"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:14:14 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:




That is the trouble with public services being run as a profit making,
dividend paying company, there will always be a conflict between what
should
be done and what is done - just as with any true private company, but in
those companies the customers have *real* choice, not just imaginary
choice.

No, youi've missed the point. Competition introduces choice for the
consumer and

Not it does not, if I buy water off company 'A' but my area is within that
of company 'B' then all I'm doing is paying A to pay B, if B's service is
****e then I'm stuck with it - I can't get water directly from company A.
What's more I'm presumably paying less (indirectly) to company B, that will
reduce their income that is needed to maintain the service. Company B can't
refuse to deal with company A either, and have to supply (on paper) water at
a rate that allows A to make money.

the profit motive and reward for shareholders mean that
the service offering has to be run to the satisfaction of the
customers. If there is poor service, they buy elsewhere.

See above, they only buy it on paper, the product or service still comes
from the company supplying / distributing it. Gas is a case in point, so is
water (both supply and waste), electricity is another. How many people buy
their calls through a tecom's 'provider' but still use the BT network ?

This is a
far more effective way of delivering services than having an
incompetent state megalith operating them.

The are many incompetent private companies out there to, many think BT and
Transco are just two of them, but you seem to think that (because they have
been privatised) they are the best things since sliced bread....


You also have the opportunity of being an investor in any of the
private service providers who are publicly quoted.


Ah, now we get to the real issues for you, your wish to make money.




I have no problem in what level service is given by the ISP, there is
genuine choice available, but I do have a problem with the delivery
system
were many have no choice what so ever - you either use BT wires or you
don't
use the service who ever the ISP (or phone) supplier is.

That situation is changing with local loop unbundling. BT will
still provide the wires but the user's contract will be with the ISP
and not as it is today with two contracts.


So, at the end of the day BT will still be the real provider, all you will
be doing is paying someone to pay BT whilst taking a cut of your money...!
Look at broadband, most are buying it from an ISP, they then buy it from BT,
something goes wrong, you complain to your ISP but they can't do anything
about it until BT does.




and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

He seems wants it like the USA, were those with money have the best care,
those below poverty get charity and those who are neither fail into a
void -
and there are plenty in that last group, there health often getting worse
until they are either in poverty or have to be registered as disabled and
thus get Medicare.

I haven't said that at all, so please don't put words in my mouth.

That is what you want though, what other meaning could there be, you want
people to have to have private medical insurance - hence the vouchers. Or
are you suggesting that people pay their own medical bills with these
vouchers ?!

What I actually said was that the government should provide everybody
with a financial means to purchase healthcare to at least the current
level. Inevitably this means that higher income earners will pay
more into the central tax fund to support it than lower income
earners. This is quite different to the US where government
delivered support is effectively means or disability tested.

So all you are suggesting is to add another layer of government to hand out
these vouchers, just like the NHS 'internal market' has increased the layers
of non medical staff and accountants in the system, which in turn has
increased the basic cost of running the service before anything gets spent
on the front line medical service.



My two arguments are a) that the government should not be in the
service *delivery* business - i.e. should not be in the hospital
business; and b) that those wishing to take their healthcare
entitlement and add to it via money or insurance can do so (today the
state piece is lost) and without tax and NIC penalty on top as it is
today.

That is all quite different to the US arrangement.

No it is not quite differant, you still want to make money out of others ill
health.




I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

But in the 'service' sector such as water, energy and to a great extent
telecoms there is no real choice, only who you pay the bill to - that is
not
genuine choice.

THere are many pieces to a utility business. If one can put
competition into some of the parts it is infinitely better than
operating it under state control.

No it is not, all it does is provide a cash cow for some and a more
expensive product for the rest, unless you have some form of state control,
direct or indirect (such as Ofwat).





With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

I have no problem with dividends or bonus payments, but only after the
system is working 110 percent, until then those in charge have failed
there
prime duty (and anyone who argues that dividends / bonuses are the prime
function of a [public] service company shows their true colours IMO).

It seems that you don't understand the dynamics of a private sector
service business.

Yes I do, people lining their own pockets whilst the customer suffers from
appalling service at an inflated price ! Well it would be if the directors
and share holder could get away with it, hence the need to have state
control of these private [public] services via Ofwat etc...

If there is a profit element as one piece of it,
the business is driven to achieve that. Ultimately the way that that
happens is giving good service so that people come again and recommend
to their friends. These elements are missing from a state run
operation where there are only service targets and no competition.
There is no incentive to perform or improve.


In a non essential, non monopoly service sector you are quite correct, but
we are talking about services that all have to use and have no real choice
about who they can buy from.