Cameron to end state public sector monopoly

[sunoficarus]

All aboard the UNISON outrage bus!


"David Cameron promises public sector revolution
Private companies, voluntary groups and charities will be given the right to run schools, hospitals and vast swathes of council services under ambitious plans to end the “state’s monopoly” over public sector work, David Cameron announces today."

David Cameron promises public sector revolution - Telegraph

 

[netleyned]

So Veterans might actually get some help and support from people who know the military and have some money to do some good as opposed to those who currently get the money, and can't be bothered with the aggro and when approached by veterans in need and have no idea what they're doing/talking about, and sudsqeuently flap and palm folk off on SSAFA etc. Even better just give SSAFA a load of money...rant over.

 

[Whet]

So Veterans might actually get some help and support from people who know the military and have some money to do some good as opposed to those who currently get the money, and can't be bothered with the aggro and when approached by veterans in need and have no idea what they're doing/talking about, and sudsqeuently flap and palm folk off on SSAFA etc. Even better just give SSAFA a load of money...rant over.

You think so?

Private companies want to cherry pick, leaving those who are going to soak up funds to charities or the NHS. Since the NHS will be losing more funding when the private sector cherry picks the more lucrative parts of ill health my bet is that charities will expected to carry on the motion, but funding free. So, the experts like Combat Stress will not be able to do any more, leaving many soldiers to the mercies of well meaning amateurs.

 

[sunoficarus]

You think so?

Private companies want to cherry pick, leaving those who are going to soak up funds to charities or the NHS. Since the NHS will be losing more funding when the private sector cherry picks the more lucrative parts of ill health my bet is that charities will expected to carry on the motion, but funding free. So, the experts like Combat Stress will not be able to do any more, leaving many soldiers to the mercies of well meaning amateurs.

Can you give us your first hand experiences of private companies cherry picking?
Do you work for the NHS? How will these changes effect you?

 

[Whet]

Can you give us your first hand experiences of private companies cherry picking?
Do you work for the NHS? How will these changes effect you?

Just because I haven't witnessed it happening doesn't mean it doesn't - are you saying that it won't happen? As for how it will affect me, given that I work for a military charity it will effect the amount of work I do. I don't mind the extra work, its just that doing what the state is supposed to do, and probably without funding, is going to place an enormous strain on the charity.

 

[stoatman]

Just because I haven't witnessed it happening doesn't mean it doesn't - are you saying that it won't happen? As for how it will affect me, given that I work for a military charity it will effect the amount of work I do. I don't mind the extra work, its just that doing what the state is supposed to do, and probably without funding, is going to place an enormous strain on the charity.

and I've got a rock that keeps tigers away. Well, I don't see any tigers around here, do you?

 

[Whet]

and I've got a rock that keeps tigers away. Well, I don't see any tigers around here, do you?

So YOU are saying that cherry picking won't happen Stoatman?

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[sunoficarus]

Just because I haven't witnessed it happening doesn't mean it doesn't - are you saying that it won't happen? As for how it will affect me, given that I work for a military charity it will effect the amount of work I do. I don't mind the extra work, its just that doing what the state is supposed to do, and probably without funding, is going to place an enormous strain on the charity.

As I recall, it was you that clearly said it would happen, therefore, as is the norm in debating, the onus on you is to provide evidence to support your claim.

Which military charity do you work for?

 

[Uzbeck]

Trouble with this is:-
Government is terrible at managing outsourced contracts and providers. Worse than actualy doing the job themselves (which I'll admit is often done poorly and inefficently).

Cards on table:- I work in local government, in a IT role. We run very much as a buisness unit and would be simple enough to outsource or hive us off as a external company. However we support thousands of cranky legacy bits of software and hardware. Could a third party, which needs to make a profit, provide a cheaper or better service. Yes. But it couldnt do both. The end result would be either a more expensive or worse service to the taxpayer and probably both. What really needs sorting is the terrible management of 3rd party service providers and the corrupt practise of 3rd partys hiring whoever negotiates contracts with them a few months down the line. I'm fed up to the back teeth of well meaning but inept buying services or products and then failing to spec them correctly or ask about follow on costs, performance and so on. At both regional and national level. Once we get this sorted then I'd agree that its probably the way to go for many services.

In a short answer to Daves questions about why he didnt have more control of his sons care.....do you really want to give more control to the masses of folk 'on a disability mate' 'cos I can bet you they'll find a way to siphon those funds to places involving beer, fags and plasma TV's....

 

[stoatman]

So YOU are saying that cherry picking won't happen Stoatman?

Hmmmmmmmmm

Now you're asking me to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that it WILL happen? In your answer, feel free to make reference to pretty much the rest of Europe who uses such a mixed healthcare system and in which... such "cherry picking" doesn't happen, at least not to a degree that anyone is actually noticed it.

For extra credit, prove that my rock doesn't keep tigers away.

 

[Whet]

Now you're asking me to prove a negative. Why don't you prove that it WILL happen? In your answer, feel free to make reference to pretty much the rest of Europe who uses such a mixed healthcare system and in which... such "cherry picking" doesn't happen, at least not to a degree that anyone is actually noticed it.

For extra credit, prove that my rock doesn't keep tigers away.

With regards to the rock - you live in a tiger free zone (bar those caged up) and tigers have no way of migrating to where you are (bar joining those behind the wire). So your rock is not so much a tiger scarer so much as unproven goods. When you have done a Daniel with the tigers at Woburn Abbey holding the rock in front of you, and done it several times, then the rock will be proven.

Now to proof of cherry picking

Cherry picking in the US hospice sector

Times article

 

[Cuddles]

Whet - the anti-tiger rock trials took place last month. were you asleep throughout them?

 

[stoatman]

That's not a proof; that's an assertion.

And then, on the main question, you move the goalposts -- nobody was talking about the US.

Plus, the NHS "cherry picks" what it does and doesn't treat, what drugs it does and doesn't fund, etc.

 

[sunoficarus]

With regards to the rock - you live in a tiger free zone (bar those caged up) and tigers have no way of migrating to where you are (bar joining those behind the wire). So your rock is not so much a tiger scarer so much as unproven goods. When you have done a Daniel with the tigers at Woburn Abbey holding the rock in front of you, and done it several times, then the rock will be proven.

Now to proof of cherry picking

Cherry picking in the US hospice sector

Times article

Nothing about charities there....

So, which charity do you work for, and how will this effect your charity?

 

[rgjbloke]

Whatever your political views about this news, what will happen in reality is that the local authority will retain statutory responsibility for these services and oversee both the the outsourcing and the monitoring of the activity. That doesn't happen on it's own. Knowledgeable staff will be needed to write up a bible of documentation for each activity, prepare the tenders, oversee the process, award contracts and then make sure that everything proceeds along in an orderly and proper fashion. In other words, a large bureaucracy to run the whole thing.

Might as well just let them do the job in the first place. Might save some money that way?

 

[Whet]

That's not a proof; that's an assertion.

And then, on the main question, you move the goalposts -- nobody was talking about the US.

Plus, the NHS "cherry picks" what it does and doesn't treat, what drugs it does and doesn't fund, etc.

You mentioned other countries medical provision, and the NHS treats everyone - just doesn't offer all treatments.

 

[Whet]

Nothing about charities there....

So, which charity do you work for, and how will this effect your charity?

Not telling Sun - you will have to trust me that I do so

 

[sunoficarus]

Not telling Sun - you will have to trust me that I do so

So you may be making all this up then?
That's the assumption people will have to make if you claim to work for a charity but it has to be kept secret.
I can't see why you are being so reticent, after all, working for a charity is not a dishonourable occupation.

 

[stoatman]

You mentioned other countries medical provision, and the NHS treats everyone - just doesn't offer all treatments.

No, I specifically mentioned other EUROPEAN countries. Your generalisation had no basis in the original documents, thus infringes Article 123 (2) EPC.

Yes, you are correct: the NHS cherry picks what treatments it offers, to what people. Which is what you said, but used different words.

Since you have a 100% failure rate when entering into semantic arguments, I admire your courage and indefatigability in constantly entering into them. That's the British bulldog spirit right there!

 

[stoatman]

So you may be making all this up then?
That's the assumption people will have to make if you claim to work for a charity but it has to be kept secret.
I can't see why you are being so reticent, after all, working for a charity is not a dishonourable occupation.

Probably because the charity is an elaborate tax dodge for somebody else and a marvellous way for him not to have to do a real job and still pull down the maximum amount of biffage allowances.