Cameron's vision for Britain ...

[cailin maith]

What?

Specifically In General, like?

I know - daft concept.... it'll never catch on

[Doggy Styles]

The only thing that puzzles me is why people think the private sector will magically make it better when there is little or no evidence to support that conclusion.

Private companies can go bust.

HTH.

[Jog On]

Indeed not.

Mint aero

[doodab]

So you believe that public sector services are run just as efficiently as private sector services?

I think that's a puerile attempt to steer the debate onto an idealogical battlefield. I also think you are uncomfortable with ideas framed outside of that particular debate as they are likely to show up your lack of intelligence and incapacity for thought, and hence you are compelled to reduce and characterise everyone and everything in terms of your (primary) schoolboy anti-marxist agenda. I also think you don't really understand what efficient in the sense of "efficient market" actually means, you just keep harping on about it because you like the sound of it.

So to answer your question, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

[doodab]

Private companies can go bust.

HTH.

So can governments.

[DodgyAgent]

I think that's a puerile attempt to steer the debate onto an idealogical battlefield. I also think you are uncomfortable with ideas framed outside of that particular debate as they are likely to show up your lack of intelligence and incapacity for thought, and hence you are compelled to reduce and characterise everyone and everything in terms of your (primary) schoolboy anti-marxist agenda. I also think you don't really understand what efficient in the sense of "efficient market" actually means, you just keep harping on about it because you like the sound of it.

So to answer your question, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

I was asking you to clarify because you said this:

I'm absolutely certain that lots of public sector workers are lazy good for nothing tulips. I can be sure of this because I have extensive experience in the private sector, which is also full of lazy good for nothing tulips, and I don't expect those in the public sector to be any better.

The only thing that puzzles me is why people think the private sector will magically make it better when there is little or no evidence to support that conclusion.


It seems to me that what you are saying is that the two bodies (private and public) are the same.

[Old Greg]

I think that's a puerile attempt to steer the debate onto an idealogical battlefield. I also think you are uncomfortable with ideas framed outside of that particular debate as they are likely to show up your lack of intelligence and incapacity for thought, and hence you are compelled to reduce and characterise everyone and everything in terms of your (primary) schoolboy anti-marxist agenda. I also think you don't really understand what efficient in the sense of "efficient market" actually means, you just keep harping on about it because you like the sound of it.

So to answer your question, sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't.

Exactly. Some things are certainly better done by the private sector. To reduce to the absurd... I don't want to see National Tyre Service where my vehicle excise duty is increased but I can then go to the state run tyre replacer when the tyre is worn down. My local garage does a good and fair job at a good price with great availability of service.

But with healthcare, we should look at the USA, which is a clear outlier in terms of national expenditure and in terms of the model of provision. List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is healthcare in the US nearly twice as good as in this country to merit such increased cost? That of course does not demonstrate that the UK model is better than the French or German models. But it should make you wonder whether a private system is the best, and perhaps to wonder about the inefficiencies inherent in the US system, which one might think would tend towards efficiency as a market based system.

[Mich the Tester]

Is healthcare in the US nearly twice as good as in this country to merit such increased cost? That of course does not demonstrate that the UK model is better than the French or German models. But it should make you wonder whether a private system is the best, and perhaps to wonder about the inefficiencies inherent in the US system, which one might think would tend towards efficiency as a market based system.

Healthcare in NL used to be largely nationalised, with most people recieving 'ziekenfonds' insurance coverage which covered most treatment; people on higher incomes were made to get private insurance, which meant that they actually put extra money into the system by paying extra for more luxurious services. Hospitals were run by the state or in some cases by private charities. It was a mix of state and private and it seemed to work. However, for some reason it was decided that everybody should get private insurance and the providers should all be private parties. The result of this is a near monopoly of health insurance for one huge insurer that went around buying up the smaller insurers, hospitals blowing money on huge salaries and worse, incompetence pay-outs for sacking their directors, and the government is now spending twice as much on the same healthcare as it was before privatisation, propping up failing hospitals, paying for vastly expanded inspection systems, paying to subsidise intermediaries between insurers and healtcare providers, paying out huge amounts to via local councils to providers, as well as soaking up the unemployment benefits costs of healthcare workers who've been fired to satisfy the insurance firms' cost control measures. It's a mess. If you think the NHS is expensive, wait 'till you see what it costs when it's privatised.

[doodab]

It seems to me that what you are saying is that the two bodies (private and public) are the same.

That's because you have the brainpower of a slug trapped in a brandy bottle. What I said was

The only thing that puzzles me is why people think the private sector will magically make it better when there is little or no evidence to support that conclusion.

which clearly isn't saying they are the same at all.

[DodgyAgent]

That's because you have the brainpower of a slug trapped in a brandy bottle. What I said was



which clearly isn't saying they are the same at all.

Well indulge me then. Do you think the private sector runs services better than the public sector? Simply saying that the private sector is not the answer to the problem offers nothing. Is this how you deal with problems on a day to day basis? By telling everyone what won't work? No wonder you are stuck on CUK.