Privatisation: can anyone give me an example of where it's really worked well?

[WinkyWinkola]

I mean, the railways were privatised and the government still subsidises the railway companies so they can pay their shareholders their dividends. Consumers however pay soaring fares and suffer poor quality service.

The water companies were privatised and they make enormous profits without investing in infrastructure.

The hospitals outsource their cleaning staff and the incidences of disease rises and the standards of cleanliness decline.

There never seems to be state of true capitalist competition in these areas anyway.

I just don't see how privatisation benefits any one really. One cannot be proud of poor standards and a big profit, surely?

The Bae workforce would probably disagree with the term successful privatisation. Unless huge redundancies, lost contracts, SFO inevstigations and an operating loss in 4 of the last 10 years are good things.

Chippy - I said I wasn't comparing our NHS with that of the developing world. (The article doesn't either).

Can't work out if your post is deeply ironic (in that case ) or just ill informed in that case .

Claig .

I agree that BT is an example of a good privatisation - mainly because technology change and regulation also meant that it went from being a natural monopoly to a player in a competative market. That is not true for example for the railways.

jack, in terms of that article, I'm simply querying how 'better care' is measured.

For example, how do their cancer outcomes measure up.

Why does the average family visit every two weeks? That would seems excessive to me. I suppose the healthcare providers get paid for every visit, which might explain it

Wubbly - I guess the point of the article (for me anyway) is it illustrates the value of choice and accountability in improving service levels.

It is not suggesting that people in the developing world get better healthcare than we do.

Himalya - I agree, it was the competition (or sometimes just the threat of it) which led to the improvement in BT.

The dramatic technology developments also meant the organisation had to cope with constant changes and some global threats.

Possibly a similar story with BA.

Given what past privatisations show us then, is there really a case fori more? I can't see why it has to be either or.

I'm not sure I can see how choice would work under the proposed reforms.

As I've said before, when you're in the back of an ambulance requiring emergency care, how are you supposed to evaluate the health care providers available?

Furthermore, how does the ambulance decide which hospital to take you to? Will they be privatised too? Linked to particular hospitals even? Will they be paid per patient delivered?

When it comes to routine testing, how will choice work?

If you're suspected of having cancer, will you get to choose to have all of your tests/scans done in one location, as you can now? Or will GP's be scouring the market place looking for the best deal for each individual test in order to stretch their budgets? If that's the case, won't GP's (or someone employed by them)be spending a whole lot of that budget on comparing costs and services and the patient won't have anymore choice at all?