Charities to take over NHS clinics...

[belboid]

shh, don't expect any sense out of Kizmet

 

[Kizmet]

Sorry, 'they' call discussing the merits of breaking up the NHS a balanced viewpoint?

Who are 'they'?

That was a turn of phrase... 'they' are figurative.

It's called a balanced viewpoint.. that means discussing the potential positives as well as the negatives.

And usually it would avoid using nonsense terms like ' breaking up the NHS'. Breaking it up into what? Sticklebricks?

The point of an NHS is to provide comprehensive and free at the point of access healthcare. How that is organised isn't really relevant as long as:

a) It works.
b) It can be sustained.
c) It can be paid for.

All three of these are questionable in the situation we are in now. So, given that we don't have access to a working time machine, it's boring to just complain about 'should haves'. Anyway.. the thread has moved on.. so argument over.

 

[Kizmet]

Maybe that's because the work shouldn't be farmed out at all.

Maybe it shouldn't.

But it is.

What's the point in forever moaning about it?

Anyway.. said my piece about that... probably shouldn't have.. but there you go. On with the subject.

 

[belboid]

The fact that they shouldn't be farmed out at all is the bloody subject. That and how to stop it happening.

 

[Kizmet]

The fact that they shouldn't be farmed out at all is the bloody subject. That and how to stop it happening.

Can you give me one good reason why the organisation structure of the NHS matters if it fulfills the conditions I set out above?

 

[belboid]

because it works better, more efficiently, and at least cost by being state run. And because some scumbags profiteering out of ill-health is diabolical (yes, we all know that that happens in other area's of the illness industry, but two wrongs don't make a right)

 

[Kizmet]

because it works better, more efficiently, and at least cost by being state run. And because some scumbags profiteering out of ill-health is diabolical (yes, we all know that that happens in other area's of the illness industry, but two wrongs don't make a right)

Neither of those are relevant to the question.

(And as for the first point! Are you serious? )

Give up, belboid...I don't think you can give me a good reason why the structure of the NHS matters as long as it does the job.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is not one right way of running the NHS. There are lots of ways that would fulfill the conditions that I set out above. State run by competent managers would be one good way... but we're a long, long way away from that (and I don't think we've ever really had that anyway). State managed from a number of non-profit making organisations could work just as well as long as the managers are just as competant.

The compentancy of the management is the one thing that they both have in common.. and really it's the only issue.. not the structure.

Given that the current situation involves work given to private profit companies then any change to that ridiculous system has got to be a move for the better.

Does that make enough sense for you?

 

[belboid]

Yes they are, and yes I am, Totally serious. You think the yankee system works better? How the fuck would worse paid, short-term contracted, workers deliver a better service? They wouldn't. It's blatantly bloody obvious to (almost) all.

 

[Kizmet]

How the fuck would worse paid, short-term contracted, workers deliver a better service? They wouldn't. It's blatantly bloody obvious to (almost) all.

What a silly thing to say. Of course it's obvious.

 

[belboid]

Wow, I am really blown away by your total lack of argument. Typical tory.

 

[Kizmet]

Wow, I am really blown away by your total lack of argument. Typical tory.

Huh? Did you miss my rather major edit above?

 

[belboid]

No, but it makes no odds. The proposed changes to service delivery will shatter workers' national terms and conditions - and not for the better - and will be far more short-term, as contracts are only awarded for the short-term. That will make things worse, even if the managers are in some way 'better.' not to mention the waste of money that goes on ensuring the contracting company makes a profit on the contract. It is just a way for the government to cut its spending, not for the NHS to get more money or better delivery.

 

[treelover]

Kismet said

It can be paid for.

It sure can...


using the money wasted on the 'adventure' in Iraq!

 

[Kizmet]

No, but it makes no odds. The proposed changes to service delivery will shatter workers' national terms and conditions - and not for the better - and will be far more short-term, as contracts are only awarded for the short-term. That will make things worse, even if the managers are in some way 'better.'

None of that is necessarily true. That's just more of the negative moaning I was on about earlier... there's no basis upon which you make your suppositions apart from drawing false comparisons to other countries or other periods of history.

Good management includes that provision of fair terms, wages and conditons for your workforce.

not to mention the waste of money that goes on ensuring the contracting company makes a profit on the contract.

That's hard for a non-profit company to do...

It is just a way for the government to cut its spending, not for the NHS to get more money or better delivery.

It's a way to do both. And it's pretty much the ONLY way to do both given the situation we are in now.

 

[Kizmet]

It sure can...


using the money wasted on the 'adventure' in Iraq!

How do you use money that you already wasted?

 

[treelover]

I was making a point, they can always and i mean always find money for a war, at least in medieval times, the king had to go cap in hand to his barons to raise the capital, and was often told no...

 

[Kizmet]

I was making a point, they can always and i mean always find money for a war, at least in medieval times, the king had to go cap in hand to his barons to raise the capital, and was often told no...

I know you were making that point.. I don't even disagree with it. But the money is spent... it's not coming back.

 

[belboid]

None of that is necessarily true. That's just more of the negative moaning I was on about earlier... there's no basis upon which you make your suppositions apart from drawing false comparisons to other countries or other periods of history.

Good management includes that provision of fair terms, wages and conditons for your workforce.

what drivel. You have to show why such comparisons would be 'false'. And the onus is on you to do so.

That's hard for a non-profit company to do...

oh dear, you are very naive about how such companies work, aren't you? All 'non-profit' means is they don't pay dividends. They can pay very high salaries to their bosses, and include absurd bonuses. Then there is the 'surplus' that they keep (oh look - its not called a 'profit', it must be fine and dandy then!) and use to build up an asset base - a base that can be used to generate explicit profits. So, they are just a subsidy to the big businesses that are likely to pretend to be 'charities'

It's a way to do both. And it's pretty much the ONLY way to do both given the situation we are in now.

more bollocks, and it is, again, down to you to show why you think that would be - rather than just shouting 'it is it is it is'

 

[Kizmet]

what drivel. You have to show why such comparisons would be 'false'. And the onus is on you to do so.

Is it fuck. You want to go on being a negative moaner.. be my guest.. but I'll always call you it. The comparisons are false because, quite simply, they aren't comparable. If you wish to draw a comparison with something you have to show why it's comparable.

oh dear, you are very naive about how such companies work, aren't you? All 'non-profit' means is they don't pay dividends. They can pay very high salaries to their bosses, and include absurd bonuses. Then there is the 'surplus' that they keep (oh look - its not called a 'profit', it must be fine and dandy then!) and use to build up an asset base - a base that can be used to generate explicit profits. So, they are just a subsidy to the big businesses that are likely to pretend to be 'charities'

I'm aware of that... and also aware that this is happening already plus dividends are being paid out.

If anyone is being naive it's you with your one colour/size fits all theory of how all businesses work.

Some companies operate like that.. but of course there's nothing to suggest that they will be the ones that win the tenders. In fact - if the NHS management is competant it would actually result in the LOSS of tenders to companies that do that. Margins, mate.. it's all about the margins.

more bollocks, and it is, again, down to you to show why you think that would be - rather than just shouting 'it is it is it is'

Tell me, angry from manchester.. do you think the new proposals would be worse than the current system we have now? And why?

 

[belboid]

Is it fuck. You want to go on being a negative moaner.. be my guest.. but I'll always call you it. The comparisons are false because, quite simply, they aren't comparable. If you wish to draw a comparison with something you have to show why it's comparable.

because they are proposing essentially the same system, you thick, disingenuous fool

I'm aware of that... and also aware that this is happening already plus dividends are being paid out.

what, in the NHS? Tosh

If anyone is being naive it's you with your one colour/size fits all theory of how all businesses work.

Some companies operate like that.. but of course there's nothing to suggest that they will be the ones that win the tenders. In fact - if the NHS management is competant it would actually result in the LOSS of tenders to companies that do that. Margins, mate.. it's all about the margins.

your use of smilies doesnt alter the fact that you haven't made any argument in favour of your position here.

Tell me, angry from manchester.. do you think the new proposals would be worse than the current system we have now? And why?

I already have done eejit. And I'm not from Manchester.

Now, if you have something to actually say, based on evidence or reality, I'll answer you, otherwise....

 

[Kizmet]

because they are proposing essentially the same system, you thick, disingenuous fool

Brazil and England both played 4-4-2... were they comparable?

The core issue is competance.. not the system. Are you too dense to understand that?

what, in the NHS? Tosh

Are you saying that no organisation within the NHS or contracted by it is making a profit? Stop being a prick.

your use of smilies doesnt alter the fact that you haven't made any argument in favour of your position here.

No.. but they did indicate that I was laughing at you. To be fair.. you don't need a smilie to know that.

The fact is that, for a non-profit organisation any proposed profit must come from the difference between the amount received for the service and the costs incurred providing that service.... the margins. As long as there are quality of service standards there is no way a boss can overpay themselves without affecting margins. And thus losing the tender.

I already have done eejit. And I'm not from Manchester.

No you haven't. All you've done is whinged about some of the possible negatives. That's really easy to do.. and really boring.

'Angry from Manchester' is a term used to identify the kind of person who writes in to complain about the pettiest things and fails to see the bigger picture.

Now, if you have something to actually say, based on evidence or reality, I'll answer you, otherwise....

Otherwise what? Sorry.. am I distracting you from the important task of whining about every.bloody.little.possible.thing on the internet?

 

[belboid]

sorry you find me boring. I find you dishonest and disingenuous. All you have done is dismiss anything you disagree with as 'whining' and boring. You haven't advanced a serious argument at all. And you ignore the arguments actually put to you. Typical tory. Now, please, fuck off.

 

[Kizmet]

sorry you find me boring. I find you dishonest and disingenuous. All you have done is dismiss anything you disagree with as 'whining' and boring.

Actually.. somehow you make even the stuff I DO agree with sound whiny and boring.

You haven't advanced a serious argument at all. And you ignore the arguments actually put to you.

That's because I'm not looking for an argument, you muppet.

I was interested in a discussion. A proper discussion involving relative merits and potential hurdles. A realistic discussion.

I'm not an expert.. neither am I pretending to be.. as far as I can see the new proposals are an improvement on what we have now. As yet I have seen nothing to disprove that. Just irrelevant twaddle about systems and new labour this new labour that.

Typical tory. Now, please, fuck off.

... tory?

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about, do you?

 

[goldenecitrone]

I don't see what the problem is. Churches and village halls have always relied on tombolas and jumble sales to see them through tough times. It's time the NHS got back to basics.

 

[Kizmet]

I don't see what the problem is. Churches and village halls have always relied on tombolas and jumble sales to see them through tough times. It's time the NHS got back to basics.

A hospital jumble sale?

You just want to buy a spare leg, don't you.

 

[sevenstars]

Dear me, we seem to have found the one of the few people in the country who supports the corporate New-Labour/tory strategy of privatising the NHS.

I guess that must be a lonely existence, when no-one seems to understand you.

But there is absolutely no public demand for breaking up the NHS. There is no support for it from clinicians. There is no evidence breaking it up is in the interests of efficiency.

So much so that a covert and piecemeal privatisation strategy is being implented instead by the coroprate supporting government.

There is tons of evidence that the most wasteful and inefficient way to run a health service is to hand it to corporations though.

There is no call for a 'balanced debate' on this because there is not a balance of opinion on this issue.

We can't pretend that there is just to humour you, it wouldnt be doing you any favours really.

 

[belboid]

That's because I'm not looking for an argument, you muppet.

I was interested in a discussion. A proper discussion involving relative merits and potential hurdles. A realistic discussion.

fuck me, you are super thick aren't you? Any discussion involves putting forward propositions, points of view, also known as 'arguments', learn english before you try and pontificate and obfuscate.

... tory?

yes tory. If you support the privatisation of the NHS you are a tory, simple as.

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about, do you?

to quote the historians on The Mary Whitehouse Experience "that's you, that is"

 

[scifisam]

Maybe it shouldn't.

But it is.

What's the point in forever moaning about it?

Anyway.. said my piece about that... probably shouldn't have.. but there you go. On with the subject.

It's not farmed out yet - this is just a proposal to farm the clinics out to charities. So there is a point in protesting it, especially if you do something at least a little constructive, like signing petitions maybe.

 

[Kizmet]

fuck me, you are super thick aren't you? Any discussion involves putting forward propositions, points of view, also known as 'arguments'

The word has a number of definitions... I thought you meant a different one. Oh well. *shrugs*

yes tory. If you support the privatisation of the NHS you are a tory, simple as.

Firstly.. because I think you're a muppet doesn't mean I support the privitisation of the NHS.

Secondly... you quite like your simple views of politics, don't you? It's really not that simple.

to quote the historians on The Mary Whitehouse Experience "that's you, that is"

Now we see where you learned your politics from....

.. that and the occasional Ladybird book.

 

[Kizmet]

Dear me, we seem to have found the one of the few people in the country who supports the corporate New-Labour/tory strategy of privatising the NHS.

The problem with the way in which you complain is that it means you can only really come at a subject from one angle. It's narrow-minded and limited.

Which is why you think I support privitisation of the NHS.