Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There argument is there still behind where they were in 2008. " Aren't we all? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There argument is there still behind where they were in 2008. Aren't we all?" Yes very true, but they want more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
They’ll have to plan any action carefully so they won’t lose public support . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour say there is no more money so I guess it could be back to strikes. . " £94.5 million just given to Syria £4.5bn given to Ukraine £5bn reprieve on pip £700bn reprieve on WFA What will the collective junior doctors pay cost? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"At the last round of industrial action and BMA negotiations it was said total cost of the junior doctor pay rises in England was estimated around £1 billion, net of employer contributions. This figure based on a pay restoration demand of a 35.3% uplift to address past pay cuts. The British Medical Association estimated the net cost to be approximately £1.03 billion, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) estimates the gross cost to be over £2 billion. How much more is being asked for now? " I believe they are demanding a 29% pay rise Clearly a pie in the sky figure that they know won’t be agreed to so they’ll settle for 15% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"junior is a bit like an apprenticeship and well paid once qualified and more importantly everyone forgets about their gold plated pension scheme!" I think it’s a sliding scale over 4 or 5 years but I’m not certain. I believe they earn £70k a year in the final year but again I’m going from memory. Can’t be arsed to Google it as no matter what the figures are the left will say it’s not enough. Some people seem to think everyone can be paid £100k a year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I said earlier I think the basic pay in the first year is about £18 an hour. No way would I do that job for that kind of money. A 29% increase would take them to about £23 an hour, still a pittance for such a demanding role but it would make a difficult transition period for doctors more manageable. One suggestion I'd make is to shift some money from higher pay grades down to the bottom. Give the resident doctors a pay rise now and freeze consultant pay rises for five years or something like that? " For balance the first year of my PhD we had cross discipline workshops in the first year, students from most faculties and included med students. At the time I was self funded as were many others / grad loans. I’m unsure how that fits into this debate, meds being paid to study, albeit £18 an hour. I would add medical grads are reported to have large student loans; £84k on average. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to right wingers, rich people threatening to withdraw capital from the country, pick up sticks and move to Dubai, if a wealth tax introduced all good. Some worker withdrawing their labour because they feel undervalued, how dare you. Your the reason this country is in a mess." Clap for carers was followed by the then government offering low pay rises. Although they did reinstate training bursaries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“I would add medical grads are reported to have large student loans; £84k on average” Sounds about right, and that’s just the start… my daughter is awaiting the results of her (very expensive, non-refundable) exam to register with the General Pharmaceutical Council, if successful she’ll obviously go on to better things. BUT, only after having obtained a MPharm degree and then working for 52 weeks pre-reg training in hospital and community pharmacies. Then comes annual membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, expensive training and more exams to become an independent “Designated Prescribing Practitioner”… and so it goes on. All this at the same time as paying back nearly a hundred grand in student loans (you don’t become a Doctor or Pharmacist in three years), eighteen quid an hour simply ISN’T enough!" this .... i think it unreasonable of certain people on this thread to expect a doctor to earn half as much as a plasterboard fixer or electricians mate or a decorator or a scaffolder etc etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is really interesting to watch information that has some truth in it but is not the overall picture, developing into a supported view as the full picture. " that's what i've thought from the things you've been posting on the topic for the last few years. small fragments of accuracy with large sections filled in by supposition and wild surmise, topped off by idealogical rhetoric along with and a very large dollop of the politics of envy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer has just brushed off a wealth tax saying we can’t tax our way out of growth. Where does that leave resident doctors pay and interest rates on their student loans. Not a good look from Labour " If Starmer is saying there won’t be a wealth tax then it’s almost certain that tomorrow Labour will introduce a wealth tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour say there is no more money so I guess it could be back to strikes. There argument is there still behind where they were in 2008. " It shouldn't be a problem. Labour said they are the ones to sort out strikes pre election by getting round the table and talking. No need to worry as it's only the Tories attitude that caused strikes in the past | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Labour say there is no more money so I guess it could be back to strikes. There argument is there still behind where they were in 2008. It shouldn't be a problem. Labour said they are the ones to sort out strikes pre election by getting round the table and talking. No need to worry as it's only the Tories attitude that caused strikes in the past" Don't think they have the cash this time with the back track on PIP and other reforms there in it jp to the neck. And legel aid bill has just gone up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BMA has already balloted "resident doctors" the vote closed yesterday. Turnout was 55%, and of those, 90% voted in favour of strike action. This outcome was entirely predictable. If you award 28% pay rises without securing a bilateral agreement to pause further disruption, especially while the service is still recovering from the last extended strike action, this is exactly what you get. Reeves, Starmer and Rayner knew how devious the BMA are and walked headlong into trouble...." Rayner gets it but not the actual health secretary. Interesting | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the reasoning from the right-wingers seems to be that these doctors are basically just apprentices who should be glad that they get paid a fiver more than someone on the checkout at Lidl. Yet they MUST turn up for work or people will DIE. " I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't...." Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. "Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking..." Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. " But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s." But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement " But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs." What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care?" The former is my vision of hell on earth, the latter has some merits if managed sensibly. The fact is, the NHS is a bloated bureaucratic dinosaur that needs breaking-up into smaller, more manageable units. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. " Pick a lane, either they’re undertrained or they’re indispensable, but you can’t have both. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s." So one obvious solution would be to shift some of the money from pensions contributions to resident doctor income in their first and second year. All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable for doctors to ask for a bit more than £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. OK some of them will have rich parents to support them but is this really how things should be? Thinking about it for a minute, perhaps only the upper middle classes can become doctors under the current system in the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. So one obvious solution would be to shift some of the money from pensions contributions to resident doctor income in their first and second year. All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable for doctors to ask for a bit more than £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. OK some of them will have rich parents to support them but is this really how things should be? Thinking about it for a minute, perhaps only the upper middle classes can become doctors under the current system in the UK." That's a sound suggestion - graduate pension contributions towards late career. That's what most people do anyway. Also, do we really want Doctors bailing out of the profession in their 50s when the rest of us are likely working to our 70s? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pick a lane, either they’re undertrained or they’re indispensable, but you can’t have both." Exactly my point. This is the nonsensical right-wing perspective being presented - that they are somehow both undertrained and indispenable. In reality they are both well trained and indispensible otherwise people wouldn't be so worried about the consequences of them not turning up to work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"[...]do we really want Doctors bailing out of the profession in their 50s when the rest of us are likely working to our 70s?" Probably yes. I worked in highly technical domains and my intellectual capabilities peaked in my early 30's. I more or less retired at 40 and now just dabble with things. I suspect it's the same with doctors. But these things vary. There may well be highly talented practitioners in their late 60's who still have the same capabilities as they had in their 40's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. Pick a lane, either they’re undertrained or they’re indispensable, but you can’t have both." What are you on about? Their now called resident doctors. You don't finish learning or end training once you leave Uni. It's a life long thing. Although for some they've outsourced it to the right wing press | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care? The former is my vision of hell on earth, the latter has some merits if managed sensibly. The fact is, the NHS is a bloated bureaucratic dinosaur that needs breaking-up into smaller, more manageable units." I understand that this is the vibe. I'm not sure I agree. Do you work in it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care? The former is my vision of hell on earth, the latter has some merits if managed sensibly. The fact is, the NHS is a bloated bureaucratic dinosaur that needs breaking-up into smaller, more manageable units. I understand that this is the vibe. I'm not sure I agree. Do you work in it?" No, but I am a customer   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care? The former is my vision of hell on earth, the latter has some merits if managed sensibly. The fact is, the NHS is a bloated bureaucratic dinosaur that needs breaking-up into smaller, more manageable units. I understand that this is the vibe. I'm not sure I agree. Do you work in it? No, but I am a customer "We all are. Including the richest with private health care, if I had a stroke in the middle of the night theirs no private A&E!! What makes you such an expert in this bloatedness?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the reasoning from the right-wingers seems to be that these doctors are basically just apprentices who should be glad that they get paid a fiver more than someone on the checkout at Lidl. Yet they MUST turn up for work or people will DIE." Doctors learn all the time with every new case. There is certainly some form of structured training up to consultant level I believe. Doctors are claiming retrospective pay rises dating back to 2010? And you’re a junior doctor for around 7 years depending on how soon you go for promotions, specialties or into general practice. So that means every single junior doctor knew what the pay was before starting medical school. So it’s a bit like applying for a job and as soon as you get it, you go on strike for more money. They are a bunch of hypocrites who use the power they wield to bl@ckmail the government. Striking has been their first course of action. There’s been minimal negotiations. If they ain’t happy, quit, get a job at Lidl. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care? The former is my vision of hell on earth, the latter has some merits if managed sensibly. The fact is, the NHS is a bloated bureaucratic dinosaur that needs breaking-up into smaller, more manageable units. I understand that this is the vibe. I'm not sure I agree. Do you work in it? No, but I am a customer
We all are.
Including the richest with private health care, if I had a stroke in the middle of the night theirs no private A&E!!
What makes you such an expert in this bloatedness??
"Because I can contrast how the NHS works with how private enterprise works. In my opinion healthcare provision would be more efficient and cost-effective in a hybrid state/private model split into smaller operating units. But if you're happy with 10 hour waits in A&E and 2 year op. waiting lists, stay with a government-run NHS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the reasoning from the right-wingers seems to be that these doctors are basically just apprentices who should be glad that they get paid a fiver more than someone on the checkout at Lidl. Yet they MUST turn up for work or people will DIE. Doctors learn all the time with every new case. There is certainly some form of structured training up to consultant level I believe. Doctors are claiming retrospective pay rises dating back to 2010? And you’re a junior doctor for around 7 years depending on how soon you go for promotions, specialties or into general practice. So that means every single junior doctor knew what the pay was before starting medical school. So it’s a bit like applying for a job and as soon as you get it, you go on strike for more money. They are a bunch of hypocrites who use the power they wield to bl@ckmail the government. Striking has been their first course of action. There’s been minimal negotiations. If they ain’t happy, quit, get a job at Lidl. " No it isn't, most, are driven by interest, sense of duty and vocation. Then they find out how shoddily they are payed compered to past and equals in other countries where they actually are in demand. The country you're advocate for seems to be fuck of doctors, strip me of money the wealthy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wasn’t aware that "first year" medical students carried life or death responsibility, because strangely they don't.... Of course first year medical students don't take life or death decisions, they can only become resident doctors after studying four to seven years at medical school. Come to think of it, where was this concern for patient safety when years 1 to 6 of junior doctors went on extended strikes? It seems the left only plays the “people will die” card when it suits their argument, and it will be interesting to see how this will be reframed when they go on strike again this year. Shocking... Shocking, eh? What do you suggest, chaining doctors up in hospitals so that they can't escape? Resident doctors in their first year are heavily supervised but they still have great responsibilities and earn £18.67 an hour. FY2 doctors take on more responsibility and earn £25.32 an hour. Specialty training lasts three to eight years and the pay increases further. I don't think anyone thinks that doctors don't eventually earn good money but they get paid a pittance during their foundation years. I believe they also have to rotate three times a year and this sometimes involved moving home. It's a disgrace that first year resident doctors earn only £6.46 an hour above minimum wage. That you think this is acceptable is truly shocking. But you have to look at the full picture. The government pays 23.7% into Doctor's pensions. Contrast that with most employers paying the min. of 3% or slightly more. That allows Doctors to avoid making their own provisions for their retirement and moreover to step out of employment in their 50s. But working for the health of the nation should have benefits?? To encourage people into the role. Otherwise what are you arguing for exactly? If you go into private business you can earn a LOT more and therefore contribute as much or as little as you want to your future retirement But who actually looks after the nation's health? Who develops the drugs and therapies? Who develops the scanners? Who develops the artificial joints? Not front-line Doctors I can assure you. Yes, medicine is an important job, but so are many jobs. What are you arguing for?? The nationalisation of everything or the privatisation of health care? The former is my vision of hell on earth, the latter has some merits if managed sensibly. The fact is, the NHS is a bloated bureaucratic dinosaur that needs breaking-up into smaller, more manageable units. I understand that this is the vibe. I'm not sure I agree. Do you work in it? No, but I am a customer
We all are.
Including the richest with private health care, if I had a stroke in the middle of the night theirs no private A&E!!
What makes you such an expert in this bloatedness??
Because I can contrast how the NHS works with how private enterprise works. In my opinion healthcare provision would be more efficient and cost-effective in a hybrid state/private model split into smaller operating units. But if you're happy with 10 hour waits in A&E and 2 year op. waiting lists, stay with a government-run NHS."No one's happy with the status quo. It is extraordinary how satisfaction in the NHS in 2010 was at all time high and it's now at all time low. It hasn't had severe cuts but it hasn't been invested in either for 14 years. They've been in power for a year, that's not enough time to turn the tanker around | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doctors learn all the time with every new case. There is certainly some form of structured training up to consultant level I believe. Doctors are claiming retrospective pay rises dating back to 2010? And you’re a junior doctor for around 7 years depending on how soon you go for promotions, specialties or into general practice. So that means every single junior doctor knew what the pay was before starting medical school. So it’s a bit like applying for a job and as soon as you get it, you go on strike for more money. They are a bunch of hypocrites who use the power they wield to bl@ckmail the government. Striking has been their first course of action. There’s been minimal negotiations. If they ain’t happy, quit, get a job at Lidl." I'm not clear on your position. Do you think £18 an hour is reasonable pay for a first year resident doctor? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doctors learn all the time with every new case. There is certainly some form of structured training up to consultant level I believe. Doctors are claiming retrospective pay rises dating back to 2010? And you’re a junior doctor for around 7 years depending on how soon you go for promotions, specialties or into general practice. So that means every single junior doctor knew what the pay was before starting medical school. So it’s a bit like applying for a job and as soon as you get it, you go on strike for more money. They are a bunch of hypocrites who use the power they wield to bl@ckmail the government. Striking has been their first course of action. There’s been minimal negotiations. If they ain’t happy, quit, get a job at Lidl. I'm not clear on your position. Do you think £18 an hour is reasonable pay for a first year resident doctor?" But they are not on £18 per hour anyway. That is basic pay for 1st year, then add on 25% for night shifts, same again for weekends and double for BH, so some days they earn over £40 per hour for a BH night shift. Then as others say 12m later there pay increases 25%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But they are not on £18 per hour anyway. That is basic pay for 1st year, then add on 25% for night shifts, same again for weekends and double for BH, so some days they earn over £40 per hour for a BH night shift. Then as others say 12m later there pay increases 25%." Their basic rate is £18.67 per hour for a 40 hour week. Just like everyone else if they work night shifts and so on they get extra. If you think this is unfair then next time you are in A&E in the early hours of the morning ask them why they are there looking after you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument about £18.76 per for year 1 students is moot. They quickly pass that level and earn considerably more. They have no autonomy and are always supervised. If the year 1 wage was insufficient we would not have approx 10k applicants each year. It is a deflection topic to remove the headline from the already awarded 28.9% increase they have received and they are now going to strike again. Year 2 students receive £42k per annum. If they want to become doctors they leave the course at this point. GPS 1-3 60 - 70K while training. Average doctors wages vary but range £76K - £115K If they remain on the course consultants average £110K - £140K" FFS they aren't students! All professionals exist in a constant state of learning but that doesn't mean they are students in any normal sense of the word. I just double checked the new rates after the pay rise and for a 40 hour week in the first year they get £38,831 (£18.67 an hour) and in the second year £44,439 (£21.36 an hour). I've no idea how much you earn but this is peanuts in my opinon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument about £18.76 per for year 1 students is moot. They quickly pass that level and earn considerably more. They have no autonomy and are always supervised. If the year 1 wage was insufficient we would not have approx 10k applicants each year. It is a deflection topic to remove the headline from the already awarded 28.9% increase they have received and they are now going to strike again. Year 2 students receive £42k per annum. If they want to become doctors they leave the course at this point. GPS 1-3 60 - 70K while training. Average doctors wages vary but range £76K - £115K If they remain on the course consultants average £110K - £140K FFS they aren't students! All professionals exist in a constant state of learning but that doesn't mean they are students in any normal sense of the word. I just double checked the new rates after the pay rise and for a 40 hour week in the first year they get £38,831 (£18.67 an hour) and in the second year £44,439 (£21.36 an hour). I've no idea how much you earn but this is peanuts in my opinon. " Doctors in training is the official title. You are still glossing over the 28.9% and what has been offered should be taken, as we have 10K applicants that are more than willing to take up the training. You might not be happy with that but you don't need to be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The argument about £18.76 per for year 1 students is moot. They quickly pass that level and earn considerably more. They have no autonomy and are always supervised. If the year 1 wage was insufficient we would not have approx 10k applicants each year. It is a deflection topic to remove the headline from the already awarded 28.9% increase they have received and they are now going to strike again. Year 2 students receive £42k per annum. If they want to become doctors they leave the course at this point. GPS 1-3 60 - 70K while training. Average doctors wages vary but range £76K - £115K If they remain on the course consultants average £110K - £140K FFS they aren't students! All professionals exist in a constant state of learning but that doesn't mean they are students in any normal sense of the word. I just double checked the new rates after the pay rise and for a 40 hour week in the first year they get £38,831 (£18.67 an hour) and in the second year £44,439 (£21.36 an hour). I've no idea how much you earn but this is peanuts in my opinon. Doctors in training is the official title. You are still glossing over the 28.9% and what has been offered should be taken, as we have 10K applicants that are more than willing to take up the training. You might not be happy with that but you don't need to be." Alexa said the official term is resident doctor | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doctors in training is the official title. You are still glossing over the 28.9% and what has been offered should be taken, as we have 10K applicants that are more than willing to take up the training. You might not be happy with that but you don't need to be." You can use whatever terms you like in your imaginary uber tory universe. Everyone else will call them resident doctors (or for those a bit out of date junior doctors). You insisting on calling them students or "doctors in training" is a transparent attempt to belittle their role and pretend that they aren't real doctors. You clearly have no shame in pursuing your right-wing political agenda. The pay rates I posted are those as of April this year. The 10k number of applicants wanting to go to medical school is, according to the Medical Schools Council, about 5,000 short of what is required in response to staffing shortages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Doctors in training is the official title. You are still glossing over the 28.9% and what has been offered should be taken, as we have 10K applicants that are more than willing to take up the training. You might not be happy with that but you don't need to be. You can use whatever terms you like in your imaginary uber tory universe. Everyone else will call them resident doctors (or for those a bit out of date junior doctors). You insisting on calling them students or "doctors in training" is a transparent attempt to belittle their role and pretend that they aren't real doctors. You clearly have no shame in pursuing your right-wing political agenda. The pay rates I posted are those as of April this year. The 10k number of applicants wanting to go to medical school is, according to the Medical Schools Council, about 5,000 short of what is required in response to staffing shortages. " The correct title is “doctors in training”, as used by the NHS, GMC, and BMA, and this includes resident doctors until they become fully qualified consultants or GPs. Suggesting that using their official title is somehow an attempt to belittle them is not entirely surprising. On the staffing shortfall, we are not short of applicants. Over 28,000 people apply for medicine each year. The issue is that the NHS only has capacity to process around 9,500 to 10,000. As a result, we recruit from abroad rather than expand domestic training routes. Such is the efficiency of our public services.... Framing the upcoming strike around Year 1 pay, despite a 28.9 percent uplift, misrepresents the reality. Salaries improve substantially year after year for doctors in training and there is no autonomy and full supervision for year 1. If your argument depends on rejecting official titles while also ignoring their clear pay increases in line with responsibilities, it shows a lack of credibility. Parking that now as I don't want to keep being drawn into sidebar arguments that evade the main point... What is your actual position on the forthcoming strike action, given the pay deal on offer is above inflation yet again, during the wider economic crisis we have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dr Tom Dolphin the new BMA chair has said 29% resident doctors pay restoration is non negotiable He says the total cost is £1.73bn, that drops to £920m net once money returned to the Treasury through the tax system is taken into account. That £920m is less than half a per cent of the NHS’s £190.8bn budget this year. " Sounds like a buy-one-get-one-free offer when you put it like that. In which case everyone should get a 29% rise. And when inflation is at 30% and mortgage rates are at 20% what do we do then? How much would your mortgage payments be if interest rates were 20%? More than triple what they are now is the simple answer. So the question becomes, who can have a 29% pay rise and who can’t? Train drivers on £60k weren't far short last year. Doctors on £70k are gonna get that every year it seems Firefighters save lives too, but in more dangerous circumstances so they should get 39% by some peoples logic And who gets to decide who receives this new standard minimum increase of 29% and who doesn’t? Sounds like you’d be the most hated person in the country no matter what. And if inflation is 30%, benefits have to go up by 30% Has this been costed out? Will tax revenues go up by 30%? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Dr Tom Dolphin the new BMA chair has said 29% resident doctors pay restoration is non negotiable He says the total cost is £1.73bn, that drops to £920m net once money returned to the Treasury through the tax system is taken into account. That £920m is less than half a per cent of the NHS’s £190.8bn budget this year. " Privatisation is starting to look a lot more attractive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The correct title is “doctors in training”, as used by the NHS, GMC, and BMA, and this includes resident doctors until they become fully qualified consultants or GPs. Suggesting that using their official title is somehow an attempt to belittle them is not entirely surprising." Here's the BMA page called "Doctor's Titles Explained". https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doctors/life-and-work-in-the-uk/toolkit-for-doctors-new-to-the-uk/doctors-titles-explained Nowhere is there a title called "Doctor in training" The correct title is Resident Doctor. Resident doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training. A resident doctor might have been working for up to nine years as a hospital doctor. The fact they they are training is not strange, as I said before professionals exist in a state of constant learning. But resident doctors are not students in any normal sense of the word student. "On the staffing shortfall, we are not short of applicants. Over 28,000 people apply for medicine each year. The issue is that the NHS only has capacity to process around 9,500 to 10,000. As a result, we recruit from abroad rather than expand domestic training routes. Such is the efficiency of our public services...." Fair enough, so we are not investing sufficent amounts of money. "Framing the upcoming strike around Year 1 pay, despite a 28.9 percent uplift, misrepresents the reality. Salaries improve substantially year after year for doctors in training and there is no autonomy and full supervision for year 1. If your argument depends on rejecting official titles while also ignoring their clear pay increases in line with responsibilities, it shows a lack of credibility." My point is a simple one - £18.67 (and even £21.36) per hour is a ridiculously low amount of money to pay doctors. "Parking that now as I don't want to keep being drawn into sidebar arguments that evade the main point... What is your actual position on the forthcoming strike action, given the pay deal on offer is above inflation yet again, during the wider economic crisis we have." I am in full support of raising the pay of first and second year resident doctors beyond the 4% rise and £750 lump sum offered. If the only mechanism for this to be achieved is for them to withdraw their labour this is regretable but I would still support them in this action. But they should focus on just these first two years and not the entire pay structure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The correct title is “doctors in training”, as used by the NHS, GMC, and BMA, and this includes resident doctors until they become fully qualified consultants or GPs. Suggesting that using their official title is somehow an attempt to belittle them is not entirely surprising. Here's the BMA page called "Doctor's Titles Explained". https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/international-doctors/life-and-work-in-the-uk/toolkit-for-doctors-new-to-the-uk/doctors-titles-explained Nowhere is there a title called "Doctor in training" The correct title is Resident Doctor. Resident doctors are qualified doctors in clinical training. A resident doctor might have been working for up to nine years as a hospital doctor. The fact they they are training is not strange, as I said before professionals exist in a state of constant learning. But resident doctors are not students in any normal sense of the word student. On the staffing shortfall, we are not short of applicants. Over 28,000 people apply for medicine each year. The issue is that the NHS only has capacity to process around 9,500 to 10,000. As a result, we recruit from abroad rather than expand domestic training routes. Such is the efficiency of our public services.... Fair enough, so we are not investing sufficent amounts of money. Framing the upcoming strike around Year 1 pay, despite a 28.9 percent uplift, misrepresents the reality. Salaries improve substantially year after year for doctors in training and there is no autonomy and full supervision for year 1. If your argument depends on rejecting official titles while also ignoring their clear pay increases in line with responsibilities, it shows a lack of credibility. My point is a simple one - £18.67 (and even £21.36) per hour is a ridiculously low amount of money to pay doctors. Parking that now as I don't want to keep being drawn into sidebar arguments that evade the main point... What is your actual position on the forthcoming strike action, given the pay deal on offer is above inflation yet again, during the wider economic crisis we have. I am in full support of raising the pay of first and second year resident doctors beyond the 4% rise and £750 lump sum offered. If the only mechanism for this to be achieved is for them to withdraw their labour this is regretable but I would still support them in this action. But they should focus on just these first two years and not the entire pay structure. " Your comment about not investing sufficient amounts of money, based on the information that we have no capacity to train more than 9500 - 10000 resident doctors per year. We will never have enough money, if the waste, mismanagement and inefficiencies are not tackled in the NHS. The pay rise of 4% is above inflation and we as a country are in an economic downturn which is only going to get worse. I posted in this thread my thinking about the economy and the BMA last week. My views have not changed only hardened, Reeves has taken the wheels off the economy and there is no money for ridiculous not for negotiation 29% pay rise demand. The BMA are so far out of touch that they are going to dig themselves a very big hole they wont be able to get out of, you mark my words. https://www.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1715864 We urgently need to look at saving public sector spending and its TOM, and not default to throwing more money at it in the hope that something will unstick. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a post recently where it was suggested that public services be slashed and then topped back up by individuals choosing where to spend their tax money. I think doctors pay is a perfect candidate for this. The government open a bank account up for people to make a voluntary contribution towards the docs pay rise. Those who support it can pay in to the level they feel it’s important and those who think the governments pay offer is fair don’t. They are given the governments offer and the money paid into the bank account is shared out evenly between all the docs. If all those socialists genuinely want to support the docs and there’s as many of them as we are told on here, the docs will be millionaires by Xmas. " A far simpler and more effective solution would be to privatise the NHS, keeping only A&E under public control. The savings, efficiencies, and innovation would provide economic growth and national prosperity on a scale the UK hasn’t seen in decades. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A far simpler and more effective solution would be to privatise the NHS, keeping only A&E under public control. The savings, efficiencies, and innovation would provide economic growth and national prosperity on a scale the UK hasn’t seen in decades." We all see things through our own lenses. I get the impression that you are an accountant and view the world as a kind of metaphysical spreadsheet. I used to think you were a moderate Tory (Thatcher used the term "wet") but having read more of your posts I now think you are on the right-most fringe of Tory ideology. That's fine, it's not an extremist view and many people in the UK share your perspective on things. But I don't think further privatisation of the NHS would improve matters. Or more accurately I don't think it would improve matters for everyone. Making money out of healthcare might incentivise some people to maximize efficiency because increased efficiency will improve their wealth. But there are two problems. The first problem is that increasing efficiency is hard to do. Especially when the drive to increase efficiency has been persued for decades on end in an inelastic field. One ends up with tinkering. The second problem is that a profit needs to be extracted. So if all other things are equal then a privatised setup will always be less efficient because money has to be syphoned off to keep shareholders happy. Private healthcare has always existed of course and even if the NHS resists further privatisation I see that sector expanding as people who can afford to get enhanced healthcare will pay for better treatment. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this providing that it doesn't "steal" resources from the NHS. Indeed if done correctly it should be possible for the private sector to take some load off of the NHS. It might seem unfair that rich people get better healthcare than poor people but this is unavoidable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a post recently where it was suggested that public services be slashed and then topped back up by individuals choosing where to spend their tax money. I think doctors pay is a perfect candidate for this. The government open a bank account up for people to make a voluntary contribution towards the docs pay rise. Those who support it can pay in to the level they feel it’s important and those who think the governments pay offer is fair don’t. They are given the governments offer and the money paid into the bank account is shared out evenly between all the docs. If all those socialists genuinely want to support the docs and there’s as many of them as we are told on here, the docs will be millionaires by Xmas. A far simpler and more effective solution would be to privatise the NHS, keeping only A&E under public control. The savings, efficiencies, and innovation would provide economic growth and national prosperity on a scale the UK hasn’t seen in decades." I don’t think that would be simple. It might work, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be simple. Paying at the point of use is not really an option. So insurance would have to be compulsory. There’s no guarantee insurance companies wouldn’t be more expensive than NI. BUPA etc charge based on risk. My parents paid BUPA for about 20 years and never made a claim. Eventually the premiums got so high they couldn’t afford it and cancelled. My father has 3 strokes in the 15 subsequent years he lived. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a post recently where it was suggested that public services be slashed and then topped back up by individuals choosing where to spend their tax money. I think doctors pay is a perfect candidate for this. The government open a bank account up for people to make a voluntary contribution towards the docs pay rise. Those who support it can pay in to the level they feel it’s important and those who think the governments pay offer is fair don’t. They are given the governments offer and the money paid into the bank account is shared out evenly between all the docs. If all those socialists genuinely want to support the docs and there’s as many of them as we are told on here, the docs will be millionaires by Xmas. A far simpler and more effective solution would be to privatise the NHS, keeping only A&E under public control. The savings, efficiencies, and innovation would provide economic growth and national prosperity on a scale the UK hasn’t seen in decades. I don’t think that would be simple. It might work, I don’t know, but it wouldn’t be simple. Paying at the point of use is not really an option. So insurance would have to be compulsory. There’s no guarantee insurance companies wouldn’t be more expensive than NI. BUPA etc charge based on risk. My parents paid BUPA for about 20 years and never made a claim. Eventually the premiums got so high they couldn’t afford it and cancelled. My father has 3 strokes in the 15 subsequent years he lived. " The amount of money we pour into the NHS is obscene for the level of service provided, and the unions resist all change so it will never improve in its current form. It would workout cheaper to to privatise the NHS and pay a % of health insurance premiums for people on lower incomes, than it would to continue on the path we are on today. A&E should remain under the ownership of the state but most other services should be considered for privatisation. One of the benefits this would bring is clamping down on the awful practice of NHS doctors having a secondary role in the private sector. How they get away with that only yhr uniosn would know  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A far simpler and more effective solution would be to privatise the NHS, keeping only A&E under public control. The savings, efficiencies, and innovation would provide economic growth and national prosperity on a scale the UK hasn’t seen in decades. We all see things through our own lenses. I get the impression that you are an accountant and view the world as a kind of metaphysical spreadsheet. I used to think you were a moderate Tory (Thatcher used the term "wet") but having read more of your posts I now think you are on the right-most fringe of Tory ideology. That's fine, it's not an extremist view and many people in the UK share your perspective on things. But I don't think further privatisation of the NHS would improve matters. Or more accurately I don't think it would improve matters for everyone. Making money out of healthcare might incentivise some people to maximize efficiency because increased efficiency will improve their wealth. But there are two problems. The first problem is that increasing efficiency is hard to do. Especially when the drive to increase efficiency has been persued for decades on end in an inelastic field. One ends up with tinkering. The second problem is that a profit needs to be extracted. So if all other things are equal then a privatised setup will always be less efficient because money has to be syphoned off to keep shareholders happy. Private healthcare has always existed of course and even if the NHS resists further privatisation I see that sector expanding as people who can afford to get enhanced healthcare will pay for better treatment. I don't see anything inherently wrong with this providing that it doesn't "steal" resources from the NHS. Indeed if done correctly it should be possible for the private sector to take some load off of the NHS. It might seem unfair that rich people get better healthcare than poor people but this is unavoidable." My views are moderate, however compared to the ever increasing Marxist tropes being pumped out regarding the economy, I look further right than I actually am. Wanting efficiency, accountability, and sustainability in public services isn’t fringe thinking, it’s common sense. The idea that any profit motive undermines service is an old argument that never stood up, except in the water industry but that is mainly due to monopolies. We see today NHS resources mismanaged, wasted, and consumed without positive results, and no shareholders are involved there. Privatisation, when structured well, can offer competition, innovation, and outcomes. The current system offers no incentivises to be good, let alone be world class. We need to challenge that model, not cling to it. I work in M&A. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My views are moderate, however compared to the ever increasing Marxist tropes being pumped out regarding the economy, I look further right than I actually am." The only people who use language like "Marxist tropes" are on the fringes of the UK politcal spectrum. "Wanting efficiency, accountability, and sustainability in public services isn’t fringe thinking, it’s common sense." I think everybody wants these things. "The idea that any profit motive undermines service is an old argument that never stood up, except in the water industry but that is mainly due to monopolies." In my experience excellence comes from people being fascinated by a subject not by them seeing it as a way to make money. So is healthcare not a natural monopoly? Do we have a choice between competing hospitals, GP surgeries and such like? In your utopian future when I dial 999 will I get a menu of companies to select? "We see today NHS resources mismanaged, wasted, and consumed without positive results, and no shareholders are involved there." What we see is a NHS that's doing its best in a difficult situation where resources are sparse and we have a population that is bulging towards the older aged. "Privatisation, when structured well, can offer competition, innovation, and outcomes. The current system offers no incentivises to be good, let alone be world class. We need to challenge that model, not cling to it." As I said earlier, in my experience excellence is rarely driven by the desire to make money. I have nothing against capitalism - I've headed several companies and made a mint. But things like healthcare and education aren't businesses. They are vital public services that need to be supported and cherished rather than sold off to the highest bidder. "I work in M&A." So my hunch was more or less correct. You are a wizard using Excel, right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My views are moderate, however compared to the ever increasing Marxist tropes being pumped out regarding the economy, I look further right than I actually am. The only people who use language like "Marxist tropes" are on the fringes of the UK politcal spectrum. Wanting efficiency, accountability, and sustainability in public services isn’t fringe thinking, it’s common sense. I think everybody wants these things. The idea that any profit motive undermines service is an old argument that never stood up, except in the water industry but that is mainly due to monopolies. In my experience excellence comes from people being fascinated by a subject not by them seeing it as a way to make money. So is healthcare not a natural monopoly? Do we have a choice between competing hospitals, GP surgeries and such like? In your utopian future when I dial 999 will I get a menu of companies to select? We see today NHS resources mismanaged, wasted, and consumed without positive results, and no shareholders are involved there. What we see is a NHS that's doing its best in a difficult situation where resources are sparse and we have a population that is bulging towards the older aged. Privatisation, when structured well, can offer competition, innovation, and outcomes. The current system offers no incentivises to be good, let alone be world class. We need to challenge that model, not cling to it. As I said earlier, in my experience excellence is rarely driven by the desire to make money. I have nothing against capitalism - I've headed several companies and made a mint. But things like healthcare and education aren't businesses. They are vital public services that need to be supported and cherished rather than sold off to the highest bidder. I work in M&A. So my hunch was more or less correct. You are a wizard using Excel, right? " There are so many things..... If you don't see marxist tropes being regurgitated on daily basis, I'm really surprised. Seeing them and knowing about them, is what I like to call informed and I suppose I will agree with you, that is on the fringe. Over subscribed applications yearly tells me people are engaged and fascinated, which is what we need. The question of dialling 999 and being given a menu to choose from? Please keep up, I have written more than once A&E should remain under state control. I'm not going into the other points as they are old ground. As for being a whiz on excel, that is not what I get paid for as a consultant, it would be an awful waste of money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are so many things..... If you don't see marxist tropes being regurgitated on daily basis, I'm really surprised. Seeing them and knowing about them, is what I like to call informed and I suppose I will agree with you, that is on the fringe." It would be helpful if you explained what you mean by Marxist tropes. Some people talk about cultural Marxism for instance but this is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. "Over subscribed applications yearly tells me people are engaged and fascinated, which is what we need." I'm guessing you are talking about young people wanting to help the community here. If so I agree, it's heartening that they aren't driven by lust for cash. "The question of dialling 999 and being given a menu to choose from? Please keep up, I have written more than once A&E should remain under state control." Yeah, I saw that but laughed. When you get to A&E and you need an x-ray where is the radiography going to come from? If you need blood analysis where is the lab? When you need critical surgery where is this going to come from? Your idea is an absurd fantasy, A&E can't be split off from general hospital services. "I'm not going into the other points as they are old ground." It's reaching the point where I actually expect you to walk away from debate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are so many things..... If you don't see marxist tropes being regurgitated on daily basis, I'm really surprised. Seeing them and knowing about them, is what I like to call informed and I suppose I will agree with you, that is on the fringe. It would be helpful if you explained what you mean by Marxist tropes. Some people talk about cultural Marxism for instance but this is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory. Over subscribed applications yearly tells me people are engaged and fascinated, which is what we need. I'm guessing you are talking about young people wanting to help the community here. If so I agree, it's heartening that they aren't driven by lust for cash. The question of dialling 999 and being given a menu to choose from? Please keep up, I have written more than once A&E should remain under state control. Yeah, I saw that but laughed. When you get to A&E and you need an x-ray where is the radiography going to come from? If you need blood analysis where is the lab? When you need critical surgery where is this going to come from? Your idea is an absurd fantasy, A&E can't be split off from general hospital services. I'm not going into the other points as they are old ground. It's reaching the point where I actually expect you to walk away from debate. " Very close
The reason being, the thought of pushing the thinking is not there, so I feel like I need to drip feed...
In the case of A&E and moving to another service is a perfect example of this. If you arrive at A&E and need an x-ray you would get an x-ray. The idea of A&E is to stabilise the patient. If further treatment is required post stabilisation 1 of 2 things can happen. A&E can carry out the procedure as it is minor and or a quick fix, that treatment is back charged to the customers insurer. the second option is the insurer picks up the treatment package under the customers insurance.
Obviously this is me just think aloud, but it helps to see more than 1 dimension. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Compulsory health insurance isn’t inherently more expensive than the current tax model, it would be considerably less," actually that's incorrect. the portion of NI that contibutes to an individuals NHS health care is far less than a comprehensive package of all services includes insurance for all but the highest earners, who will undoubtedly just have health insurance anyway, so they won't be bothered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the biggest complaint of countries with private healthcare provision and indeed those countries that have a mixture is that there is an extreme lack of continuity from poor communincation from a disjointed service that is detrimental to outcomes and huge amounts of duplication causing delays and premiums to escalate annually due to the way that these two issues manifest as the client grows older." This is true in countries that have developed health insurance from the ground up. When we arrive at the point of privatisation I expect the lessons from others to be taken into account, and the output s a modern day private health care service that has the correct supporting functions underpinning it. there would be no point moving forward with anything less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Compulsory health insurance isn’t inherently more expensive than the current tax model, it would be considerably less, actually that's incorrect. the portion of NI that contibutes to an individuals NHS health care is far less than a comprehensive package of all services includes insurance for all but the highest earners, who will undoubtedly just have health insurance anyway, so they won't be bothered." You’re assuming the current NI contribution actually covers the full cost of an individual’s healthcare it doesn’t. The NHS is funded through a mix of general taxation and NI, with total health spending in the UK at over £180 billion annually. That works out to around £2,700 per person, but the system is anything but efficient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very close The reason being, the thought of pushing the thinking is not there, so I feel like I need to drip feed... In the case of A&E and moving to another service is a perfect example of this. If you arrive at A&E and need an x-ray you would get an x-ray. The idea of A&E is to stabilise the patient. If further treatment is required post stabilisation 1 of 2 things can happen. A&E can carry out the procedure as it is minor and or a quick fix, that treatment is back charged to the customers insurer. the second option is the insurer picks up the treatment package under the customers insurance. Obviously this is me just think aloud, but it helps to see more than 1 dimension." Can anyone translate this gibberish for me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very close The reason being, the thought of pushing the thinking is not there, so I feel like I need to drip feed... In the case of A&E and moving to another service is a perfect example of this. If you arrive at A&E and need an x-ray you would get an x-ray. The idea of A&E is to stabilise the patient. If further treatment is required post stabilisation 1 of 2 things can happen. A&E can carry out the procedure as it is minor and or a quick fix, that treatment is back charged to the customers insurer. the second option is the insurer picks up the treatment package under the customers insurance. Obviously this is me just think aloud, but it helps to see more than 1 dimension. Can anyone translate this gibberish for me?" I have now left as predicted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Very close The reason being, the thought of pushing the thinking is not there, so I feel like I need to drip feed... In the case of A&E and moving to another service is a perfect example of this. If you arrive at A&E and need an x-ray you would get an x-ray. The idea of A&E is to stabilise the patient. If further treatment is required post stabilisation 1 of 2 things can happen. A&E can carry out the procedure as it is minor and or a quick fix, that treatment is back charged to the customers insurer. the second option is the insurer picks up the treatment package under the customers insurance. Obviously this is me just think aloud, but it helps to see more than 1 dimension. Can anyone translate this gibberish for me?" no .... my translate app tried, achieved critical mass and melted down in a fit of hysterical laughter. but seriously, these ill thought out musings are completely unworkable and the result of fantastical pipe dreams driven by a failed ideology left behind in the 1980s | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the biggest complaint of countries with private healthcare provision and indeed those countries that have a mixture is that there is an extreme lack of continuity from poor communincation from a disjointed service that is detrimental to outcomes and huge amounts of duplication causing delays and premiums to escalate annually due to the way that these two issues manifest as the client grows older." A while ago I got a call from my doctor's surgery asking me to make an appointment for a check up. When I said "go ahead", they explained that I would have to call in as they can't make appointments themselves. After waiting on the phone for 45 minutes, I finally got to book an appointment for 3 weeks time. When I arrived, I was told that they couldn't do the check up as I should have organised a blood test beforehand. I'm not claiming that private medicine is perfect, but I am saying that the NHS is just as capable of poor communication and disjointed service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"if pensioners were pushed into extreme poverty by losing their annual 300 quid WFA, then how the fuck are they meant to afford the health insurance premiums currently being charged for seniors. also, if health insurance is to be compulsory then at that point it becomes a tax so no change apart from it costing everyone even more than they are paying now. if doctors are pushed into working in a totally free market economy in the health sector, then their wages will swiftly escalte and drive costs to the public ever skyward. these are just three of the enormous plethora of flaws in the thinking of the fringe right wing nut jobs." I’m not in favour of privatisation of the NHS but your logic regarding the effect it would have on how much it costs is flawed. Hospitals are similar to hotels in that they offer beds to people who need them, as well as a host of extras. When it comes to hotels I could stay in a Travelodge for £50, a premier inn for £60, a holiday inn express for £70, a Radisson for £100 or the Hilton for - heck of a lot more. These prices could easily triple of course depending on the area, but the differences will still be roughly the same. You could easily pay over £1000 a night in some of londons top hotels when there’s a Days Inn up the road for £129 So what’s the difference between a Radisson (other brands are available for a similar price) and a Travelodge (again, other brands are available at a similar price). More staff, nicer rooms, bigger rooms, more furniture, bigger tv, well maintained building and rooms, etc etc. The same business modelling could be applied to the accommodation aspect of a hospital. If you wanna be low end you have to keep costs down, you have no choice. You can’t really scrimp on the surgery aspect but in the big cities where there multiple hospitals, competition could be a useful tool. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
