What do you people do for a living?
Comments
-
CraigXXL wrote:Public sector services are some of the least effiecient you'll ever come across
Not necessarilyin England the government spends around $3,200 per capita on healthcare and covers the entire population whereas in the US the federal government spends around $3,700 per capita and yet covers less than a third of the population0 -
We live in an enviroment of administration though created by legislation and requirement of information on demand. Most industries now are automated and highly efficient requiring less tradesmen and skilled workers but the requirement to administer accounts, record keeping to further improve the business is much more in demand.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:
I agree with that completely.CraigXXL wrote:I count everyone' job as important so long as they are contributing rather than just clocking in and out if they aren't then sack them and create a position for someone who does want to work.
I just feel that we have too much administrative people, and not enough people actually working.
In the public sector? Or in general? (Genuinely interested)0 -
bails87 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Public sector services are some of the least effiecient you'll ever come across
Not necessarilyin England the government spends around $3,200 per capita on healthcare and covers the entire population whereas in the US the federal government spends around $3,700 per capita and yet covers less than a third of the population
Bad comparison since their healthcare system is mainly private and hence for profit against our which isn't.0 -
In general, Bails.
And in answer to CraigXXL, I don't mean just in manufacture, I mean in all kinds of roles.
There seems to be far too much middle management interfering with HOW people do their jobs, rather than letting the people who DO their jobs just get on with it.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:In general, Bails.
And in answer to CraigXXL, I don't mean just in manufacture, I mean in all kinds of roles.
There seems to be far too much middle management interfering with HOW people do their jobs, rather than letting the people who DO their jobs just get on with it.
Sorry its getting late and my heads stopped working..do you mean say there are 2 people doing each job i.e one doing the job and the other one making sure there doing it correctly? as opposed to those two people doing two worthwhile jobs?0 -
bails87 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Public sector services are some of the least effiecient you'll ever come across
Not necessarilyin England the government spends around $3,200 per capita on healthcare and covers the entire population whereas in the US the federal government spends around $3,700 per capita and yet covers less than a third of the population
And the spending on Healthcare in Scotland is even higher.0 -
Essentially, yes. Although I wouldnt use those numbers, that's the gist of the way i see the world, yeah.Mynameisdann wrote:Sorry its getting late and my heads stopped working..do you mean say there are 2 people doing each job i.e one doing the job and the other one making sure there doing it correctly? as opposed to those two people doing two worthwhile jobs?
Of course, it's just my opinion, based of what I've seen. I could well be wrong.
(This forum quite often having a great concentration of super-dense imbeciles requires me to add the above line - not aimed at you , "mynameisdann", just in general)0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
I agree with that completely.CraigXXL wrote:I count everyone' job as important so long as they are contributing rather than just clocking in and out if they aren't then sack them and create a position for someone who does want to work.
I just feel that we have too much administrative people, and not enough people actually working.
I don't believe in a welfare state that requires no return. Everyone who isn't employed should be given work in the public sector be it picking up litter or neighbourhood security to repay what the government/taxpayer is providing them. The only people who shouldn't have to give back are the old who have already contributed and the disabled (not the ones who pretend to be either).0 -
CraigXXL wrote:bails87 wrote:CraigXXL wrote:Public sector services are some of the least effiecient you'll ever come across
Not necessarilyin England the government spends around $3,200 per capita on healthcare and covers the entire population whereas in the US the federal government spends around $3,700 per capita and yet covers less than a third of the population
Bad comparison since their healthcare system is mainly private and hence for profit against our which isn't.
er, but you were saying that the public sector can be very inefficient. Surely in comparison to the private sector. That's a comparison of private vs public and shows the public provision is much more efficient.
If you're not comparing public sector with private sector in order to claim it's inefficient (which it may well be) then what are you saying its less efficient than?0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Oh come on now, That must surely be linked to the option to have any food deep-fried and batteredweescott wrote:And the spending on Healthcare in Scotland is even higher.
The scottish must be mad for batter! I've seen a batterd sirloin steak in a chippy in Edinburgh!0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Oh come on now, That must surely be linked to the option to have any food deep-fried and batteredweescott wrote:And the spending on Healthcare in Scotland is even higher.
I didn't think it was an option 0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Oh come on now, That must surely be linked to the option to have any food deep-fried and batteredweescott wrote:And the spending on Healthcare in Scotland is even higher.
Oi. I resemble that remark!0 -
weescott wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
Oh come on now, That must surely be linked to the option to have any food deep-fried and batteredweescott wrote:And the spending on Healthcare in Scotland is even higher.
Oi. I resemble that remark!
Do you mean resent? 0 -
:oops: no. 0
-
0
-
bails87 wrote:
er, but you were saying that the public sector can be very inefficient. Surely in comparison to the private sector. That's a comparison of private vs public and shows the public provision is much more efficient.
If you're not comparing public sector with private sector in order to claim it's inefficient (which it may well be) then what are you saying its less efficient than?
The US healthcare system makes money out of the government by charging more for it's services which is the reason why it costs them more per head. The NHS is government run, the individual trusts may charge each other but it's still the government that has given them a budget to work in. The calculations these have been worked on won't include the what the trusts exceeded their budget by either which would narrow the gap further.
Since we are talking about healthcare do you know that you can see a specialist quicker in the UK by going private and that same specialist is often same one you're waiting to see on the NHS. Now that is efficient
0 -
So private run services cost more than an equivalent public sector service?CraigXXL wrote:bails87 wrote:
er, but you were saying that the public sector can be very inefficient. Surely in comparison to the private sector. That's a comparison of private vs public and shows the public provision is much more efficient.
If you're not comparing public sector with private sector in order to claim it's inefficient (which it may well be) then what are you saying its less efficient than?
The US healthcare system makes money out of the government by charging more for it's services which is the reason why it costs them more per head.
Yeah, but that's not necessarily to do with the efficiency of the service, the private healthcare appt might cost 10x what the NHS one does. (It probably doesn't, but I don't have any figures, if it costs the same but outcomes are better then fair enough)Since we are talking about healthcare do you know that you can see a specialist quicker in the UK by going private and that same specialist is often same one you're waiting to see on the NHS. Now that is efficient0 -
The private is there to make profits, it's not doing the work at cost for the government. If you factored out their profits then it would be less.
How is it efficient to see the same specialist privatley when he/she is sacrificing time in the NHS to profit from private work. If he wasn't allowed to do private work during normal working time then they would be able to see NHS patients much quicker.0 -
What does the health care systems of the USA have to do with the employment demographic in Saltcoats? :?0
-
I kind of see what you're getting at. But still, the private service costs more for a similar service.CraigXXL wrote:The private is there to make profits, it's not doing the work at cost for the government. If you factored out their profits then it would be less.How is it efficient to see the same specialist privatley when he/she is sacrificing time in the NHS to profit from private work. If he wasn't allowed to do private work during normal working time then they would be able to see NHS patients much quicker.
I'm not saying that shows the NHS is efficient. I just think if you're looking at efficiency you need to look at outcomes and service delivery vs cost. If you do that then the UK (public) system is more efficient than the USA (private) model. We make people healthier for less money, that's more efficient.
A lot of that is because we focus on primary care (FAST campaign, eat 5-a-day, stop smoking, drink sensibly etc) and that reduces the costs of tertiary care, because people don't get as ill. However, that reduces 'business' (revenue/profit) for hospitals, which might be why the American system doesn't do it. It would be like Shell giving away solar powered cars so that people could get to work without having to buy petrol. But Shell's aim isn't to get people to work, their aim is to make money and they happen to do that by selling petrol, which people happen to use to get to work. Same with a private healthcare provider, their aim is to make money, not make people healthier.
IMO, the rights and wrongs of consultants' working hours is something completely different to the efficiency question.0 -
Bails87 wrote:Same with a private healthcare provider, their aim is to make money, not make people healthier.
There, you have the answer. US healthcare is a business i.e. it makes a profit. It charges the state cost plus profit. The NHS is a not for profit organisation.
The US System is far from perfect due the huge number of people who can't afford basic healthcare.
Please answer me this how can a public sector department be effective with much higher sickness rates when compared with same in the private sector?
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/05/14/45837/sickness-absence-rates-in-public-sector-outstrip-private-sector-by-55-in.html
I have worked in both sector and the difference is huge as is the culture of sickness with some seeing it as additional holidays. This isn't the same in the private sector as sickness benefits are at the employers discretion with many using SSP where as the public sector will normally pay up to 6 months at full salary before reducing pay.0 -
CraigXXL wrote:Please answer me this how can a public sector department be effective with much higher sickness rates when compared with same in the private sector?
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/05/14/45837/sickness-absence-rates-in-public-sector-outstrip-private-sector-by-55-in.html
I have worked in both sector and the difference is huge as is the culture of sickness with some seeing it as additional holidays. This isn't the same in the private sector as sickness benefits are at the employers discretion with many using SSP where as the public sector will normally pay up to 6 months at full salary before reducing pay.
easy. years of penny pinching, cuts, change in working practise moving from trained full time to casual temps who know nothing, add under staffing and therefore increased work loads for comparative peanuts - is why the sickness levels are through the roof, they've made the jobs fucking unbearable, if anyone bothered to ask the people on the ground trying to do the work.0 -
-
Right, so if there's a similar level of provision, but for much more money then it's less efficient. How can you not see that?CraigXXL wrote:Bails87 wrote:Same with a private healthcare provider, their aim is to make money, not make people healthier.
There, you have the answer. US healthcare is a business i.e. it makes a profit. It charges the state cost plus profit. The NHS is a not for profit organisation.
But it clearly is effective, because we live longer, are healthier AND pay less for our health service.The US System is far from perfect due the huge number of people who can't afford basic healthcare.
Please answer me this how can a public sector department be effective with much higher sickness rates when compared with same in the private sector?
.0 -
CraigXXL wrote:and how do you explain this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/public-sector-employment-rises-to-eightyear-high-588298.html
How do I explain that public sector employment is high?
Probably because more people have got jobs in the public sector. What's your point?0 -
edit0
-
CraigXXL wrote:and how do you explain this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/public-sector-employment-rises-to-eightyear-high-588298.html
that's a July 2003 article - don't make me laugh
and what happened following that expansion is exactly what i stated above0 -
Bails I'm banging my head against a brick wall with you. Could you please tell me how much PROFIT is included in the US figures then deduct that from the figures given. You are not comparing like for like figures.
If a doctor over here treated you, excluding overheads and the like, the cost would be his wages and any medicines paid by the taxpayer. The NHS doctor is public sector employed.
If the same doctor treated you in the US then he charge you same wage PLUS A PROFIT and any medicines PLUS A PROFIT paid by the insurance company. The US doctor works for himself or a company which is trying to make as money as possible to do this they will more efficient, buy drugs at less than they sell them are starting to see a theme here.0
