JD™ Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 But surely if there's going to be an exception it's most likely to happen in an area where compassion and care are the fundamental 'products' that a 'company' provides? A good friend of mine runs a group of care homes up north, and he's absolutely minted through it. He started it because his Mum wasn't getting good enough care in her last days so he sorted out somewhere that did - people paid for the good service, and he took over the others in the area that were dying through his profitability which stemmed from doing a good job. Duncan Bannatyne did the same thing - profit doesn't GENERALLY come long term from bad service. It comes from a foundation of good service, coupled with excellent cost management and stringent staffing. None of these are traits that the NHS generally possesses. Steve Jobs made a f**king fortune out of being a capitalist struggling with his buddhist feelings. To coin the cliche term that came of Apple, he made stuff that 'just worked' because he was thinking of his users, his products and making them work together. Profit naturally came from that, because people will pay for the stuff they need or want. Same as the healthcare service would be paid for readily by people who knew they were going to get a far better service. Even mother chucking Google started off being, and strain to continue to be, held to their company motto of "don't be evil". It was a simple motto that guaranteed them profit by living to it and providing people with what they needed. If any of those people, from Simon through to Google, were to run the NHS you certainly wouldn't have the complete nonchalance towards waiting lists, superbugs, appalling service on the ground level, or anything else. Or at least you'd know they were trying to change it, because you'd know that waiting lists, superbugs and appalling service hurt profits - they certainly don't add to them. Hey, people, profit is not evil. Profit is the reward for giving a f**k and doing a good job 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I think perhaps you're being the idealist for once, JD People will easily enter a the market of a profession that's, idealistically, supposed to be based on compassion but do not do it for that reason. A lot of people will just see the opportunity to make money. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, those who care less about actual care are more likely to be triumphant in a bidding war because they are more willing to cut corners which obviously reduces cost. Both Google and Apple have been charged with unethical activities. The former with regard to, for example, tax avoidance and the latter with, again for example, unethical work conditions. I think the list of unethical activities doesn't end there. Both relate to profit chosen over the welfare of a greater majority. It's dangerous to understand a company by the image it presents of itself such as "don't be evil". It makes business sense to present yourself in a kindly way. Currently the various oil companies are presenting themselves in very 'green' forms despite a mass of evidence to the contrary. Even if somebody within a large company has ethical concerns they may be legally obliged to ignore them due to their shareholders interests or other factors. What I'm trying to emphasise here is that the more you get into big business the less room, due to the nature of it, for ethics over profit. I know ethical businesses but they tend to be small. For every single example of philanthropic or egalitarian business ventures there will be many more examples of unethical ones. Perhaps an ethical company could take charge of a sector of the NHS but the odds are against it. For instance, why has Virgin protected itself against Whistle Blowers with regards to its child heath care in Surrey? It seems very telling to me. Surely this kind of service requires absolute transparency? Why would they want to hide what happens in the service they are providing?I'm not saying profit, per se, is evil but it can be become so when it subjugates compassion and ethics. Which includes profiting to a degree that amounts to hoarding unneccesary wealth against a backdrop of poverty. That's another issue though I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 He started it because his Mum wasn't getting good enough care in her last days so he sorted out somewhere that did - people paid for the good service, and he took over the others in the area that were dying through his profitability which stemmed from doing a good job. That's something he started himself though, whereas if private companies are buying into existing health care setups it becomes primarily a money-making opportunity rather than something they've built from the ground up due to a perceived need? If private companies see instances like your friend where he's become 'absolutely minted', then they might just see it as an opportunity to get involved with the health sector just to try and get some money out of it rather than trying to improve care for the elderly like your friend did. Steve Jobs made a f**king fortune out of being a capitalist struggling with his buddhist feelings. To coin the cliche term that came of Apple, he made stuff that 'just worked' because he was thinking of his users, his products and making them work together. Profit naturally came from that, because people will pay for the stuff they need or want. Same as the healthcare service would be paid for readily by people who knew they were going to get a far better service. He might have originally made stuff that 'just worked', but it's pretty clear to see that Apple's products don't necessarily represent great value for money, and they're able to charge pretty much whatever they want by making things that are white and translucenty, and have that particular logo on it. Similarly, they've been staggering the release of technology that they've had in their possession to try and keep sales up, intentionally and knowingly making their products obsolete at pre-planned sort of schedules. Again that's understandable because it makes financial sense for them (although if they smashed out some all-singing-all-dancing product that was the pinnacle of what they could achieve, they'd then have to work harder to create something newer/better, rather than just releasing slight tweaks that could've been done previously?), but I don't know if that's the sort of mindset I'd want from a company that's looking after my health. Even mother chucking Google started off being, and strain to continue to be, held to their company motto of "don't be evil". It was a simple motto that guaranteed them profit by living to it and providing people with what they needed. Is this the same Google who have repeatedly fallen foul of data/secrecy laws? Whose recent actions have been questioned by a whole host of people/organisations? There's plenty of posts up online about semi-sketchy stuff they're doing. Tellingly, even one of their own former staff members said "Google does not work for users; Google works for advertisers and website publishers, which provide virtually all of Google's revenues." That's obviously understandable, but the way they've been operating recently suggests they're operating more now to benefit themselves/their paying customers rather than the end user. I'd say that it was a fairly easy sort of scenario to translate to healthcare, where the 'user' is the patient and the 'advertisers/publishers' the shareholders. Profit's definitely not evil, but the continued actions of large companies that seem to not give a f**k about the general public and their involvement in the world don't exactly fill people with confidence that they're safe to trust to act in an ethical way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Meh, we can all just believe what we want to and rant about it all day, but all I'm doing is countering thoughts that are centred around PROFITS ARE BAD and instead trying to say, no, PEOPLE ARE BAD. It doesn't matter who they're paid by - if you get the wrong people running something, whether public or privately funded, it will fail. The argument shouldn't be about whether the NHS should be privately funded or not, and more about improving the godawful way it's run - from red tape up to fat cats. End point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Meh, we can all just believe what we want to and rant about it all day, but all I'm doing is countering thoughts that are centred around PROFITS ARE BAD and instead trying to say, no, PEOPLE ARE BAD. It doesn't matter who they're paid by - if you get the wrong people running something, whether public or privately funded, it will fail. The argument shouldn't be about whether the NHS should be privately funded or not, and more about improving the godawful way it's run - from red tape up to fat cats. End point. Funnily, I was thinking about this last night, even made a graph.. Seems about right, with most people in the middle, could be applied to the NHS, classrooms, countries ect.. or could be wrong haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Studies show that the NHS is one of the world's best health services. It'll never be perfect because that's the nature of large infrastructures. As it stands, it offers one of the best services and to everyone. Asking the question about whether it should be privately or nationally run is valid. Each, as we are saying, will have a different impact on the NHS (consider the railways). That's inescapable. I agree it needs to be framed within a broader questioning of how else to improve it but big business having a privatised role is only going to be damaging given its robotic like orientation toward profit. There are exceptions but they are in the minority enough to mean the likelihood of their involvement is slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 I knew I shouldn't have got involved in this. With all due respect, I put action into my belief of 'do right, profit, feel good' every single day to become the capitalist pig I will know doubt end up. Wanna do something about an issue? Oh, I know, let's have a debate. f**k that shit, debating is part of what messed 'everything' up in the first place, because it gets in the way of action. What are you doing to get some sort of action out of this belief that the health service of this country will be screwed by privatisation? I'm not sure that recycling the views that others have written really counts... What petitions, at the very least, have you started? If not, which are you backing? Assuming you think petitions are as useless as I do*, what better action have you yourself got planned to do your bit? What can I do, once convinced*, to help your cause rather than just nod and agree and read Guardian articles with you on the tour while we discuss just how right we were and how everything's f**ked because no-one did anything? You know I love our debates, but I don't seem to be able to get my point across in this one coherently (a failing on my part, not the people reading), so I'll just sit out until I have something more worthwhile to say *hypothetical situation, and unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) One other thing. What I'm arguing isn't just belief, although that no doubt plays a role in every interpretation of events within the world, but is also about evidence and good reasoning. We live in the world where the personal and systematic (big business) desire for profit subjugates other more important considerations. That's illustrated in the basic example of tax avoidance such as with Vodafone owing tens of billions to the UK whilst in a recession and resultant austerity measures. The notion that competition creates efficiency is a myth that oversimplifies the nature of capitalism assuming it operates in some idealistic vacuum absent of corruption and the like. Your post just appeared as I finished the above paragraph. I don't think you like the fact your ideals may be being challenged but meh. I don't want to fall out about disagreeing. Expanding a debate is essential. It stimulates thought about a subject that hopefully increases possible understanding. It's the foundation for furthering a cause. It opens up people to petitions, protesting, etc. It's certainly better than doing nothing. And just because the consequences aren't all that tangible to you doesn't mean it's not having an effect. Furthermore, I'd rather do something that you consider futile than nothing at all. I've signed petitions - there's no need for me to start one given there's already plenty in circulation. I'm willing to protest if the opportunity arises. I've attended several protests over the last couple of years. It's difficult, frustrating and it often feels like you're not getting anywhere but giving a f**k and making some effort, no matter how small, is worthwhile for your sanity and well being. Also, what does it matter if I'm repeating the reasoned and evidenced arguments of others? So what? I've heard you do exactly the same, expounding certain notions or myths about this or that. That's the nature of existing as a social entity whose understanding of the world it massively dependent on their interaction with other social entities. If I reduced my understanding of the world to only my direct experience I would be f**ked given the fact of reality. Basically the main problem is our apathy, complacency and ignorance. Removing ignorance can affect the quality of apathy and complacency and vice versa. Whether you like it or not you've just absorbed some ideas that over time may change you way of thinking. Would an admin be kind enough to ban me for a week? I seriously need to get on with my studies which is why I said I won't be debating but obviously that was denial Edited August 1, 2012 by Ben Rowlands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Nichols Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 All I know is that back home there is no NHS, all healthcare is privatised and the level of care is significantly better than the NHS. I know it's pretty dick for poor people, but then, if you're on income support and stuff the local government covers your fees anyway, same as if your a child, elderly or mentally handicapped. All it means is people actually take the initiative to secure decent health insurance. The other thing that happens is that people don't pull sickies all the time 'cause they have to pay for seeing the doctor to get a doctors note. Which is a bonus. When I knackered my ankle over here I went to the NHS and they didn't even strap it, just told me it was a sprain and I should start weight bearing as soon as possible to speed the healing, I had to actually ask several times before they would give me crutches. When I went home I PAID to go see a doctor, who referred me to a specialist, who in turn was horrified at the NHS's approach to my f**ked ankle. I've got it sorted now, but the NHS set me back quite a few months. I'd rather pay for a good quality service than receive a shitty below par one for free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Aren't there only about 4 people who live on Guernsey though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Nichols Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 4.7993405495. Log10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted August 1, 2012 Report Share Posted August 1, 2012 Geek. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 That last bit is absolutely f**king retarded JT... Just because a private company exists in the private sector far from means that it is only there to make profit. I think you're all confusing retail with the rest of the economic market. Many businesses exist to do right, which almost inadvertently makes them deceits profits as well. A company that doesn't have profits as their number one priority won't be a company for very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 I haven't got time to give you a business studies lesson, so let's just agree that I'm right. If you're extremely motivated to prove your ridiculous point then go do some research and come back to me, but I suggest that comes in a pm so I don't have to embarrass you publicly. That's the most like Jardo I ever want to sound. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 Extremely accessible summary describing the changes and the severity of the changes that are happening to the NHS here. I'm sorry Sam but, as America shows, the poor won't be supported in the way you are assuming. And it won't just be the poorest who are effected it'll also be the people that require expensive health care for chronic or severe problems. Universal care is an example of human virtue whereby everyone is supported regardless of their standing and we're allowing it to be consumed by the vice of greed, ignorance and apathy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 I haven't got time to give you a business studies lesson, so let's just agree that I'm right. If you're extremely motivated to prove your ridiculous point then go do some research and come back to me, but I suggest that comes in a pm so I don't have to embarrass you publicly. That's the most like Jardo I ever want to sound. I've lived under both systems so I'm gonna say I'm right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) Changing what you're saying doesn't make you right. Your most recent statement which elicited that response was something along the lines of 'Any company that doesn't have profit as it's number one goal won't be a company for long' and mentioned nothing about either system. Thus I point you, lazily, to a wikipedia article because, again, I can't be arsed to actually write you an essay you wouldn't understand anyway: Non-Profit Organisations specifically the heading 'Formation and Structure' EDIT: Sorry for biting to the off topic-ness Ben - I won't next time honest! Edited August 7, 2012 by JD™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 My company has been none profit for the last 2 years, yet I still keep it going. Makes me look cool. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 EDIT: Sorry for biting to the off topic-ness Ben - I won't next time honest! I think what you're debating is pertinent. The trouble is that regardless of the existence of NPOs they won't necessarily take a role or, at best, a significant role in the running of our health care system. Given the amount of ties/financial interests the various members of Parliament and the House of Lords have with the various businesses that are likely to benefit from the privatization I suspect that those which are profit based will end up winning bids to run the 'NHS'. Unfortunately I've lost the link that shows just how vested the politicians interests are but it was an extremely long list... Just how corrupt the government is can be seen by Michael Portillo openly admitting that the Conservative government knew they couldn't win the election if they were honest about dismantling the NHS so they essentially lied and promised to protect it. Furthermore they pushed the HSC bill through as much outside of the public purview as they could manage whilst making the bill as confusing as possible to hide their real intent. A clear failing of democracy in many senses. I'll be honest that I just don't understand why everyone isn't reacting with both fear and anger. This could effect anyone of you or someone you love in a very serious and even life threatening way. People are stealing your safety net to get a bit richer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 I kind of gave up on thinking about the NHS side of it and was merely going off topic about companies and the statements made about them. With the health service side I decided I can either care - which would lead to being scared and not being able to do anything about it - or just accept that it's going to happen and that it's pretty far fetched that we'll end up with a health service that lets people die for profits. I admire your ability to care about this, but I don't honestly see how it does you or anyone else any good. You'll still have to deal with it like the rest of us, after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 That's a pretty submissive and apathetic attitude to be honest. The fact is that if people weren't like that and became informed we could organise against it. The fact also is that people can be other than that and that's why I am motivated because there's great potential. To be otherwise is one of the most important things we can do as human beings; failure is just insanity because it ignores fundamental drives and needs as a human being. Ultimately people will only regret being otherwise when they realise how badly they or those they love (children and children's children in particular) are harmed by being so submissive. It's not just a simple choice of being bothered or not. It's a choice between what's right as a human being and what's wrong.And you can achieve things. The political realm is a constant struggle. If people didn't act against the vices of a greedy and hateful minority of elites we would already be in a far worse situation. There's always been a constant battle. Thus we developed an NHS in the first place against vested interests. It's just people tend to be ignorant or can't be bothered to think that every egalitarian social system we have has been fought for by people caring and acting in some sense. Complacency will only f**k you in the end because it ignores the reality of where everything good has come from and how easily that good can be lost.This is also just a stepping stone to other far worse predicaments within our society. The quality of each area of society and infrastructure has the power to effect other areas in a holistic feedback. And every time those who don't care about us win then they generate momentum to keep going. I don't think you entirely appreciate what's happening and what's possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted August 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 Obviously, I hope our strong difference of opinion and my being blunt doesn't affect our relationship, JD I will speak strongly but there's no real animosity albeit some frustration Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) I probably don't, but nothing is really showing me otherwise, just a lot of words that everyone who thinks action should be taken but isn't taking any could write. I re-iterate: I find it extremely far fetched that you can believe that we'll end up with a health service that lets people die for profits. I believe we'll end up with a far more efficient health service, after a period of unrest and adaptation. Unusually for us ( ) I don't reckon we're going to find a middle ground, it's more likely that we'll just have to wait and see... EDIT: Nah of course not, I like reading what you write, regardless of whether I can naturally agree with it or not. Such is the beauty of this humanity lark Edited August 7, 2012 by JD™ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 It doesn't have to necessarily be dying for it to be relevant though, does it? I think that's why people are specifically talking about chronic/long-term illnesses - they don't have to be terminal/fatal, but they're still going to cost a lot. There have already been big news stories about the NHS turning down certain cancer treatments because they were too expensive - the NHS is more accountable for things like that than a private company would be, so if those decisions have to be made by the NHS knowing that their decision is going to be made public if they say no, then without that potential media exposure there's not much to stop private companies just not opting to offer more expensive treatments. I think it's better people are talking about it rather than not talking about it - the media seem to have suppressed any information about it for some reason, so spreading the word via social networking is better than just having something fairly huge like this just slipping by without any notice. I think it's bullshit but I don't really know of a solution to it. I saw Ben posted it on FB, and I shared it through my FB page. Since then, I've seen people share it through Ben and a few have through me. If each person who shares it has someone else pass it on, then that's going to increase awareness of it and potentially highlight the issue to people who might be more capable of thinking of a plan of action. That's better than nothing, even if it's "just talking about it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD™ Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 The people capable of thinking of a plan of action already know - clearly that'd be the first port of call... The best plan of action they have is to get people talking about it, because it's the only plan of action and it's also doomed to fail. Obviously death was an example. What happens these days when a company severely f**ks up though? They get sued, they get negative media attention, they lose profits. I am finding it incredibly difficult to see how anyone thinks that this could go tits up. A company runs a health service, it's expected to do a good job, it doesn't so it's sued for compensation and people in the organisation are held accountable for their actions. The business evolves to create a better service because it's a mother f**king health service and there'll be uproar about anything other than top service. There's no point in arguing that the NHS is accountable in the same way, because people are used to its piss poor service and still paying out of the arse for it. There will, of course, be a period of transition as I've already mentioned. I feel sorry for the people who will suffer during that period of transition but since when has progress come without cost? Just don't get ill for the next few years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.