
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:01, Reply)

and then picked up by a van at the coach station nearest the destination hospital.
Each one, if I recall correctly, costs £25 to transport.
So the issues of cutting corners and profit are already in the equation, as "company with orange and white liveried vehicles" has found the cheapest and nastiest way to transport them while making a profit, and the sender is paying out quite a lot for the "service".
EDIT:Actually, I think the £25 was just for a van to run between local hospitals, I forget about national rates.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:12, Reply)

I spent a few years back in the nineties as a courier, and seemed to spend much of my day delivering blood to and from the Middlesex hospital and the UCH, which was basically hammering it down Charlotte Street. They use ambulances for actual organs
But signed mate :)
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:51, Reply)

( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:04, Reply)

Having seen a parent die at a young age, I could give a damn about who profits from helping someone to heal.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:11, Reply)

tendered out to the lowest bidder where cutting corners could lead to bigger mistakes being made.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:15, Reply)

I mean, the car I drive was made by someone who has made huge profits, but I don't hold it against them.
If the rules of government contracting call for lowest bidder, then perhaps the rules should be changed.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:19, Reply)

or our energy providers. Not a pretty picture...
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:26, Reply)

Yeah, you can't really have a competitive rail network when you have a fixed number of rails (unlike the airline industry for example). You just end up of different companies running different parts of the network which isn't ideal. In fairness though, the network is actually better run now than it used to be and you could argue you'd still be running slam-door victorian trains if the government was doing it. And a lot of our energy is imported so that sucks.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:58, Reply)

So if that is, say, 20% profit the directors want to take or the shareholders and/or other market forces make them take, either the service costs 20% more or all employees (except directors, of course) are employed at 20% less, or 20% less is spent on goods... etc. It really is that simple.
And when it is public money being spent on paying for the service, it is a) a cash cow and b) a massive waste.
Everyone has this image of small companies competing to offer better services by being more efficient. You've got to work out what "efficient" actually means for the people doing the actual work. And if you're privatising a single company, you are creating a monopoly which basically answers to no one, can treat its staff and suppliers like shit and clear up in any market, all the while getting more and more expensive to run.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:33, Reply)

The argument against having the government do it is removing it from the political process, removing waste and graft and encouraging innovation that government work does not encourage. In other words, if I can imagine a way to get the same task done for 1/3 the cost that the government does, the taxpayers come out ahead if you pay me only 2/3 of the government amount.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 23:10, Reply)

But yeah, those are the ideals trotted out to justify a privitisation every time...but how often does the govt end up paying 2/3 of what it did for the service?
Our trains are a case worth noting. When they were public, they cost, iirc, 2Bil/year. 10 years after privitisation, they cost 5Bil. That is 5Bil subsidy. Inflation should put it at 3Bil, and the fairs have increased ahead of inflation, too.
But is the service better? I was offered more "choice". Yes, I have a lot more "choice" now - extremely confusing fairs and massive penalties for the wrong one, and all the train cos fighting about who's fault any particular problem is, and a collapsed Railtrack which had to be run publically again (No directors or shareholders out of pocket, mind) but they are thinking of again selling off.
Imagine if running that service well was life-or-death?
( , Tue 17 Jul 2012, 7:40, Reply)

that 20% "profit" the "subsidy" the public is paying for is, essentially, paying for the stockmarket. We are subsidising our own stockmarket. This is surely not "capitalist". And they have the gall to make the argument about "ideals"...
( , Tue 17 Jul 2012, 8:18, Reply)

But with this sort of thing bureaucracy is king and ruins it.
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 23:07, Reply)

will forward to peeps at work tomorrow.
They want to close our A&E department too :(
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:14, Reply)

I don't think the privatisation of NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) is at stake here?
( , Mon 16 Jul 2012, 22:29, Reply)

Even after signing, it still said on 420 ppl signed it. Do i no longer count as I live up north?
( , Wed 18 Jul 2012, 17:02, Reply)