Pandora Papers ! .

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Not only that, but in their rush to take profits they have failed to invest in the maintenance and infrastructure of the utilities, for example the terrible waste of water due to leaks. So we're in for an ever diminishing and unreliable services. 

 

 

 

This bit I have to disagree with. Utilities had chronic undervestment for years prior to privatisation. Post privatisation saw new power stations and huge improvements to things like water treatment. Compare something like Yorkshire water with northern Ireland water.

[alchresearch 214]

14 hours ago, Anna B said:

In a similar way I believe they are running down the NHS to provide an excuse to privatise it. 

Well they're taking their time about it.  They've had since 2010 and probably only have a couple of years left to do it.

 

I would mention that Labour didn't have a problem with using private companies for NHS provision while they were in power but no doubt you'll just wheel out the usual old "tory lite, they weren't proper labour" rhetoric like you usually do.

 

 

[trastrick 866]

2 hours ago, despritdan said:

That always happens when the private sector are given responsibility for public services. They spend as little as possible whilst charging as much as possible. We're told that they bring efficiency to the public sector but the only thing they're efficient at is maximising their profits. It's the same story when private companies are given contracts to provide goods and services to schools, colleges, hospital etc. They charge eye-watering amounts for things that are a fraction of the price if bought online. I remember a woman who worked in the admin department at a school I once worked at telling me they had to pay £75 for a single large roll of blue tissue paper when those same rolls cost £1.50 for two at Pound Saver.

Any purchasing agent in a private business who paid $75 for an item that could be bought anywhere for 75 cents, would be fired in a New York Minute!

[tinfoilhat 11]

12 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Any purchasing agent in a private business who paid $75 for an item that could be bought anywhere for 75 cents, would be fired in a New York Minute!

That's not true- medical companies charge through the eyes for basics in the states.

[Anna B 1,401]

31 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

That's not true- medical companies charge through the eyes for basics in the states.

Medical companies charge through the eyes in this country too.

49 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Any purchasing agent in a private business who paid $75 for an item that could be bought anywhere for 75 cents, would be fired in a New York Minute!

The NHS is perhaps the biggest purchaser in the country yet fails to get half decent deals from the pharmaceutical  companies who charge whatever they like. Eg aspirin which can be bought for pence in any supermarket costs pounds when bought from pharma, and that's just a start. Not just drugs but equipment is also cripplingly expensive, even for the basic stuff.

The NHS has also outsourced many of its services to private companies who then sell them back to the NHS for highly inflated prices. 

 

[Staunton 18]

...furthermore, those basic features of neoliberal doctrine: hostility to taxation; hostility towards the public sector; privatisation; and deregulation are mutually dependent.

 

For example, privatisation depends upon deregulation. Contractors that take over public services require deregulatory action from government - they wish only to generate private profit, and providing services threatens that primary intention. As is apparent from consideration of any number of privatisations, standards are immediately driven down once a public service is put in private hands. Competent personnel (expensive) are swiftly replaced with unskilled or semi-skilled (cheaper) workers, and irresponsible savings sought at every level of provision. This leads to service failure, which requires a mechanism for escaping responsibility - hence legislative requirements are revised downwards or abolished by compliant governments - deregulation - so that contractors are provided with an effective way to evade accountability as standards slip and the inevitable failures occur.

 

Add to this factor the neoliberal insistence that free provision of essential public services distort the 'market' by frustrating competition.

 

The privatisation of public services leads to the rapid erosion of standards, provision compromised and service users (now redefined as 'customers') rendered powerless when promised services are not delivered.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Staunton

[Anna B 1,401]

6 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Well they're taking their time about it.  They've had since 2010 and probably only have a couple of years left to do it.

 

I would mention that Labour didn't have a problem with using private companies for NHS provision while they were in power but no doubt you'll just wheel out the usual old "tory lite, they weren't proper labour" rhetoric like you usually do.

 

 

The difference is the money from private health care was used to subsidise the NHS, so everyone benefitted. The wealthy got their expensive private operations first and avoided the waiting lists, but the waiting lists were shorter because of the investment of this money directly back into the NHS. And it worked well.

The Tories called a halt to that arrangement, and private companies with their own facilities began to spring up all over the place. Now swathes of the NHS have been privatised, and those private organisations sell their vastly overpriced services back to the NHS.

Similarly when Thatcher decided to sell off the council houses, would anyone have objected if the money from selling off old stock had gone back into building new council houses - but no, Thatcher forbade the money to be used for that purpose so we now have a dearth of council houses providing secure tenancies for the people of Sheffield.  

[trastrick 866]

7 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

That's not true- medical companies charge through the eyes for basics in the states.

Of course it's true!

 

No private company would pay $75 for a product readily available in a local shop for 75 cents.

 

(and stay in business)

 

Lol

[Longcol 597]

2 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Of course it's true!

 

No private company would pay $75 for a product readily available in a local shop for 75 cents.

 

(and stay in business)

 

Lol

Not even if they could sell it for a profit?

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Of course it's true!

 

No private company would pay $75 for a product readily available in a local shop for 75 cents.

 

(and stay in business)

 

Lol

The NHS is not a private company, and does not have profit as a bottom line, but it is tied into contracts that forbid them going elsewhere for supplies. And cartels operate among the private companies (of which there are actually suprisingly few) that hold the price artificially high. By few I mean the parent companies that control  the minions. 

The NHS is run by secretaries compared to the hard ball players of the giant pharmceutical companies. They see the NHS as easy meat, just a very useful cash cow.  When Boris tells you how many millions he's pumped into our failing NHS, it's being pumped straight back out again, into the pockets  of these mega neoliberal capitalists who get rich out of the NHS, ergo our taxes; meanwhile you wonder naively why nothing ever seems to change let alone improve...

[despritdan 241]

There's no rational or sensible reason for allowing these private companies to charge the public sector exorbitant amounts for goods and services, so it has to be about corruption. A company gives a large donation to a political party. When that party comes to power, they reward the company who gave the donation by awarding them a contract to provide goods and services to hospitals, schools, councils etc without any proviso that they should charge competitive rates. The company gets back the  money it donated by charging rip off prices which the tax payer has to pay so it's just a sneaky, indirect way of getting tax payers to fund political parties.

[trastrick 866]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not even if they could sell it for a profit?

Of course not.

 

They'd still just pay the market priceof 75cents. and increase their profits.

 

Lol

9 hours ago, Anna B said:

The NHS is not a private company, and does not have profit as a bottom line, but it is tied into contracts that forbid them going elsewhere for supplies. And cartels operate among the private companies (of which there are actually suprisingly few) that hold the price artificially high. By few I mean the parent companies that control  the minions. 

The NHS is run by secretaries compared to the hard ball players of the giant pharmceutical companies. They see the NHS as easy meat, just a very useful cash cow.  When Boris tells you how many millions he's pumped into our failing NHS, it's being pumped straight back out again, into the pockets  of these mega neoliberal capitalists who get rich out of the NHS, ergo our taxes; meanwhile you wonder naively why nothing ever seems to change let alone improve...

As a former U.S, President was fond of saying, "Who makes these deals"?

 

Anyone which would pay $75 for an item readliy available at a local store for 75 cents, is either grossly incompetent, or on the take, or spending someone elses money, i.e. the government.

Edited October 12, 2021 by trastrick