greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 7:04pm:



I'm sure he enjoys his baked beans on toast.

Anytime someone is asked to provide care for profit, the care suffers.

Just ask some of the privatised homes for homeless kids how much care they offer

John Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 7:19pm:


You may take two sugar-coated jelly beans as well... good comment.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 7:22pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 7:34pm:



As Greg has mentioned several times, his father passed away last month.

At least pretend to have a little civility you idiot.

John Smith wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 7:19pm:


This is a fundamental flaw with the notion of privatisation.

"The public sector can do it better" is rarely true, especially if your priority is the service they deliver.

They prioritise profits, and that comes at the cost of service.

But we have these people who support change and want better outcome for those in aged care, but they're unwilling, just like the whole big pharma conspiracy, to support the action that is needed to actually resolve it and instead lay the blame at the feet of the wrong people, that just happens to align with their political ideology.

But at least they're concerned about aged care.

It's a start I suppose. At least they're on the right side of the issue even if they're angry at the wrong people and calling for wrong fix.

Will be interesting to see if they return to the thread or not.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 7:04pm:


That's cheap!

Those figures just don't exist in Sydney.

A real cheap style facility is around $750 grand plus.

The one we were looking at was $1.2 million. Why?

1. It was beautifully presented

2. More importantly the staff to patient ratios were decent. <--- In fact that's where the real cost was.

Mum passed so that sorted that out.

Edit : The $$$ that's required is absolutely ungodly IMO. Don't forget that these aged care facilities also  grab their patient's Centrelink benefits too.

Lisa Jones wrote on Apr 1^st, 2022 at 10:00pm:


Not so - the actual proportion of 'talent' to production costs on a movie is very small... it isn't the coal face staff that costs - it is the overheads in overpaid infrastructure - 'ceo' and senior management and over-inflated supervisors who do Pharkall for their money.

I once worked with a company that had (count them) sixty 'management' staff to 120 coal face workers without having to even provide transport and meals etc ....... how would an Infantry company go like that?

The company died - the 'national manager' went on to do a degree in 'logistics' then to form his own company that lasted all of two years... his wildest imaginations of B Doubles traversing the national highways bearing his logo went to dust..... along with every poor arsehole who ever worked under his piss poor management.

Let's face it - gate guard Corporals in the RAAF do not make good managers.... we had ex Army, Navy and Air Force officers working there..... some Veterans - NONE got a chance to actually run the operation..... all were driven out or left to suit this clown's ego.

He harmed many good people.....