ChatterBank2 mins ago
That's Socialism In Action.
NHS admin worker who ordered £160,000 of printer cartridges no-one needed and sold them on eBay is locked up
Read more: http://
Anything run by the state rapidly becomes inefficient and wide open to this type of racket. It's true that some big multi-nationals are also bad at times but at least the tax payer doesn't automatically pick up the tab.
Read more: http://
Anything run by the state rapidly becomes inefficient and wide open to this type of racket. It's true that some big multi-nationals are also bad at times but at least the tax payer doesn't automatically pick up the tab.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
o maybe I'm biased and today they are all cradles of efficiency and openness . A bit like our NHS in fact ! I wonder if they all take 6 years to discover someones nicked £160 k
You are biased, Modeller. There can be no question of that. And it is not an either /or situation. Private industry and capitalism does not automatically equate to cradles of efficiency and openness at all.
Naomi - If you have followed anything at all about the various re-organisations within the NHS, you wll know that much of the financial problems being suffered by Trusts within the NHS are down to the introduction of marketplace economics. Even the last labour administration bought into the idea- exacerbated it even - with implementation of PFI. But you carry on thinking that BUPA is the right model for a national health service and that they are paragons of efficiency and openness if thats what you prefer.
You are biased, Modeller. There can be no question of that. And it is not an either /or situation. Private industry and capitalism does not automatically equate to cradles of efficiency and openness at all.
Naomi - If you have followed anything at all about the various re-organisations within the NHS, you wll know that much of the financial problems being suffered by Trusts within the NHS are down to the introduction of marketplace economics. Even the last labour administration bought into the idea- exacerbated it even - with implementation of PFI. But you carry on thinking that BUPA is the right model for a national health service and that they are paragons of efficiency and openness if thats what you prefer.
LazyGun, No successful private company would consider entering into the sort of private contracts the NHS is signed up to. This is not sensible ‘marketplace economics’ - it’s economic madness managed by consistently failing amateurs playing at business.
http://
http://
LG //Private industry and capitalism does not automatically equate to cradles of efficiency and openness at all. //
Quite right I'm glad we agree on that, as in my OP . The crucial difference is " but at least the tax payer doesn't automatically pick up the tab. "
emmie I remember when the NHS first started , and it was an open cheque , Everything was Free ! WOW ! Surprise ! Surprise ! immediately it was massively abused. I remember people coming out of chemists loaded with medication of all sorts and at Christmas large rolls of cotton wool to decorate their Xmas Trees.
My father was a shop steward and I followed his beliefs but we both saw the madness in the 'open cheque ' syndrome. It's a pity our lords and masters the Labour government didn't have the same common sense.
It may surprise you LG but I was a Labour activist for many years and I am well aware of the Socialist mindset . That's also why I spent short periods of time in different Soviet bloc countries.
I would now describe myself a political realist . If I'm biased , it's in favour of reality not party dogma.
Quite right I'm glad we agree on that, as in my OP . The crucial difference is " but at least the tax payer doesn't automatically pick up the tab. "
emmie I remember when the NHS first started , and it was an open cheque , Everything was Free ! WOW ! Surprise ! Surprise ! immediately it was massively abused. I remember people coming out of chemists loaded with medication of all sorts and at Christmas large rolls of cotton wool to decorate their Xmas Trees.
My father was a shop steward and I followed his beliefs but we both saw the madness in the 'open cheque ' syndrome. It's a pity our lords and masters the Labour government didn't have the same common sense.
It may surprise you LG but I was a Labour activist for many years and I am well aware of the Socialist mindset . That's also why I spent short periods of time in different Soviet bloc countries.
I would now describe myself a political realist . If I'm biased , it's in favour of reality not party dogma.
@ Naomi I agree with you that PFI is madness, but to try and equate signing up for it as being a sign that the respective NHS administrations are devoid of business nous or just amateurs is simply wrong. PFI was a political initiative, and trusts and boards "invited" and encouraged by the Department of Health to enter into them.
PFI was introduced by Major's conservative administration, the principle behind the introduction being the decidedly none -socialist view that capital investments should be moved off the assets/liabilities book of the State ; it was also seen as a way of roping in private sector investment. New Labour enthusiastically embraced it, seeing it as a quick way of improving the NHS estate - and schools too, come to that.
Still, no one could accuse New Labour of being a socialist administration ;)
This was introducing capitalism and free market principles into the NHS which is a mistake for anything as fundamental as this. Such market ethos might have a role in non-core services and elements supplementary to their main role of healthcare, but that should be the extent of it, in my opinion.
Now we see all sorts of health services put out to tender (costing time and money), and stories of companies walking away from their contracts or being unable to offer the level of service required because either they failed to cost it properly, or were just desperate to get the business and willing to submit a quotation not consistent with what was needed, hoping to get bailed out by the state when they owned up. ( And this does not just happen in the health service either; bus services, rail services, security contracts have all been walked away from).
@Modeller No, I would not necessarily be surprised that you have had exposure to either "socialist thinking" ( which itself implies that all socialist thinking is the same, which it is not) and "soviet bloc" countries ( which were never socialist). I am more concerned that the title of this thread is wrong on both factual and ideological levels, and that you continue to defend a story of an individual motivated by greed exploiting lax management and audit systems as being indicative of the whole of state run business or socialist ideology, when it is clearly nothing of the sort.
Nor have you offered anything resembling support for the equating "socialism" with cancer, which is a pretty unpleasant and inflammatory assertion.
@Emmie. You may think of yourself as unpartisan, or middle of the road, but having engaged in many threads with you across a wide range of differing subjects, that is most certainly not my impression.
PFI was introduced by Major's conservative administration, the principle behind the introduction being the decidedly none -socialist view that capital investments should be moved off the assets/liabilities book of the State ; it was also seen as a way of roping in private sector investment. New Labour enthusiastically embraced it, seeing it as a quick way of improving the NHS estate - and schools too, come to that.
Still, no one could accuse New Labour of being a socialist administration ;)
This was introducing capitalism and free market principles into the NHS which is a mistake for anything as fundamental as this. Such market ethos might have a role in non-core services and elements supplementary to their main role of healthcare, but that should be the extent of it, in my opinion.
Now we see all sorts of health services put out to tender (costing time and money), and stories of companies walking away from their contracts or being unable to offer the level of service required because either they failed to cost it properly, or were just desperate to get the business and willing to submit a quotation not consistent with what was needed, hoping to get bailed out by the state when they owned up. ( And this does not just happen in the health service either; bus services, rail services, security contracts have all been walked away from).
@Modeller No, I would not necessarily be surprised that you have had exposure to either "socialist thinking" ( which itself implies that all socialist thinking is the same, which it is not) and "soviet bloc" countries ( which were never socialist). I am more concerned that the title of this thread is wrong on both factual and ideological levels, and that you continue to defend a story of an individual motivated by greed exploiting lax management and audit systems as being indicative of the whole of state run business or socialist ideology, when it is clearly nothing of the sort.
Nor have you offered anything resembling support for the equating "socialism" with cancer, which is a pretty unpleasant and inflammatory assertion.
@Emmie. You may think of yourself as unpartisan, or middle of the road, but having engaged in many threads with you across a wide range of differing subjects, that is most certainly not my impression.
LazyGun, //to try and equate signing up for it as being a sign that the respective NHS administrations are devoid of business nous or just amateurs is simply wrong. PFI was a political initiative, and trusts and boards "invited" and encouraged by the Department of Health to enter into them. //
Decisions taken at the top, ie the Department of Health, are taken for what are perceived to be the best reasons, but the decisions don't stop there. Such appalling abuse and misuse of funds would never happen in the private sector, and therefore the question that must be answered is 'why is it happening? - and the only possible answer is that the people entrusted to make subsequent decisions are incapable of doing the job properly, and hence, are unfit for office. If that wasn't true, the problem wouldn't exist and the NHS wouldn't be drowning in enormous debt. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the lunatics are running the asylum. What a stupid waste!
Decisions taken at the top, ie the Department of Health, are taken for what are perceived to be the best reasons, but the decisions don't stop there. Such appalling abuse and misuse of funds would never happen in the private sector, and therefore the question that must be answered is 'why is it happening? - and the only possible answer is that the people entrusted to make subsequent decisions are incapable of doing the job properly, and hence, are unfit for office. If that wasn't true, the problem wouldn't exist and the NHS wouldn't be drowning in enormous debt. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the lunatics are running the asylum. What a stupid waste!
-- answer removed --
Steve, thank you. I guess you've realised that this is not a bash at any particular political party - simply at the on-going utter stupidity that prevails year after year digging the grave for the NHS ever deeper. Successful business needs plain common sense - something, regardless of the flavour of the government of the day, the management of the NHS does not possess.
-- answer removed --
"Such appalling abuse and misuse of funds would never happen in the private sector"
Except that it does. G4S. SERCO. The flaming banks for petes sake, who more or less single handedly plunged the world into a recession, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer is there to bail them out.
Blaming the supposed financial competency shortcomings of the NHS because they followed new policy regulations brought in by respective administrations is just wrong.
Yes, there will be managers incompetent, or promoted beyond their own skill level, but that happens in private industry and your refusal to acknowledge that and offer up this polarised dichotomy that all private industry = good sound competent business and that all state industry = feckless incompetents completely undermines any argument you are trying to make.
Except that it does. G4S. SERCO. The flaming banks for petes sake, who more or less single handedly plunged the world into a recession, safe in the knowledge that the taxpayer is there to bail them out.
Blaming the supposed financial competency shortcomings of the NHS because they followed new policy regulations brought in by respective administrations is just wrong.
Yes, there will be managers incompetent, or promoted beyond their own skill level, but that happens in private industry and your refusal to acknowledge that and offer up this polarised dichotomy that all private industry = good sound competent business and that all state industry = feckless incompetents completely undermines any argument you are trying to make.
That's absolutely right. With the NHS the rot has set in - and someone needs to dig deep, address the fundamental problems, get rid of the dross, and get realistic workable systems in place - and actually, I don't care who does it - as long as someone has the balls to ignore puerile political allegiances - and do it!
LazyGun, ^^ That was to Steve.
The argument you say I offer isn't what I'm offering - you are putting words into my mouth - but my argument that sound business practice works and unsound business practice doesn't is ..... sound. In the private sector, managers that don't deliver are no more.
Night all.
The argument you say I offer isn't what I'm offering - you are putting words into my mouth - but my argument that sound business practice works and unsound business practice doesn't is ..... sound. In the private sector, managers that don't deliver are no more.
Night all.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.