support staff)1-in-10 redundancies and moved their liaison offices(the people you speak to when people are leaving hospital in order to refer them for community services) out of local hospitals into a call centre in Ipswich. The drop in staffing numbers combined with a lack of local knowledge in the call centre meant those left were given unrealistic and unmanageable caseloads (friend of mine was expected once to see people in Haverhill, Long Melford, Stanningfield and Stowmarket in one morning, all before 1130). So more people left, caseloads grew bigger, people fell between the gaps and ended up back in hospital, at a far greater cost than the £10M 'saving'.
And that's before we get onto things like ancillary services - cleaning and domestic services farmed out to the private sector invariably end up with staff numbers being cut and those remaining being retained on poorer terms and conditions than before - this means an reduction in service quality as there's fewer people trying to do more and, as a result of the aforesaid changes to T&C's a more rapid turnover in staff meaning a general loss of efficiency.
The only area you could maybe make a case for the Efficient Private Sector is maybe farming out a very small amount of low-risk elective procedures. And even then, the 'turn 'em over quick' approach is ripe breeding ground for dangerous errors. [Post edited 17 Nov 2019 10:58]
|
please dont blind him with facts. for someone who has had the best treatment by the n.h.s you would think he would be shouting from the roof tops .to keep everything in house and fund it properly.
p.s. have you got a second job yet badger. 
https://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/celebrities/claude-littner-nurses/ |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| Health communism on 14:02 - Nov 17 with 2977 views | Clapham_Junction |
| Health communism on 13:04 - Nov 17 by BloomBlue |
Ah the old nationalising will do it cheaper myth. Bit like the nationalising of Openreach how are they going to fund it, by taxing private tech companies or the irony of having to tax private companies to claim nationalising can do it cheaper. If nationalising can do it cheaper why dont they prove by not taxing private companies to fund it.
Also remember when they invented the NHS GPs refused to be part of it, GPs have been private since the start of the NHS they have contracts with the NHS. The NHS has been part private from the start. |
There was recently an investigation into the heat network sector by the Competition and Markets Authority (which I was involved in). The sector is a mixture of private and state provision and local authority-owned networks are probably the closest thing we have to a state utility monopoly in mainland GB.
The investigation found that despite generally operating older and less efficient networks, local authority ones provided heat more cheaply and were more reliable. The CMA specifically noted that the lack of profit motive significantly reduced the risk of customer detriment.
With regards to the "If nationalising can do it cheaper why dont they prove by not taxing private companies to fund it" point, the network still has to be maintained - even if it's cheaper, it still has to be paid for from some form of taxation. [Post edited 17 Nov 2019 14:07]
|  | | |
| Health communism on 17:50 - Nov 17 with 2913 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Health communism on 09:53 - Nov 17 by hampstead_blue |
and if my dad was my mum......
The fact that the NHS can never be fully funded does prove the point that socialism will never work.
Can you imagine the costs of running everything else? We will be bankrupt in a heartbeat with commie corbyn's nationalised program.
I think the fact that Maggie kept the NHS whilst privatising much does show that health is very important. |
"Can you imagine the costs of running everything else? We will be bankrupt in a heartbeat with commie corbyn's [sic] nationalised program."
So you think it is better to have a privatised health service because you believe it is unaffordable?
The choice is simple. Conservative policy is low taxation, you pay privately for what you need and it suits the rich and kills the poor. Labour policy is the rich pay a little more and everyone is looked after.
Would you rather pay your own health bills whatever they may end up being when you need treatment or would you rather pay your taxes and know the NHS is there for you? It is affordable if you want it to be. | |
| |
| Health communism on 18:15 - Nov 17 with 2900 views | Oldsmoker |
I've heard the anti-NHS arguments from so many people.
"I've never been sick in my life. Never taken a day off work. Why should I have to pay for sick people?"
Then they have an epiphany - the one when their CHILD gets sick.
Then they can't stop praising the NHS enough. |  |
| |
| Health communism on 18:25 - Nov 17 with 2893 views | jeera |
| Health communism on 09:53 - Nov 17 by hampstead_blue |
and if my dad was my mum......
The fact that the NHS can never be fully funded does prove the point that socialism will never work.
Can you imagine the costs of running everything else? We will be bankrupt in a heartbeat with commie corbyn's nationalised program.
I think the fact that Maggie kept the NHS whilst privatising much does show that health is very important. |
When major industry like coal and steel were nationalised, the health service, water board and other utilities, telecommunications...
When all those were nationalised - was Britain a communist country? |  |
| |
| Health communism on 18:41 - Nov 17 with 2878 views | Oldsmoker |
| Health communism on 18:25 - Nov 17 by jeera |
When major industry like coal and steel were nationalised, the health service, water board and other utilities, telecommunications...
When all those were nationalised - was Britain a communist country? |
The UK has been a lot of things but never a communist country.
A decent country that wanted the best for all its people - Yes.
Under the Tories we are now a country that only wants to help those that vote Tory. | |
| |
| Health communism on 18:46 - Nov 17 with 2869 views | jeera |
| Health communism on 18:41 - Nov 17 by Oldsmoker |
The UK has been a lot of things but never a communist country.
A decent country that wanted the best for all its people - Yes.
Under the Tories we are now a country that only wants to help those that vote Tory. |
Well, quite.
So why are those who want to return to a few core British values being called Communists by those who claim to be patriotic? | |
| |
| Health communism on 18:57 - Nov 17 with 2858 views | BloomBlue |
| Health communism on 18:25 - Nov 17 by jeera |
When major industry like coal and steel were nationalised, the health service, water board and other utilities, telecommunications...
When all those were nationalised - was Britain a communist country? |
No but you had some of the worst performing companies which was costing the tax payer millions and companies who couldnt care less about British citizens.
You had British Leyland turning out brand new cars which were death traps, you had Brisitsh Rail who didnt even have any form of customer service, you couldnt even make a complaint.
You then had constant power cuts and that put people's lives at risk.
You then had the wonder of union closed shops, which meant if you refused to join a union and forced to hand over money to the union you couldn't have the job. If you were already in a job and refused to join/hand over money to the union the union got you sacked and that meant no money and living on the streets.
So not communist but a country going down the drain |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Health communism on 19:36 - Nov 17 with 2841 views | NewcyBlue |
Brexiteers “let’s take back control”
People “okay, let’s take control of railways, utilities, communications, health care, things that will improve life for everyone”
Brexiteers “no! Not that. Take back control of our borders!”
You do have to wonder what the feck they want us to take back control of?! “Make our own laws”, we already do. “Our borders”. We have checks in Calais, we check before people get on a bloody boat. |  |
| |
| Health communism on 19:40 - Nov 17 with 2830 views | Darth_Koont |
| Health communism on 19:36 - Nov 17 by NewcyBlue |
Brexiteers “let’s take back control”
People “okay, let’s take control of railways, utilities, communications, health care, things that will improve life for everyone”
Brexiteers “no! Not that. Take back control of our borders!”
You do have to wonder what the feck they want us to take back control of?! “Make our own laws”, we already do. “Our borders”. We have checks in Calais, we check before people get on a bloody boat. |
It's a very good point.
Unfortunately, I think Take Back Control had only marginally more meaning than Brexit Means Brexit or a Red, White and Blue Brexit. |  |
| |
| Health communism on 19:49 - Nov 17 with 2813 views | Meadowlark |
| Health communism on 09:53 - Nov 17 by hampstead_blue |
and if my dad was my mum......
The fact that the NHS can never be fully funded does prove the point that socialism will never work.
Can you imagine the costs of running everything else? We will be bankrupt in a heartbeat with commie corbyn's nationalised program.
I think the fact that Maggie kept the NHS whilst privatising much does show that health is very important. |
Anyone who cites Maggie as doing something good.........
You have no compassion, no thoughts about anyone worse off than you, only concerned about yourself and your immediate family.
[Post edited 17 Nov 2019 19:51]
|  | | |
| Health communism on 22:47 - Nov 17 with 2775 views | Melford |
| Health communism on 13:10 - Nov 17 by BlueBadger |
GPs operate as franchisers, rather than true private providers. To all intents and purposes they're NHS employees in all but name.
And the UK taxpayer presently pays more into the railways than we ever did under British Rail. For very little real improvement in service.
The only rail franchises which return a profit to the treasury are the state-run ones. The rest run on massive government handouts.
Presently, any profits from the utilities goes to shareholders, that's a lot that could be sitting in the treasure instead.
And if privatising your utilities offers such a good deal why hasn't there been more uptake across the continent? [Post edited 17 Nov 2019 13:24]
|
Like EDF, the French state-owned energy provider. Energy should be nationalized again, whatever supplier you go through you get the same thing. Nobody is getting super electric where you're kettle boils in half the time, when you put a plug in or hire up the hob you are getting the exact same product as everybody else who uses it so why are we all paying different prices for the same thing? |  |
| |
| Health communism on 23:14 - Nov 17 with 2758 views | jeera |
| Health communism on 22:47 - Nov 17 by Melford |
Like EDF, the French state-owned energy provider. Energy should be nationalized again, whatever supplier you go through you get the same thing. Nobody is getting super electric where you're kettle boils in half the time, when you put a plug in or hire up the hob you are getting the exact same product as everybody else who uses it so why are we all paying different prices for the same thing? |
This is it Mellors.
We are sending money abroad all the time to these foreign companies; energy suppliers as you say, and others who run other core needs of this country's citizens.
We need protecting and the best way would be to renationalise our main services. | |
| |
| Health communism on 23:20 - Nov 17 with 2756 views | StNeotsBlue |
| Health communism on 12:55 - Nov 17 by solemio |
If everybody ate sensibly, drank sensibly and took a good amount of exercise the NHS would be adequately funded.
I've noticed that they don't! |
I may be due a whoosh but that is b@llocks. Some fat tw@t who drinks too much and drops dead at 50 will cost the state a lot less than some puritan who makes it to 100. |  | | |
| Health communism on 23:22 - Nov 17 with 2754 views | StNeotsBlue |
| Health communism on 23:20 - Nov 17 by StNeotsBlue |
I may be due a whoosh but that is b@llocks. Some fat tw@t who drinks too much and drops dead at 50 will cost the state a lot less than some puritan who makes it to 100. |
To be fair I do have a slight conflict of interests on this topic. | | | |
| Health communism on 23:56 - Nov 17 with 2728 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Health communism on 18:41 - Nov 17 by Oldsmoker |
The UK has been a lot of things but never a communist country.
A decent country that wanted the best for all its people - Yes.
Under the Tories we are now a country that only wants to help those that vote Tory. |
The don’t want to help those who vote Tory, just secure their vote. They’ll happily screw them over again after, just as they have been for the last 9 years. |  |
| |
| Health communism on 09:26 - Nov 18 with 2660 views | WeWereZombies |
| Health communism on 23:20 - Nov 17 by StNeotsBlue |
I may be due a whoosh but that is b@llocks. Some fat tw@t who drinks too much and drops dead at 50 will cost the state a lot less than some puritan who makes it to 100. |
That sounds like a bit of a cavalier attitude... |  |
| |
| Health communism on 18:58 - Nov 18 with 2616 views | NthQldITFC |
| Health communism on 18:57 - Nov 17 by BloomBlue |
No but you had some of the worst performing companies which was costing the tax payer millions and companies who couldnt care less about British citizens.
You had British Leyland turning out brand new cars which were death traps, you had Brisitsh Rail who didnt even have any form of customer service, you couldnt even make a complaint.
You then had constant power cuts and that put people's lives at risk.
You then had the wonder of union closed shops, which meant if you refused to join a union and forced to hand over money to the union you couldn't have the job. If you were already in a job and refused to join/hand over money to the union the union got you sacked and that meant no money and living on the streets.
So not communist but a country going down the drain |
Why assume that the way things were 40 years ago defines how well nationalised infrastructure would work today? Few private businesses resemble their equivalents in the 1970s.
With modern technology, IT systems and communications, who is to say that streamlined, internally- and externally-accountable nationalised entities wouldn't be more efficient and better value to the public as a whole, than private ones which have to pump out profits to their already advantaged shareholders? |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Health communism on 20:11 - Nov 18 with 2588 views | jeera |
| Health communism on 18:58 - Nov 18 by NthQldITFC |
Why assume that the way things were 40 years ago defines how well nationalised infrastructure would work today? Few private businesses resemble their equivalents in the 1970s.
With modern technology, IT systems and communications, who is to say that streamlined, internally- and externally-accountable nationalised entities wouldn't be more efficient and better value to the public as a whole, than private ones which have to pump out profits to their already advantaged shareholders? |
Not complicated is it.
[Some] people seem to think anyone who may be employed by a nationalised organisation will be semi-literate, covered in soot and on strike every five minutes.
It's not very comfortable reading. | |
| |
| Health communism on 21:51 - Nov 18 with 2542 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Health communism on 18:58 - Nov 18 by NthQldITFC |
Why assume that the way things were 40 years ago defines how well nationalised infrastructure would work today? Few private businesses resemble their equivalents in the 1970s.
With modern technology, IT systems and communications, who is to say that streamlined, internally- and externally-accountable nationalised entities wouldn't be more efficient and better value to the public as a whole, than private ones which have to pump out profits to their already advantaged shareholders? |
If you look at the NHS and state sector education they are certainly both very different.
It is right there were problems in the 70s and the unions had too much power. However, anyone who fears the unions could be back to what they were even if we had 20 years of consecutive socialist government doesn't really understand how weak the unions are compared with what they were then.
The electorate realised when Thatcher had gone too far but they seem quite happy for it now. | |
| |
| Health communism on 22:00 - Nov 18 with 2530 views | BloomBlue |
| Health communism on 18:58 - Nov 18 by NthQldITFC |
Why assume that the way things were 40 years ago defines how well nationalised infrastructure would work today? Few private businesses resemble their equivalents in the 1970s.
With modern technology, IT systems and communications, who is to say that streamlined, internally- and externally-accountable nationalised entities wouldn't be more efficient and better value to the public as a whole, than private ones which have to pump out profits to their already advantaged shareholders? |
Why assume all private companies charge loads of money just to pay shareholders.
But unions haven't changed they want the same union rules they had in the 70s to be made law again and Labour is never going to nationalise anything and ban unions from being part of it, it's the unions who want to go back to the 70s
If public is so good why do they have to nationalise an existing company. Start a fresh new company, dont pinch an existing company, dont increase taxes on a few private companies to subsidise it, start a new company like any new company starts. If it's going to be cheaper and provide better service as many tells us it will by default take all the customers from the private companies. | | | |
| Health communism on 22:09 - Nov 18 with 2524 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Health communism on 20:11 - Nov 18 by jeera |
Not complicated is it.
[Some] people seem to think anyone who may be employed by a nationalised organisation will be semi-literate, covered in soot and on strike every five minutes.
It's not very comfortable reading. |
Thatcher’s fault. She did a cracking job of brainwashing the masses, and it’s still going on today. It’s impossible to have a sensible conversation about getting the mix right between private and public ownership. | |
| |
| Health communism on 22:09 - Nov 18 with 2523 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Health communism on 22:00 - Nov 18 by BloomBlue |
Why assume all private companies charge loads of money just to pay shareholders.
But unions haven't changed they want the same union rules they had in the 70s to be made law again and Labour is never going to nationalise anything and ban unions from being part of it, it's the unions who want to go back to the 70s
If public is so good why do they have to nationalise an existing company. Start a fresh new company, dont pinch an existing company, dont increase taxes on a few private companies to subsidise it, start a new company like any new company starts. If it's going to be cheaper and provide better service as many tells us it will by default take all the customers from the private companies. |
"Why assume all private companies charge loads of money just to pay shareholders"?
Not sure anyone said that but the profits go to shareholders and chief executives. Are you going to argue otherwise?
Yes, unions would jump at the chance to have the same rules they had in the '70s. Are you suggesting that as soon as there are a few more nationalised companies, the government would roll back legislation 40 years? Why would the government do so? Where is it in their manifesto? Even if Labour had the desire to do so, it would take 20-30 years of them in power with no effective opposition for them to do so. I can't see that happening. Can you?
"If public is so good why do they have to nationalise an existing company"? Of course they could but it would be stupid to drive private companies out of existence by Government-owned businesses having unfair competitive advantage and then saying that is what free-market capitalism is all about. Far fairer to give the shareholder some compensation and make use of the infrastructure that already exists.
Do you have something against the humble question mark? | |
| |
| Health communism on 22:20 - Nov 18 with 2512 views | BloomBlue |
| Health communism on 22:09 - Nov 18 by Nthsuffolkblue |
"Why assume all private companies charge loads of money just to pay shareholders"?
Not sure anyone said that but the profits go to shareholders and chief executives. Are you going to argue otherwise?
Yes, unions would jump at the chance to have the same rules they had in the '70s. Are you suggesting that as soon as there are a few more nationalised companies, the government would roll back legislation 40 years? Why would the government do so? Where is it in their manifesto? Even if Labour had the desire to do so, it would take 20-30 years of them in power with no effective opposition for them to do so. I can't see that happening. Can you?
"If public is so good why do they have to nationalise an existing company"? Of course they could but it would be stupid to drive private companies out of existence by Government-owned businesses having unfair competitive advantage and then saying that is what free-market capitalism is all about. Far fairer to give the shareholder some compensation and make use of the infrastructure that already exists.
Do you have something against the humble question mark? |
But you missed the point public companies only have unfair advantages if taxes are used to subsidise them. If you started a company today you would have to borrow money from the bank, employ people and compete. If public is going to be so much cheaper because it doesnt have shareholders then start a public company in the same way. Go and borrow money from the Bank, start with one or two people starting it from scratch. If it's going to be so much better then it will prove public is better instead of pinching a company. | | | |
| Health communism on 22:25 - Nov 18 with 2506 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Health communism on 22:09 - Nov 18 by Nthsuffolkblue |
"Why assume all private companies charge loads of money just to pay shareholders"?
Not sure anyone said that but the profits go to shareholders and chief executives. Are you going to argue otherwise?
Yes, unions would jump at the chance to have the same rules they had in the '70s. Are you suggesting that as soon as there are a few more nationalised companies, the government would roll back legislation 40 years? Why would the government do so? Where is it in their manifesto? Even if Labour had the desire to do so, it would take 20-30 years of them in power with no effective opposition for them to do so. I can't see that happening. Can you?
"If public is so good why do they have to nationalise an existing company"? Of course they could but it would be stupid to drive private companies out of existence by Government-owned businesses having unfair competitive advantage and then saying that is what free-market capitalism is all about. Far fairer to give the shareholder some compensation and make use of the infrastructure that already exists.
Do you have something against the humble question mark? |
Take Interserve, for example, who were probably the largest private provider in the NHS before they went bust. Their main shareholders were US hedge funds. In what world is it right that profits should be taken out of the NHS and the UK, rather than invested back into the service?
(Lord Norman Blackwell was the Interserve Chairman during their period of massive growth and over-extension. He was a policy adviser to Thatcher.) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
