He bought an old folks' home, perhaps?

Many a fine tune played on an old fiddle is one of Waynes favourite sayings !

I can't actually believe i am saying this as i believe in public ownership for public services but when a private company can run a business and give the same results for a lower cost there us something wrong

I can't actually believe i am saying this as i believe in public ownership for public services but when a private company can run a business and give the same results for a lower cost there us something wrong

It depends. Sometimes a private company will employ fewer staff, possibly pay them less or not provide many employment benefits. Staff in private sector companies with a bonus incentive might be more likely to cheat, whereas in the public sector such behaviour might get them the sack.

The public sector is changing, because it has to. They know that they have to become more efficient or face losing their jobs, if they are outsourced.

I have never worked in the public sector, but my experience with private sector companies is that they can be just as wasteful. I have seen bad IT projects, money wasted on expensive outside consultants and silly time wasting activities that any public sector dept. would be embarassed about holding. My only experience of public sector has been work experience a very long time ago and I found they spent too much time worrying about how accountable they were for spending taxpayers money. They were continually finding ways to increase accountability e.g red tape.

I can't actually believe i am saying this as i believe in public ownership for public services but when a private company can run a business and give the same results for a lower cost there us something wrong

Can you give an example of where a private company can run a business and give the same results for a lower cost?

Perhaps analysing how they do it might shed some light on how public services might improve their performance short of selling them off.

One point that is undeniable is that a private company is not a public service; they are in business to make money out of Joe Public, not to serve him.

“It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time.

Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that.

When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him.

Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilised society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons.

In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them.

Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old clothes which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion.”

Many contributors to this forum have realised eventually, to their cost and chagrin, that the work programme providers, private businesses, do not have it as their prime concern the claimant’s desire to find a job, it is to make as much money as possible from the false premise that they provide comprehensive and indispensible services towards that end.

The social services in the public sector are now obsessed with the same ideas that motivate the private sector, competition, profit and costs. The effect of this change of emphasis can be seen daily in the deterioration of public services. Cost? People are dying. Worth it? Hardly. Solution? More of the same? Don’t think so.

We see no clearer example of the result of this social upheaval than when different groups of dependents on social welfare of one kind or another, students, unemployed, disabled, pensioners, are at each other’s throats fighting over the scraps from the rich man’s table, while the rich man gets richer and laughs at the entertainment provided by the situation that he has created. Even on this forum we read comments by some that the so-called affluence enjoyed by pensioners is at the expense of other dependent groups and they should be somehow targeted. It’s all our own fault because we are living longer. The logical conclusion would be to have a cull of pensioners.

But hold on; there are estimated to be around 20 million people in the UK living in poverty by 2020. 5 million children. So, it’s already happening. The present population in their 40’s or under will not live to a ripe old age. The cull is under way. In the lifetime of those who are now in their 40’s or under they will witness a reduction in the elderly population. It may even come to pass that old folks homes will be importing old folk to keep their privatised businesses afloat.

Do you really think I was referring to work programme providers in my earlier post because I can not see any mention of that. t was a general comment saying that if the public sector can not provide an equally good service as the private sector there is something wrong. I do not presume to know the answers but I have opinions that are pretty much anti capitalist

I can't actually believe i am saying this as i believe in public ownership for public services but when a private company can run a business and give the same results for a lower cost there us something wrong

There are a lot of public services that should never leave state ownership, the utilities being the main one and Water the top of those. We can live without gas and electricity, but we can only survive a few days without water.

Most of these things were sold off by Maggie to repay the debts that Labour left the country with, (sound familiar?).

I'm not sure how they can call the railways privatised as the government still pump millions into it each year. Now there is a Private Enterprise gone wrong. The boss taking millions in bonuses and the fairs getting ever higher.

I still believe in the democratic capitalist system though.

Conniff, we agree on something

If a nationalised industry is run along the lines of a privatised industry with profit being a major goal that would increase revenue for the government . I agree that the railways are a nghtmare as the taxpayer picks up the bill for maintaining the line but the rail companies make a fortune. This makes rail fairs unfair IMO. A cost per mile would be better , as it is it costs me more to get from Birmingham to Hinckley which is c.30 miles that it does to get from Birmingham to London . Recently I bought an advanced ticket from Nuneaton to Maidstone and the cost was roughly the same as a ticket from Victoria to Maidstone, go figure. Do you want your soapbox back?

Exactly. And have you see todays news about a Tory 'think Tank' suggesting that they should privatise job centers. Yeah, thats going to make things better...

it is for those who own the privatised job centres, hence the suggestion.

 

Most of these things were sold off by Maggie to repay the debts that Labour left the country with, (sound familiar?).

 

I still believe in the democratic capitalist system though.

The facts don't support Labour always leaving debts over say the last 60 years. Or if they have left debts, there have been international events which have affected the UK.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

The 2007/08 was the worst financial crash in over 100 years and it happened to hit when Labour were in government. Gordon Brown stupidly believed in his statement 'no more boom and bust', which was proved very wrong, when banks stated to collapse, partly due to issues in the US.

The cause of the 07/08 crash can be traced back to the late 1980's, when UK and US allowed their banking industry to get involved in casino type banking, with a very relaxed form of regulation. Labour then made this even worse, when they involved the FSA in banking regulation, which they were not equipped to do. Our big banks are very complex multi-national operations, which requires regulation by very experienced bankers. Whether the BoE would have found the banks taking huge risks and dealt with it before the crash, I very much doubt.

Capitalism can only work if there is proper regulation of markets in place, to ensure that they are working properly, in the interest of consumers. It is never a good idea to allow companies to dominate the markets too much and to ensure fair competition.

Sadly I think some people are so loyal to certain parties they will just make things up to support their views.

My mother lost her job when royal mail had strikes when she was much younger (before I was born). Labour were in power at the time. Since that day she has hated Labour with a passion and she makes all sorts of things up or repeats things others have made up to state why the Tories are so good. But at the end of the day she does have the rights to her views, and its understandable why she isn't happy about what happened.

Shouldnt lose your job for striking its against the rules.

Connif – The quote I used was not from some other site it is the second paragraph from Chapter 2 of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” by the Scottish economist Adam Smith, first published in 1776 and still regarded as the father of capitalist economics to this day.

My apologies for not giving the reference but I thought it would be insulting the intelligence of the proponents of capitalism to spell out the source of a quote from what is widely considered to be the Tory capitalist ‘bible’.

Fletch70 – I did not think you were referring to the work programme; that was why I asked; “Can you give an example of where a private company can run a business and give the same results for a lower cost?”

I gave the example of the work programme to emphasize the point I was attempting to make which was that a profit orientated private enterprise cannot possibly have the interests of the unemployed and the dispossessed as their top priority.

The money handed over to the private companies that run the work programmes is public money. A substantial chunk of that money goes into lining the pockets of private individuals. The service that they are contracted to provide cannot therefore represent value for money because the money does not get spent on the service. I have yet to hear or read of a claimant who hails his/her experience on the work programme as money well spent.

I agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions. It is those who stick up for the capitalist system who not only think but enforce the idea that our class should not have any opinions except of their base inferiority and worthlessness. A democratic capitalist is a contradiction in terms, no such animal.

The personal wealth of the top 10% has increased by 300% since 2010. To say that profiteering at the expense of the poor should be the major goal of government in the provision of services such as health and welfare is sheer unadulterated capitalism Tory style.

Oops misread that sorry

Lapsed

Off the top of my head I will struggle to give figures however I was several years ago I was told that it was cheaper to send someone to a private hospital for a heart op than to do it on the NHS , Maybe the public sector is scared of capital expenditure and although it has improved there is still a lot of waste that maybe goes unnoticed . Some of that is due to poor management and unwillingness to change.

As I said in my Utopia , people who could work would because it benefited everyone and not just for what they can get out of it. Those that could not work would be looked after. WE have a way to go and some evolution before that happens

Lapsed

Off the top of my head I will struggle to give figures however I was several years ago I was told that it was cheaper to send someone to a private hospital for a heart op than to do it on the NHS , Maybe the public sector is scared of capital expenditure and although it has improved there is still a lot of waste that maybe goes unnoticed . Some of that is due to poor management and unwillingness to change.

As I said in my Utopia , people who could work would because it benefited everyone and not just for what they can get out of it. Those that could not work would be looked after. WE have a way to go and some evolution before that happens

Don't forget that private hospitals often don't have anything like the facilities or resources of the NHS. In fact it's not uncommon for private patients to be transferred to NHS hospitals with better facilities for more complex treatment and operations, and return to their private hospitals to recuperate.

I get that and indeed when things go wrong the patients end up in the nhs. On a purely financial basis where everything has a cost attached to it the cost in a private hospital can be less. I am in no way advocating private healthcare it was an example.

We can discuss this till the cows come home but it is rare for people to change their opinions.

Agreed.

On the topic of forcing treatment, I remembered the other day an old lady with dementia who was in a home I worked in years ago. She hurt herself, possibly her arm I think. It wasn't too bad but we were concerned she may have broken something so she was taken to hospital with a carer to be checked over. At the time I was dismayed to learn that the doctor hadn't treated this lady as she had refused to be examined by him. He had respected her wishes even though she didn't really understand what was happening.

If DWP try and bring this in, let's hope that doctors will be equally respectful of people's rights. And who is to say whether people accept treatment or not. It really is ludicrous.

ATOS has doctors who are mostly known for not respecting patients so woukd it be such a leap to imagine the DWP would do the sane withthis? Treatments need to be chosen by the person who is needing it and not some government department

ATOS has doctors? I thought they were largely unqualified.

ATOS has doctors? I thought they were largely unqualified.

They are doctors

Looked online to check

Says some are being investigated

Health Care Professionals [HCPs] at Atos are all qualified, as I understand it. But as well as doctors, they can be nurses, physios and so on.

HB

Thanks for the clarification HB. I knew that at least not all are doctors. Would be interesting to know how it's decided who is appropriately qualified to judge fitness to work for various claimants, and who would decide who is refusing treatment. :/

I get that and indeed when things go wrong the patients end up in the nhs. On a purely financial basis where everything has a cost attached to it the cost in a private hospital can be less. I am in no way advocating private healthcare it was an example.

We can discuss this till the cows come home but it is rare for people to change their opinions.

It is not rare for people to change their opinions, or indeed their views, it is common sense. If one comes to the realisation that one’s opinions or views are based on falsehoods, propaganda and brainwashing, surely it can’t make sense to continue adhering to them.

I will give two examples of private v public in the health service, since it was mentioned, in the hope that your opinion on this might be shaken:

Hip-replacement - Thankfully I have not had to undergo this treatment but it is said to be fairly straight-forward and there are about 70,000 such operations carried out by the NHS every year. The average cost per operation is said to be approximately £5,000. Having this treatment privately ranges throughout England from £7,000 to £15,000. These costs do not include the costs of further treatment due to added care or complications.

Cancer - Thankfully, here again I have thus far been spared the suffering that comes with this particular health issue that can all too easily come to each and every one of us. Costs of the treatment of cancer varies greatly depending on the extent to which it has taken hold and all the complications that come with it. The one thing I am sure of is that if I am ever diagnosed with cancer I will receive whatever treatment is necessary and available with no consideration given to cost. In the private sector, on the other hand, unless one is already a fully signed up contributor to a costly private health scheme, say BUPA, for example, one’s chance of even being seen by a private consultant is zero.

Under normal circumstances I would defend anyone’s right to hold and defend their opinions and views but in this case I find holding such opinions as has been aired here (public v private) not only objectionable but an insult to civil society, unless, of course, one happens to be in the minority to whom money is no object and the denial to the less fortunate of the very air they breathe a primary objective.

If you are determined not to reconsider your opinions you are welcome to keep them. Allow me the same courtesy and let me hold on to mine. I will uphold and fight for mine whatever it takes in the sure and certain knowledge that by doing so I am not depriving those in more need than I am of any of the advantages that I would wish for myself.

If, God forbid, either one of us should ever be in serious need and require the NHS, I hope it, and not your opinions, will be there for us. As far as I’m concerned the cows have been home ages ago.

It is not rare for people to change their opinions, or indeed their views, it is common sense. If one comes to the realisation that one’s opinions or views are based on falsehoods, propaganda and brainwashing, surely it can’t make sense to continue adhering to them.

 

I will give two examples of private v public in the health service, since it was mentioned, in the hope that your opinion on this might be shaken:

 

Hip-replacement - Thankfully I have not had to undergo this treatment but it is said to be fairly straight-forward and there are about 70,000 such operations carried out by the NHS every year. The average cost per operation is said to be approximately £5,000. Having this treatment privately ranges throughout England from £7,000 to £15,000. These costs do not include the costs of further treatment due to added care or complications.

 

Cancer - Thankfully, here again I have thus far been spared the suffering that comes with this particular health issue that can all too easily come to each and every one of us. Costs of the treatment of cancer varies greatly depending on the extent to which it has taken hold and all the complications that come with it. The one thing I am sure of is that if I am ever diagnosed with cancer I will receive whatever treatment is necessary and available with no consideration given to cost. In the private sector, on the other hand, unless one is already a fully signed up contributor to a costly private health scheme, say BUPA, for example, one’s chance of even being seen by a private consultant is zero.

 

Under normal circumstances I would defend anyone’s right to hold and defend their opinions and views but in this case I find holding such opinions as has been aired here (public v private) not only objectionable but an insult to civil society, unless, of course, one happens to be in the minority to whom money is no object and the denial to the less fortunate of the very air they breathe a primary objective.

 

If you are determined not to reconsider your opinions you are welcome to keep them. Allow me the same courtesy and let me hold on to mine. I will uphold and fight for mine whatever it takes in the sure and certain knowledge that by doing so I am not depriving those in more need than I am of any of the advantages that I would wish for myself.

 

If, God forbid, either one of us should ever be in serious need and require the NHS, I hope it, and not your opinions, will be there for us. As far as I’m concerned the cows have been home ages ago.

 

If treatment in private hospitals can be cheaper, and I believe I may have heard that on occasions too, another reason for that would be because they don't tend to deal with the most expensive illnesses like cancer, and can pick and choose what they want to treat. I have had treatment in a private hospital (medical insurance through work) for a minor op, and it was very nice being in my own room, nice food, and the consultant phoning me at home to see how I was, but if my life was on the line, give me the NHS any day.