4 ms·

Approaching zero. It wasn't paperwork holding things back, but people who knew there was no problem with poor performance. The contractors knew it and would mil

Approaching zero. It wasn't paperwork holding things back, but people who knew there was no problem with poor performance. The contractors knew it and would milk it as long as they could, and the permanent staff treat it like a sacred way of life. Trying to get them to work quicker through good practice was impossible. Sorry, but that's the way it was.

lumberjack 10y ago
I'd rather get health care from employees who are a bit too comfortable on the job that health care from management that treats me as a cost item of their profit making entity. At least the lazy employees of the public health care system will not rush me out of hospital hours after a major surgical procedure as some other private health care systems do. Now of course you might disagree but that's more of a matter of opinion than some objective fact.
- Osiris 10y ago
  I currently have Kaiser insurance. As an HMO, they integrate a lot of services, which has really helped save a lot of time for us (like using email to talk to a doctor, who calls the specialist, then replies, without making a visit). However... when we do go in for a visit, I get the distinct feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep appointments within a specific time interval and basically get patients in and out as fast as possible. Overall though, the integration of doctors, specialist, labs, and hospitals does create a smoother and less stressful experience.
kincardine 10y ago
> The contractors knew it and would milk it as long as they could That would be one of those inefficiencies introduced by part-privatization... So it's hard to believe it's approaching zero. Not to mention that you have no real basis for making that statement from personal experience alone...
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  No it isn't. Contractors milking their customers isn't an inefficient introduced by privatisation: as brightshiny pointed out, the entirely state employed people were even worse. Contractors milking their clients is something that competent buyers are supposed to prevent, but NHS procurement is a disaster-zone, as is commonly the case in the public sector. Just look up the different prices paid for basics like rubber gloves.
  - kincardine 10y ago
    Contractors milking their customers is an inefficiency introduced by privatization, because without privatization it doesn't happen... How state employees behave or the competency of the buyer is irrelevant. Saying that the inefficiencies due to privatization are "approaching zero" is a bit disingenuous.
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      Just replacing contractors with employees just means it's the employees milking the NHS instead, but now with the downside that they're unionised and hard to switch to an alternate provider.

lumberjack 10y ago

I'd rather get health care from employees who are a bit too comfortable on the job that health care from management that treats me as a cost item of their profit making entity. At least the lazy employees of the public health care system will not rush me out of hospital hours after a major surgical procedure as some other private health care systems do. Now of course you might disagree but that's more of a matter of opinion than some objective fact.

Osiris 10y ago
I currently have Kaiser insurance. As an HMO, they integrate a lot of services, which has really helped save a lot of time for us (like using email to talk to a doctor, who calls the specialist, then replies, without making a visit). However... when we do go in for a visit, I get the distinct feeling that there is a lot of pressure to keep appointments within a specific time interval and basically get patients in and out as fast as possible. Overall though, the integration of doctors, specialist, labs, and hospitals does create a smoother and less stressful experience.

kincardine 10y ago

> The contractors knew it and would milk it as long as they could That would be one of those inefficiencies introduced by part-privatization... So it's hard to believe it's approaching zero. Not to mention that you have no real basis for making that statement from personal experience alone...

zigzigzag 10y ago
No it isn't. Contractors milking their customers isn't an inefficient introduced by privatisation: as brightshiny pointed out, the entirely state employed people were even worse. Contractors milking their clients is something that competent buyers are supposed to prevent, but NHS procurement is a disaster-zone, as is commonly the case in the public sector. Just look up the different prices paid for basics like rubber gloves.
- kincardine 10y ago
  Contractors milking their customers is an inefficiency introduced by privatization, because without privatization it doesn't happen... How state employees behave or the competency of the buyer is irrelevant. Saying that the inefficiencies due to privatization are "approaching zero" is a bit disingenuous.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Just replacing contractors with employees just means it's the employees milking the NHS instead, but now with the downside that they're unionised and hard to switch to an alternate provider.