Fire and Rehire

catinstalbans

Well-known member
This appalling behaviour of British Gas, British Airways and others beggars belief.
To attack the working conditions of employees in this way shows the immorality of these corporations and banned in many European countries.
This government says it does not support the process but will take no action to prevent it. I can see their thinking. What is happening now in private companies can later be used to justify similar attacks on workers rights and conditions in the public sector (see the attack on pensions for an example of how this works)
 

seasideone

Well-known member
This appalling behaviour of British Gas, British Airways and others beggars belief.
To attack the working conditions of employees in this way shows the immorality of these corporations and banned in many European countries.
This government says it does not support the process but will take no action to prevent it. I can see their thinking. What is happening now in private companies can later be used to justify similar attacks on workers rights and conditions in the public sector (see the attack on pensions for an example of how this works)
If a company is losing money hand over fist or can see it about to happen - should they not do everything realistic to stop themselves going bust?

If they did go bust these people would have no jobs.

Nobody wants to do things like this as it does have repercussions in the workforce - but some times it’s absolutely necessary.

Typical civil servant who has know idea about business.
 

Recidivist3

Well-known member
Didn’t Unite and the CEO of British Airways resolve their dispute on this back in January with BA agreeing to discontinue the process
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
If a company is losing money hand over fist or can see it about to happen - should they not do everything realistic to stop themselves going bust?

If they did go bust these people would have no jobs.

Nobody wants to do things like this as it does have repercussions in the workforce - but some times it’s absolutely necessary.

Typical civil servant who has know idea about business.
Typical 'business man' who thinks the public sector aren't under the same economic strains or effected by financial decisions, or don't have budgets where hiring and firing is a daily concern, who don't seem to understand the implications of budget cuts you can do nothing about or running vital services on a shoestring.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
Typical 'business man' who thinks the public sector aren't under the same economic strains or effected by financial decisions, or don't have budgets where hiring and firing is a daily concern, who don't seem to understand the implications of budget cuts you can do nothing about or running vital services on a shoestring.
The Civil Service are not under the same pressure - as simple as that!!

It’s virtually (actually) impossible for the UK government to go bust, where business can and do everyday.
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
That is capitalism. If the business is run so poorly that it cannot offer reasonable pay and working conditions to its employees then surely it does not deserve to succeed.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
That is capitalism. If the business is run so poorly that it cannot offer reasonable pay and working conditions to its employees then surely it does not deserve to succeed.
Agree 100% (weird) and that’s where the pressure is - you can run a school or hospital as bad as you like - but it will be there tomorrow, unlike a business.

I would prefer the private sector to be able to bid to deliver the services of any failed hospital, school etc with strict targets and budgets - with them losing the contract if they failed.

The civil service has no real consequences for failure, where the private sector does.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
Agree 100% (weird) and that’s where the pressure is - you can run a school or hospital as bad as you like - but it will be there tomorrow, unlike a business.

I would prefer the private sector to be able to bid to deliver the services of any failed hospital, school etc with strict targets and budgets - with them losing the contract if they failed.

The civil service has no real consequences for failure, where the private sector does.
This is utter utter bollocks, in absolutely no way can you run a hospital or school 'as bad as you like' and stay in position, it's just nonsense, yes the institution will still be there but you won't.

As for private companies bidding for 'failed' hospitals, it's possible now and has been tried, they failed miserably and put patients in harm's way with the CQC having to step in, why do you think management contracts aren't available now? The UK taxpayers currently pay out £10 billion (and rising) to private healthcare firms operating NHS contracts as it is, pre covid.

 

seasideone

Well-known member
This is utter utter bollocks, in absolutely no way can you run a hospital or school 'as bad as you like' and stay in position, it's just nonsense, yes the institution will still be there but you won't.

As for private companies bidding for 'failed' hospitals, it's possible now and has been tried, they failed miserably and put patients in harm's way with the CQC having to step in, why do you think no one bids for the contracts?

So one has failed (maybe more) - it doesn’t say you shouldn’t look at it again and learn from what went wrong.

The civil service fail ALL the time, should that stop them running anything? Which it would if you used your argument.

As you say, the civil service will still be there however much carnage they cause.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
So one has failed (maybe more) - it doesn’t say you shouldn’t look at it again and learn from what went wrong.

The civil service fail ALL the time, should that stop them running anything? Which it would if you used your argument.

As you say, the civil service will still be there however much carnage they cause.
Do you not think in the current sell sell sell climate that it has been looked at again? Take a guess why no one wants the management contracts?

As for the civil service , it will still be there, but not necessarily with the people who failed, much in the same way as if one supermarket fails there will still be supermarkets. The people who ran the failed supermarket can happily go and set another one up the day after mind you with no real harm done, so what exactly are the consequences to them? Is it on the same scale as those of a failed hospital?

The 'public sector don't have to be accountable' argument is complete and utter bollocks invented by a) people who haven't got a clue or b) people who would like a vested interest. This ideal of the private sector riding in on their white charger is so wide of the mark, who hasn't failed in some area of their private business? You just throw stuff around and see what sticks, not really an option when education, healthcare or social responsibility is at stake.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
Do you not think in the current sell sell sell climate that it has been looked at again? Take a guess why no one wants the management contracts?

As for the civil service , it will still be there, but not necessarily with the people who failed, much in the same way as if one supermarket fails there will still be supermarkets. The people who ran the failed supermarket can happily go and set another one up the day after mind you with no real harm done, so what exactly are the consequences to them? Is it on the same scale as those of a failed hospital?

The 'public sector don't have to be accountable' argument is complete and utter bollocks invented by a) people who haven't got a clue or b) people who would like a vested interest.
Sorry FY8 your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If a company goes bust, generally, everyone involved is out of a job.

If the civil screw a project it is one or two that may pay the consequences, or just get moved side ways.

I would open up for tender - bit by bit - the whole of the civil service.

Let’s be honest - most times people would rather go private anyway if they could - and they are not run by the NHS!
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
Sorry FY8 your argument is fundamentally flawed.

If a company goes bust, generally, everyone involved is out of a job.

If the civil screw a project it is one or two that may pay the consequences, or just get moved side ways.

I would open up for tender - bit by bit - the whole of the civil service.

Let’s be honest - most times people would rather go private anyway if they could - and they are not run by the NHS!
Unfortunately your argument is the fundamentally flawed one, let me explain it to you...

In the private sector you are paid, by the customer, for products or services rendered, nice and easy, I pay you, you give me what I pay for with your profit margin already determined.

Now let's take that model to the private sector where the 'customer' isn't paying you for a a product or services rendered, the government is, therefore the government pays you the budget agreed in the contract. Now this is all well and good if those using the services either remains the same or falls compared to the estimate as you've costed for this, let's remember for the purposes of this example that you will be working with narrow margins, or you wouldn't have won the contract.

Now unfortunately in the real world the pesky public do tend to want to use services more and more, with more and more public exponentially wanting to use more of that service. Now what happens when, as it will, your estimated service user numbers exceed those of your budget, which they will, as you've won the contract by being the lowest bidder? Where do you begin to cut the costs so you stay in profit, which was was a fine line anyway, what with you being the lowest bidder?

Do you cut staff, which assuming you're a streamlined super efficient private company will no doubt damage service delivery, or do you cut the actual services leading to potential harm in either case and difficult visits from those nasty CQC types?

Of course there's option c) Go back to the government cap in hand wanting more public money to prop your business up with, which they may give you short term to stop it collapsing, but good luck when the renewal comes around, or they could action the clause in the contract, which will exist, and take it back out of your money losing hands.

You could of course just run it at a loss realising that there's no profit in public service contract management.

That said, everything might be grand, your margins might stand up, people might not want to use the health service, or civil service, as much as they wanted, you might be lucky.
 
Last edited:

seasideone

Well-known member
Unfortunately your argument is the fundamentally flawed one, let' me explain it to you...

In the private sector sector you are paid, by the customer, for products or services rendered, nice and easy, I pay you, you give me what I pay for with your profit margin already determined.

Now let's take that model to the private sector where the 'customer' isn't paying you for a a product or services rendered, the government is, therefore the government pays you the budget agreed in the contract. Now this is all well and good if those using the services either remains the same or falls compared to the estimate as you've costed for this.

Let's remember for the purposes of this example that you will be working with narrow margins, or you wouldn't have won the contract.

Now unfortunately in the real world the pesky public do tend to want to use services more and more, with more and more public exponentially wanting to use more of that service. Now what happens when, as it will, your estimated service user numbers exceed those of your budget, which they will, as you've won the contract by being the lowest bidder? Where do you begin to cut the costs so you stay in profit, which was was a fine line anyway, what with you being the lowest bidder?

Do you cut staff, which assuming you're a streamlined super efficient private company will no doubt damage service delivery, or do you cut the actual services leading to potential harm in either case and difficult visits from those nasty CQC types?

Of course there's option c) Go back to the government cap in hand wanting more public money to prop your business up with, which they may give you short term to stop it collapsing, but good luck when the renewal comes around, or they could action the clause in the contract, which will exist, and take it back out of your money losing hands.

You could of course just run it at a loss realising that there's no profit in public service contract management.

That said, everything might be grand, your margins might stand up, people might not want to use the health service, or civil service as much as they wanted, you might be lucky.
I will reply later as my tea is about to be served 👍👍
 

spudgun

Well-known member
I`m surprised seasideone has managed to stay at the crease til tea.

More dogged resilience than good technique...
 

catinstalbans

Well-known member
Unfortunately your argument is the fundamentally flawed one, let me explain it to you...

In the private sector sector you are paid, by the customer, for products or services rendered, nice and easy, I pay you, you give me what I pay for with your profit margin already determined.

Now let's take that model to the private sector where the 'customer' isn't paying you for a a product or services rendered, the government is, therefore the government pays you the budget agreed in the contract. Now this is all well and good if those using the services either remains the same or falls compared to the estimate as you've costed for this.

Let's remember for the purposes of this example that you will be working with narrow margins, or you wouldn't have won the contract.

Now unfortunately in the real world the pesky public do tend to want to use services more and more, with more and more public exponentially wanting to use more of that service. Now what happens when, as it will, your estimated service user numbers exceed those of your budget, which they will, as you've won the contract by being the lowest bidder? Where do you begin to cut the costs so you stay in profit, which was was a fine line anyway, what with you being the lowest bidder?

Do you cut staff, which assuming you're a streamlined super efficient private company will no doubt damage service delivery, or do you cut the actual services leading to potential harm in either case and difficult visits from those nasty CQC types?

Of course there's option c) Go back to the government cap in hand wanting more public money to prop your business up with, which they may give you short term to stop it collapsing, but good luck when the renewal comes around, or they could action the clause in the contract, which will exist, and take it back out of your money losing hands.

You could of course just run it at a loss realising that there's no profit in public service contract management.

That said, everything might be grand, your margins might stand up, people might not want to use the health service, or civil service as much as they wanted, you might be lucky.
Sounds like every failed privatised rail franchise going.
Passengers and employees suffer but not the shareholders.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
Sounds like every failed privatised rail franchise going.
Passengers and employees suffer but not the shareholders.
Just a quick one before I get my main course delivered - it is rather good Thai food at this restaurant, although should have ordered a different wine - a bit to Oaky for me.

Anyway...

British Rail was a joke, an embarrassment to the country, a work force that liked a strike and delivered very little.

When I lived in the UK I used to use Virgin all the time - found them generally brilliant most of the time - yes they had the odd problem and occasional over crowding, but overall they were amazing.

I used to get the first, or one of the first trains out of Preston to London at least once a week, and the breakfast they served was as good as most you could get anywhere else 👍

On the return journey you used to get a full meal and free wine as well - which always went down well.

I don't remember anything like that on BR!!!!!
 

seasideone

Well-known member
Unfortunately your argument is the fundamentally flawed one, let me explain it to you...

In the private sector you are paid, by the customer, for products or services rendered, nice and easy, I pay you, you give me what I pay for with your profit margin already determined.

Now let's take that model to the private sector where the 'customer' isn't paying you for a a product or services rendered, the government is, therefore the government pays you the budget agreed in the contract. Now this is all well and good if those using the services either remains the same or falls compared to the estimate as you've costed for this, let's remember for the purposes of this example that you will be working with narrow margins, or you wouldn't have won the contract.

Now unfortunately in the real world the pesky public do tend to want to use services more and more, with more and more public exponentially wanting to use more of that service. Now what happens when, as it will, your estimated service user numbers exceed those of your budget, which they will, as you've won the contract by being the lowest bidder? Where do you begin to cut the costs so you stay in profit, which was was a fine line anyway, what with you being the lowest bidder?

Do you cut staff, which assuming you're a streamlined super efficient private company will no doubt damage service delivery, or do you cut the actual services leading to potential harm in either case and difficult visits from those nasty CQC types?

Of course there's option c) Go back to the government cap in hand wanting more public money to prop your business up with, which they may give you short term to stop it collapsing, but good luck when the renewal comes around, or they could action the clause in the contract, which will exist, and take it back out of your money losing hands.

You could of course just run it at a loss realising that there's no profit in public service contract management.

That said, everything might be grand, your margins might stand up, people might not want to use the health service, or civil service, as much as they wanted, you might be lucky.
The argument about consequences in the private sector far out weighing the public sector, is very valid and can be shown many times!!

Your assumptions above are also simply wrong about the private sector - obviously if you go into a shop and buy goods it is simple, but lets take insurance....

Specifically, let's take the health insurance industry for example:

The health insurance industry take a monthly premium off its members (Just like a tax the government takes off you to pay for the NHS)

The insurance company has to work out what to charge, not knowing what they will have to pay out in the future, or knowing how many times their client base will use the system - but they seem to manage, so why cannot the NHS?

My top end private global health cover (non usa) costs considerably LESS, than what the average earner pays into the NHS every year.

...and the service makes the NHS look like a third world organisation!!


...now, where is that desert menu?
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
The argument about consequences in the private sector far out weighing the public sector, is very valid and can be shown many times!!

Your assumptions above are also simply wrong about the private sector - obviously if you go into a shop and buy goods it is simple, but lets take insurance....

Specifically, let's take the health insurance industry for example:

The health insurance industry take a monthly premium off its members (Just like a tax the government takes off you to pay for the NHS)

The insurance company has to work out what to charge, not knowing what they will have to pay out in the future, or knowing how many times their client base will use the system - but they seem to manage, so why cannot the NHS?

My top end private global health cover (non usa) costs considerably LESS, than what the average earner pays into the NHS every year.

...and the service makes the NHS look like a third world organisation!!


...now, where is that desert menu?

Insurance isn't a great example for you to use, specifically because each policy is underwritten, the company assesses the risk and therefore your eligibility or premium based on industry data, you may end up claiming for every procedure going out of the blue (these are still costed so the company takes a miniscule gamble against your premium) but in 99.99% of cases you won't and those that don't claim cover the risk.

I'm sure I speak for the forum in congratulating you on your excellent value cover, but develop a chronic condition and see how great your cover becomes.

I'm not sure this is the forum for detailing the risk vs profit model of insurance companies, but it's an assessment performed by an actuary.

A public service model is completely different, you're not assessing each service user for suitability or cost, it's flat, there's no such thing as an underwritten public service contract, I've never dealt with an actuary during any procurement process, you'd be laughed out of the building.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
This appalling behaviour of British Gas, British Airways and others beggars belief.
To attack the working conditions of employees in this way shows the immorality of these corporations and banned in many European countries.
This government says it does not support the process but will take no action to prevent it. I can see their thinking. What is happening now in private companies can later be used to justify similar attacks on workers rights and conditions in the public sector (see the attack on pensions for an example of how this works)
Will the most senior management be firing and re-hiring themselves on reduced salary and benefits?
If they did I could see some value in doing it. If they don't then it is a totally unacceptable practice.
Chances are these people will appear at another company and go through the same process on money that massively exceeds their ability.
I am all for talented and hard working people earning more but I don't think their wages should be so far removed from the workers they employ.
If your average employee earns 30,000 a year for example, should the top bosses receive a couple of million a year?
 

seasideone

Well-known member
Insurance isn't a great example for you to use, specifically because each policy is underwritten, the company assesses the risk and therefore your eligibility or premium based on industry data, you may end up claiming for every procedure going out of the blue (these are still costed so the company takes a miniscule gamble against your premium) but in 99.99% of cases you won't and those that don't claim cover the risk.

I'm sure I speak for the forum in congratulating you on your excellent value cover, but develop a chronic condition and see how great your cover becomes.

I'm not sure this is the forum for detailing the risk vs profit model of insurance companies, but it's an assessment performed by an actuary.

A public service model is completely different, you're not assessing each service user for suitability or cost, it's flat, there's no such thing as an underwritten public service contract, I've never dealt with an actuary during any procurement process, you'd be laughed out of the building.
At least you admit you do not know how it works.

My private cover is what is called a community policy.

Therefore whatever happens in reality you are guaranteed to renew at a price that does not go up by much; in simple terms, the price is calculated by taking the entire pay out of the year before plus a margin, divided by the number of subscribers.

Of course the policy is underwritten as the NHS is by the government, but the insurance company would get the money back the following year if they overspent.

I also know a couple of people who have had this policy for years who now have chronic conditions, and one has something very bad for life, and they have never argued about pay out or renewal.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
At least you admit you do not know how it works.

My private cover is what is called a community policy.

Therefore whatever happens in reality you are guaranteed to renew at a price that does not go up by much; in simple terms, the price is calculated by taking the entire pay out of the year before plus a margin, divided by the number of subscribers.

Of course the policy is underwritten as the NHS is by the government, but the insurance company would get the money back the following year if they overspent.

I also know a couple of people who have had this policy for years who now have chronic conditions, and one has something very bad for life, and they have never argued about pay out or renewal.
You've just described a pretty standard private healthcare package, I'm not sure what your point is, your cost is still going up yearly and you've not mentioned if the chronic condition price went up or not?

Do you know anyone who took out a policy with a pre existing chronic condition and the quote comparison?

How does this translate to public healthcare?
 

seasideone

Well-known member
You've just described a pretty standard private healthcare package, I'm not sure what your point is, your cost is still going up yearly and you've not mentioned if the chronic condition price went up or not?

Do you know anyone who took out a policy with a pre existing chronic condition and the quote comparison?

How does this translate to public healthcare?
No, the chronic condition went up the same as everyone else - just like costs in the NHS do as medical treatment gets more expensive.

If everyone was auto enrolled the day they were born in a similar charging model then it would work, the problem is the civil service itself and the NHS management.

The point I am making is the private sector can (and does in many places globally) provide far better care than most governments ever could, and for a better return on the money spent.
 

Newholland

Well-known member
Just a quick one before I get my main course delivered - it is rather good Thai food at this restaurant, although should have ordered a different wine - a bit to Oaky for me.

Anyway...

British Rail was a joke, an embarrassment to the country, a work force that liked a strike and delivered very little.

When I lived in the UK I used to use Virgin all the time - found them generally brilliant most of the time - yes they had the odd problem and occasional over crowding, but overall they were amazing.

I used to get the first, or one of the first trains out of Preston to London at least once a week, and the breakfast they served was as good as most you could get anywhere else 👍

On the return journey you used to get a full meal and free wine as well - which always went down well.

I don't remember anything like that on BR!!!!!
...curled up sandwiches according to Boris.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
The Civil Service are not under the same pressure - as simple as that!!

It’s virtually (actually) impossible for the UK government to go bust, where business can and do everyday.
Still soap-boxing your hatefest for public services I see One. Even to the extent of refering to Cat as a civil servant.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
Still soap-boxing your hatefest for public services I see One. Even to the extent of refering to Cat as a civil servant.
No hatefest, just think the Civy generally perform poorly and offer terrible VFM overall.

As far as I am concerned, Cat is a civil servant as he/she's job is paid for by the government.
 

1966_and_all_that

Well-known member
No hatefest, just think the Civy generally perform poorly and offer terrible VFM overall.

As far as I am concerned, Cat is a civil servant as he/she's job is paid for by the government.
That's a poor way of arriving at a definition. People in many walks of life do jobs paid either directly or indirectly by the Government, including cooks, life-guards, painters, journalists, pointless business consultants, etc, etc.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
That's a poor way of arriving at a definition. People in many walks of life do jobs paid either directly or indirectly by the Government, including cooks, life-guards, painters, journalists, pointless business consultants, etc, etc.
She/he is a teacher - it’s pretty clear cut for most people, unlike many of the jobs you mention 👍👍
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
No, the chronic condition went up the same as everyone else - just like costs in the NHS do as medical treatment gets more expensive.

If everyone was auto enrolled the day they were born in a similar charging model then it would work, the problem is the civil service itself and the NHS management.

The point I am making is the private sector can (and does in many places globally) provide far better care than most governments ever could, and for a better return on the money spent.
But you haven't provided an argument for private sector taking over with the current funding model, free to all, all you've done is describe how private healthcare works and advocated an insurance based model, potentially unaffordable for great swathes of the population.

I'd also have a quick look in to your claims about private healthcare surpassing public quality as well if I were you, it may open your eyes..
 

seasideone

Well-known member
But you haven't provided an argument for private sector taking over with the current funding model, free to all, all you've done is describe how private healthcare works and advocated an insurance based model, potentially unaffordable for great swathes of the population.

I'd also have a quick look in to your claims about private healthcare surpassing public quality as well if I were you, it may open your eyes..
I have answered the question earlier - my private health care is cheaper than what the average earned in the UK puts into the NHS annually through tax.

Private health care is obviously not always better - as there are wronguns everywhere.

However, if you take the UK at the moment or in the last 20 years - if the patient was given a choice between private care or NHS - most would choose private - which says it all really.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
I have answered the question earlier - my private health care is cheaper than what the average earned in the UK puts into the NHS annually through tax.

Private health care is obviously not always better - as there are wronguns everywhere.

However, if you take the UK at the moment or in the last 20 years - if the patient was given a choice between private care or NHS - most would choose private - which says it all really.
You still don't understand, not everyone pays 'the average earned in the UK', you're not describing a free healthcare service, what about the minimum wage, the unemployed, the infirm, pensioners, apprentices etc...

You've done nothing but exalt the glory of private health insurance for those who can afford it while weirdly flexing your 'self made millionaire' status.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
You still don't understand, not everyone pays 'the average earned in the UK', you're not describing a free healthcare service, what about the minimum wage, the unemployed, the infirm, pensioners, apprentices etc...

You've done nothing but exalt the glory of private health insurance for those who can afford it while weirdly flexing your 'self made millionaire' credentials while apparently paying no UK tax yourself.
The reason why I picked the AVERAGE, is that lower paid would pay less - and higher paid would pay more.

Each balancing the other out to get to the average.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
The reason why I picked the AVERAGE, is that lower paid would pay less - and higher paid would pay more.

Each balancing the other out to get to the average.
You mean, like tax? So a system funded by tax?

Or you want private health companies to stagger their premiums according to income while the government simultaneously reduces everyone's tax bill by the amount they're estimated to have paid towards the NHS, including calculating the amount for the many millions on PAYE?
 
Last edited:

seasideone

Well-known member
You mean, like tax? So a system funded by tax?
My point is not quite that.....

Everyone pays for health care, whether it be in tax to the government or directly to a private company.

I would like (in stages) to place the NHS into the private sector.

If you compare what I pay to a private company, it is less than what the Uk tax payer pays for a far less service.

To me it does not matter if health is delivered by private or state - as long as it costs less and serves everyone better than currently.

Most the world use private companies to deliver health care, and in quite a few places the service is much much higher and better than the NHS....and that is speaking from personal experience.
 

Lytham_fy8

Well-known member
My point is not quite that.....

Everyone pays for health care, whether it be in tax to the government or directly to a private company.

I would like (in stages) to place the NHS into the private sector.

If you compare what I pay to a private company, it is less than what the Uk tax payer pays for a far less service.

To me it does not matter if health is delivered by private or state - as long as it costs less and serves everyone better than currently.

Most the world use private companies to deliver health care, and in quite a few places the service is much much higher and better than the NHS....and that is speaking from personal experience.
And you think the government is going to cut your tax bill? Well not yours, but UK residents?

Why do you believe the current service is so underperforming and which country's model performs better and costs less for a free at the point of care system?
 

seasideone

Well-known member
And you think the government is going to cut your tax bill? Well not yours, but UK residents?

Why do you believe the current service is so underperforming and which country's model performs better and costs less for a free at the point of care system?
Germany, Australia and Singapore are the countries I have lived in outside the UK.

My personal experience and continual run in with the NHS with my Mum, and previously my Dad gives me much ammunition against the organisation.

There are many others which I will not mention on here

It is not about free at point of care as the NHS is not in reality - it still has to be paid for whether that’s the insurance company or the government, but it shouldn’t be the patient

The real calculation of cost is about what you pay in total, whether through tax or direct to an insurance company.

All the places I have lived outside the UK provide far better health care than the UK and all had massive private suppliers.

....and for the record - I have paid a fortune in UK tax over the years.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Agree 100% (weird) and that’s where the pressure is - you can run a school or hospital as bad as you like - but it will be there tomorrow, unlike a business.

I would prefer the private sector to be able to bid to deliver the services of any failed hospital, school etc with strict targets and budgets - with them losing the contract if they failed.

The civil service has no real consequences for failure, where the private sector does.
We've had the private sector running hospitals, jails, computer systems etc etc and invariably they've failed and been taken back in-house.

Just look how many public sector contracts the likes of Carillion had. Too busy paying out dividends right up to catastrophically failing. Then the ones who should have been doing it have had to bail them out.
 

seasideone

Well-known member
We've had the private sector running hospitals, jails, computer systems etc etc and invariably they've failed and been taken back in-house.

Just look how many public sector contracts the likes of Carillion had. Too busy paying out dividends right up to catastrophically failing. Then the ones who should have been doing it have had to bail them out.
....as I have said learn from it!

The argument you use, means the civil service shouldn’t be trusted with a light bulb!!!
 

Plumbs

Well-known member
I dont know* what all the fuss is about because the building trade have been treated like this for at least 30 years, and British Gas still owe me money from when I mistakenly went on their sub contractors scheme. Ended up working for less than the minimum wage, no holidays,pension or sick pay as with previous 'employers' around Blackpool.

One former sponsor of Blackpool Football Club used to fire plumbers then ring round the other firms to say the guy was no good,when by and large there had been issues over crap pay and fixed low rate prices.

When it happens to others people who work predominantly sedentary or white collar then its a national issue, but for the rest of us its the same old.

*I do although that doesnt make it right of course.
 

Tangerinenick

Well-known member
My take on it as someone who runs then own buisness and worked in social care for 26 years is this : both can be wasteful and utter rubbish.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
I think the NHS and Medical Care is one of fairly few examples, where a transfer into the hands of the Private Sector would likely be a negative choice. The insurance based systems seem to be prone to financial inefficiencies and profiteering at a whole range of levels and I'd estimate you are looking at almost double the cost to service ratio in those countries where the insurance based systems dominate. With a single Government Public controlled system it is much easier to control procurement costs, standards of service and also manage abuse of the system...
 
Top
X