-
Can you source that (cheap)?
No. But just to be clear I mean in the short term. Logically paying on a per-use basis (for want of a better phrase) has to be cheaper in the short term than borrowing tonnes of money, paying interest, working out how to use the money, then commencing a program of massive systemic investment that goes all the way down to educating young people. It's like taking an uber for a trip vs buying a car and driving yourself.
To me "only being accountable to shareholders" can be read two ways. Which is why I asked.
a) repetition of the statement of fact that a companies first duty is to the shareholders. Therefore, share price and paying dividends are likely to be a high priority, as opposed to helping people*.
b) there is planned to be some other special carve-outs for private health providers that makes them not subject to the same levels of regulation / rules / laws / etc. that NHS Trusts are. That is obviously very different and would be of serious concern.
*or hitting semi-arbitrary politically dictated targets and lubricating the management consultant gravy-train, depending on your level of cynicism.
You are reading a single comment by @hugo7 and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
hugo7
Can you source that (cheap)? My understanding of the whole point of these contracts is that they are eye-wateringly expensive which is why they appeal to private companies.
I think the point about only being accountable to shareholders is exactly what it sounds like, its the only thing a private company is obliged to do, and is often done at the expense of customers (c.f., the railways, thames water etc etc etc)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516 (one thing about thames water)