If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
1st pfi contractor makes huge profit
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=609533
60% more than anticipated
well done to them but lapse in services havent been properly reprimanded by local health authority
60% more than anticipated
well done to them but lapse in services havent been properly reprimanded by local health authority
0
Comments
Healthcare is not a fucking business to be run for profit.
Fucking right-wing New Labour Thatcherite scumbags :mad:
but i don't like the idea......at all
it should be reinvested.
Really? Then why do I get paid?
Are these 2 comments by any chance related?
Obviously the shareholders will use the bonanza to upgrade their medical insurance policies.....
You know what I meant surely?
I did, and I disagree with the view. To an extent.
The PFI organisations are paid for offering a service to the NHS, in this case fo funding, building and maintaining buildings.
My only concern is tha amount of profit being made in comparison to the reduction in service and apparent "who cares" attitude about the fact that these schemes have problems. That isn'tthe fault of the organisations. That is the fault of the fuckwits who signed the contracts.
Not if the IMF has anything to do with it they can't.
How much is it costing to kill Iraqis?
For what one can read in newspapers as well, countries like France appear to have a better NHS as well- though I'm not sure if it is all state-owned.
Is the Spanish health system not based on insurance?
and that's relevant how?
Or are we going to get into a long discussion about "what's more important?". I hope not because a) it's boring, b) it's irrelevant and c) we'll get nowhere.
Eg. if there's one bus service, that's got no competition, they can run the worst bus in the world but people have no alternative. If there are 10 different bus services, they're all going to be trying to improve their bus service the most, get the most regular times, etc etc etc, in order to win people's loyalty and then contracts.
ETA: the more profit they make, the better really. It encourages other firms to provide an even better service, because they want a chunk of the profit cake themselves.
In theory it might seem logical. In practice the fact is this, there is a limited pot and taking money from it to make fat cats fatter, means there are less services.
How exactly do they save the money. Well, most of the costs are wages .........
And, it isn't necassarily good performance that gets contracts renewed. Sometimes a few stuffed brown envelopes will do the trick quite nicely thankyou....
Your aim as a capitalist is to get the greatest return for the least output.
Its not irrelevant. You don't want a world where we attach more importance to saving lives than taking them?
Think of Coca-Cola, one of the most capitalist companies in the world. But if people weren't satisfied with the taste of Coke, they would fail. It's all about customer satisfaction, where there is a differing quality of service then there is a failure of competition because it is often underprovided, but you have the government intervening to try and patch up the holes. I agree with you though that in the long term future governments will have to pay out more to keep the hospitals going, but building them outright would cost too much and our government can't say that they're going to commit future governments budgets to something - thats why if they rent them they can at least turn them off.
Corruption is another market failure, however. It's a really tricky argument that would take a team of economists years to come up with the perfect solution, either can work though if done properly, and if you look at the NHS now to 10 years ago, it's a rapid improvement. No more 6 month waiting times etc etc
Yeah, and soon there will be 2, max 3 providers and no-one else capable of competing. And the incentive will be what when when the markets stitched up?
And you can just close down hospitals, its been going on for years.
So, if you can afford it, you buy private insurance, and get things a bit easier .... so theres even less incentive to make it work.
And all to save a penny or two in tax.
It stinks - this selfish world we live in.
But there is competition. You've got Pepsi and Schweppes and even Tesco, but they don't really compete. The thing about a very few but large firms is that they still do provide: the problem with them is they normally copy each others prices so they don't undercut - that means they can keep prices floating quite high, where the marginal revenue and marginal cost for the firm meet, rather than where the demand & supply curve meet. Failure of competition.
Anyway, point is, it's a tricky business with hospitals. What are we going to do? We go ultra backwards and have nice charitable monks and monastarys - but lets face it the service is pretty appaling. Or make it a really profitable venture like in America and suddenly you have a really good health service for those who can afford it. We've just made it so we have a really good health service and it's there for everyone, it just means we have to pay more tax...
Sometimes I feel sorry for you, perhaps it's because you are immature. I don't know.
The comparison between the cost of war and the cost of healthcare it not relevant. Surely you don't think that if we had a zero defence budget that the money would be spent on health?
So, when I grow up I'll prefer killing to curing, will I?
You seem to have a leap of logic there - 'if it isn't spent on war it wont be spent on medicine'
How do you get from A to B?
:yes:
Want me to change your nappy?
Do you think I prefer killing?
I just accept that war will happen and that comparative costs are not possible. The cost of an Apache cannot be compared to the cost of a bed, because the unit prices are so different and affect a different number of people....
Pehaps you don't know as much about the NHS as you think.
At the end of this year, patients will have the choice of 4/5 providers for elective care. That can be competing NHS Trusts (who cannot merge), large private sector companies, surgeon co-operatives and PCTs buying in staff.
In 2008 patients will be able to choose which ever provider they like from anywhere in the country.
Private hospitals are not going to be interested in the whole service, just certain parts of it.
Have you considered why that happens? Or are you just reliant on your blinkered view of the world.
Many hospital were built decades ago. They are no longer "fit for purpose". Too many don't have day surgery facilities, have "nightingale" wards and are decrepid. In many case it costs more to maintain them that to build new.
Additionally, doctor's training has changed which means that many hospitals no longer have sufficient population base to give juniors the exposure they need, if they are to become decent doctors in seven years time. Therefore services are reconfigured. Occasionally, within a Trust this means that one hospital closes.
Hospital closures will always happen.
Actually the private sector is seeing a drop in people taking up their services in this way because of the drop in waiting times. Many now actively tout for NHS work to stay in business.
Even though NI contribution have actually increased?
It's true that BUPA is selling some of its hospitals, but that is not because they have no future, and there is plenty of interest in them.
Indeed, the move to more treatment in a day surgery or outpatinet setting means that few beds are needed, and therefore fewer hospitals.
Added to that is the move to treat many long term conditions at home (or in a community setting) means that fewewr people need to be admitted for a long stay...
Really?
Not the impression I am being given locally. I'm not suggesting that independant sector providers are suffering massively, but they are saying that NHS funded work is taking up a lot of capacity made available recently.
I actually follow these things keenly, being split between a current and future employer's interests. Although I do believe quite strongly that the private sector does no harm to the NHS. And I have no political objections to using the private sector to take simple patients off the waiting lists.