Yes. The private sector say they are more efficient and professional and that anyone in the public sector is incompetent. They all come from the same training schools, paid for by our taxpayers.
My parents live in America, and have done for 27 years. My father is American. We go there a great deal.
I've never met an American who was envious of the NHS. They all regard socialised medicine with horror.
Sorry, but would you care to name a 'new station' or line, apart from those involved with the CTRL's...
Time tables are either the same or have been cut back, other than on lines that have had recent (state) investment. A fact of the signalling systems, you can't increase line capacity if the signalling system won't allow it - that is why lines are re-signalled, and why the WCML is having to be re-signalled to allow the new high speed Virgin trains to run at their maximum speed.
and staff with some understanding that keeping their
But incompetence at higher levels are even worse, in BR times trains were held so that connections were kept, now a train could run empty because otherwise someone is fined - what's the point of running an empty train on time and leaving 'customers' stranded ? Yes it's the extreme end of the argument but so is yours.
Just because it's still in state ownership or because the service costs more to run ?
It's you who doesn't understand.
In effect they are.
But sold with BT and then maintained by the private BT.
And what has that got to do with the price of fish !
But they are BT cables that BT might wish to use, what they do with THEIR property is their frecking business. It's like someone say that because you have a spare bedroom in your house you should let some squatter use it, just because you don't have a use for it ATM - once in you won't be able to get them out...
There are some. From all that I have read and heard, not "many".
Unfortunately I don't live in utopia and the world is very real indeed. It could certainly be improved by not having socialised medicine.
??? There is quite a spread in prices for equivalent cover, IME.
There is Medicaid and Medicare. Remember also that they are not shelling out tax into a socialised medical service either.
With having discretionary income comes responsibility. If people spend their money on other things and don't allocate some for healthcare then that's unfortunate. This is why I suggested a voucher system where money is collected according to ability to pay and given out to be spent only on healthcare.
Actually, yes I do - economically disadvantaged, disabled and elderly people.
And how many Americans have you met ?...
Rubbish. Even Democrats didn't want an NHS equivalent.
He didn't do it because it was not what people wanted (and possibly because he was too busy with cigars).
Quite right too. The less government involvement that there is in a society, the better it works and the happier people are.
Not the observation of anybody that I have ever met there, and that is a range of socio-economic backgrounds and ages.
That's entirely reasonable. Other education is paid for from the public purse in full or in part and does not mean that people have to work for the government - thank goodness.
So what do you think goes wrong in the public sector that causes people to feel this?
I've met some very good individuals working in the public sector, but they tend to be lighthouses in a sea of grey - ultimately moving to the private sector.
I don't live in Utopia either, but the world could certainly be improved by not having selfish people like you ranting your extreme righ-wing poison in public...
Well their service is not the same, quite the opposite in fact, but the average car owner is to blind to notice when they are being taken up the garden path...
So, it still doesn't help if they fail between the being able to afford private care and qualifying for free care.
You really are without a clue, many people just about afford the cost of raising their family never mind all the extras, but if they bring in more than the (arbitrary) maximum income to qualify for the vouchers [1] then they are without health care.
[1] and a cut off income will be introduced, remember that when the NHS was formed dental and eye care were free to all, but to cut (tax payers) costs they were removed - the same will happen with any voucher system in time.
Dear Mrs Thatcher will be so please you took her speech about there being no such thing as society so sincerely....
Wage rates, charge more and you can pay more, cut the amount coming in (in this case tax) and you have to pay less. If the NHS had the funding it needed, by cutting top and middle management waste and a modest increase in tax rates, the front line staff could both have decent wages and a decent budget to use caring for the patients - Oops, sorry, 'customers' as they now have to be called.
In your opinion. As we have already determined, that is clouded by your preconceived ideas.
Well actually, I thought that th thread had finished until reopened today - not by me.....
What "cutting edge research"?
Now badly outdated.
As an occasional user of Southern region, I know that prior to privatisation it was appalling with some trains dating back to the thirties. At least now the trains have been replaced.
I am sufficiently aware of what has happened to know the difference between what is good and what is rubbish. Without both public and private funding it would probably not be running at all. The best solution is for government funding of infrastructure with management of that and of train operations in private control.
It was done to attract private investment as well as state funding. THe problems are largely due to continued government meddling.
The whole point of having entrepreneurial involvement is to attract the highly skilled from the private sector who wouldn't otherwise dream of going near a state run operation. Without profit, there is no return for shareholders, no investment and no attraction of the best managers.
... or go at a different time or don't go at all.
Actually no, just rather well organised.
Of course. The obvious thing to do is to stagger working hours, meetings and routes and encourage home working. There's no need to have a rush hour. Cramming people into inconvenient, smelly and dirty buses and trains is not the answer
Almost the only times that I tend to use public transport is the train for meetings in central London. I can easily avoid congestion issues by arranging times and routes and methods of travel to avoid them.
I think that you are thinking about utopia.
What possible benefit does a public transport arrangement have when it takes an hour each way to cover a journey that can be driven in 10-15 minutes?
You might have two hours a day to waste on this ideology, but I'm afraid that I don't. Apart from services into and out of major cities where it is faster to use a train, why would anybody expect that people would want to waste their time if they can go when they want to go, get there far more quickly and cheaply, carry goods and travel in comfort and privacy.?
People vote with their feet. Why do you think that bus services are being reduced and removed? They are wanted less and less.
That's your perception. If you had actually bothered to read what I said, which was that I thought that it was the right thing to do to
*fund* healthcare to the current level out of taxation, but remove the socialised *delivery*; then it is obvious that this is a middle ground position between what currently happens here and what happens in countries with less public provision. There is nothing selfish or right wing in it.As soon as people start using words like "extreme" and "poison", it indicates to me that they are of an extreme opposite position and are insecure.
Caveat emptor. THere are enough insurance brokers both bricks and mortar and on line that if people are overpaying it is nobody's fault bu their own.,
There are always minority corner cases in any system. There are here as well.
Are you completely dim? I have specifically said that the vouchers would NOT be related to income. Everybody would get them.
I disagree. The current system provides a basic level of inefficient care. My point has been about the *delivery* not the funding.
There is but not of the form that you imagine.
Amusing to note that you contradict yourself in the same paragraph. Who paid for the new trains? It sure as shit wasn't fatty two jags.
Several thousand more than you.
[17 lines snipped]
Ah, a typical socialist. If some holds views different to yours, off to the re-education camps with them, eh? Whilst hiding behind an anonymous posting address.
And if you think Andy's entirely reasonable views are "extreme righ-wing poison", I suggest you need to get out more. Preferably to the library.
You're starting to behave like IMM.............
Are they being asked to give LLU access to their competitors for no charge? No - didn't think so.
They will be paid for doing this by whoever uses is it.
This leaves the discussion as being what is the price for that.
Quite a bit. The space is available and an income could be derived from housing other equipment in it.
No it isn't at all. They are in a market dominant position and that means that in order for their to be competition to the benefit of the customer, other companies should be allowed to compete.
I suspect that it will end up with the regulator carving it up as was done with AT&T.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.