Who is most hated - Thatcher or Blair

[JensenA]

Ruskie said:

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

I love my job but imam underpaid for the amount of stress I go through on a weekly basis and the post traumatic stress I suffer from. My choice certainly, but someone has to do it.

Indeed.

I am sure your job is very stressful, few would disagree.

However, when you consider yourself 'underpaid' have you increased your salary by c. 25-30% to take your pension into account??

Your obviously aware Paramedics have to work to 68 now. Just let that sink in and think about that. A 67 year old paramedic making life and death calls at 5am in the morning. Does that sound safe to you?

If he's a good Paramedic I don't see the problem. I'm sure the paramedic would rather have retired at 55 given the choice - wouldn't we all - but I'll be working till I'm 68, so will millions of others in all walks of life.
Are you simply 'ageist', or are you saying that because someone works in the public sector, they should be able to retire at 60 on final salary pension? (Funded by my income tax).

I tell you what, vote for me. I promise to let all public sector workers retire at 55 on a full pension. That's a sure fire vote winner :-)

[Ruskie]

sidicks said:

And ?

I must have missed the section on 'massive cuts and austerity'....

You quoted figures saying health care spending had increased. I countered it with evidence it hasn't. No increase in spending by definition is a decrease or a cut.

[Ruskie]

JensenA said:

Ruskie said:

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

I love my job but imam underpaid for the amount of stress I go through on a weekly basis and the post traumatic stress I suffer from. My choice certainly, but someone has to do it.

Indeed.

I am sure your job is very stressful, few would disagree.

However, when you consider yourself 'underpaid' have you increased your salary by c. 25-30% to take your pension into account??

Your obviously aware Paramedics have to work to 68 now. Just let that sink in and think about that. A 67 year old paramedic making life and death calls at 5am in the morning. Does that sound safe to you?

If he's a good Paramedic I don't see the problem. I'm sure the paramedic would rather have retired at 55 given the choice - wouldn't we all - but I'll be working till I'm 68, so will millions of others in all walks of life.
Are you simply 'ageist', or are you saying that because someone works in the public sector, they should be able to retire at 60 on final salary pension? (Funded by my income tax).

I tell you what, vote for me. I promise to let all public sector workers retire at 55 on a full pension. That's a sure fire vote winner :-)

In that case you have no idea what the job involves. Assuming someone at 67 still has the capacity and good health to carry on it can involve carrying 20+ stone down the stairs. There is a reason police don't chase criminals in their 60's and why firemen don't rescue people from burning buildings in their 60's. It's physically very difficult and dangerous to colleagues as well as members of the public.

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

You quoted figures saying health care spending had increased. I countered it with evidence it hasn't. No increase in spending by definition is a decrease or a cut.

No you posted something that was a vague and unconfirmed comment that spending may not have increased in real terms.

Regardless a cut in real terms is not (by any credible measure) 'austerity'.

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

In that case you have no idea what the job involves. Assuming someone at 67 still has the capacity and good health to carry on it can involve carrying 20+ stone down the stairs. There is a reason police don't chase criminals in their 60's and why firemen don't rescue people from burning buildings in their 60's. It's physically very difficult and dangerous to colleagues as well as members of the public.

They can retire when they choose, just on a reduced pension.

Seems fair, given that it will be paid for longer than originally expected.

[Ruskie]

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

You quoted figures saying health care spending had increased. I countered it with evidence it hasn't. No increase in spending by definition is a decrease or a cut.

No you posted something that was a vague and unconfirmed comment that spending may not have increased in real terms.

Regardless a cut in real terms is not (by any credible measure) 'austerity'.

It's a government document!

[Ruskie]

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

In that case you have no idea what the job involves. Assuming someone at 67 still has the capacity and good health to carry on it can involve carrying 20+ stone down the stairs. There is a reason police don't chase criminals in their 60's and why firemen don't rescue people from burning buildings in their 60's. It's physically very difficult and dangerous to colleagues as well as members of the public.

They can retire when they choose, just on a reduced pension.

Seems fair, given that it will be paid for longer than originally expected.

Shall we leave this one as we are clearly not gonna agree are we.

I'm doing the job every day and I see the deterioration in my colleagues when they approach 60.

Don't worry though when we retire we are so knackered we rarely live past 70 anyway

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

Shall we leave this one as we are clearly not gonna agree are we.

I'm doing the job every day and I see the deterioration in my colleagues when they approach 60.

Don't worry though when we retire we are so knackered we rarely live past 70 anyway

So retire at 60 then and have a reduced pension, as faced by people in the private sector. Except they don't have massively subsidised final salary pension schemes to fall back on.

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

It's a government document!

Indeed. As I understand it, this is a government document that shows NHS budgets scheduled to increase in real terms every year under the Coalition. And the table you refer to shows just one year 2010-2011 where the outcome was not an increased expenditure in real terms (but still was an increase in nominal terms. Other years showed an increase in real terms.

If you think thst supports your claims of 'massive cuts and austerity', then that says a lot!!

[Ruskie]

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

It's a government document!

Indeed. As I understand it, this is a government document that shows NHS budgets scheduled to increase in real terms every year under the Coalition. And the table you refer to shows just one year 2010-2011 where the outcome was not an increased expenditure in real terms (but still was an increase in nominal terms. Other years showed an increase in real terms.

If you think thst supports your claims of 'massive cuts and austerity', then that says a lot!!

You talk like I'm making it up!! Increased budgets are only one side of it. They are increased but savings are demanded in other areas. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Not to mention an increase in demand each year that has to be paid for. Read this article and tell me cute aren't having an affect?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/05/nhs...

[whoami]

Ruskie said:

Your obviously aware Paramedics have to work to 68 now. Just let that sink in and think about that. A 67 year old paramedic making life and death calls at 5am in the morning. Does that sound safe to you?

It seems absolutely fine to me.

[Ruskie]

whoami said:

Ruskie said:

Your obviously aware Paramedics have to work to 68 now. Just let that sink in and think about that. A 67 year old paramedic making life and death calls at 5am in the morning. Does that sound safe to you?

It seems absolutely fine to me.

What's your background in pre-hospital care? Obviously you must have some knowledge of the field to answer the question?

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

You talk like I'm making it up!! Increased budgets are only one side of it. They are increased but savings are demanded in other areas. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Not to mention an increase in demand each year that has to be paid for. Read this article and tell me cute aren't having an affect?

As per the document that YOU posted - there are no cuts, only increases above inflation for every year apart from one and in that year spending still increased.

Even you are now admitting increased budgets.

So no cuts from the government whatsoever, which makes a mockery of your previous claims.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 14th December 23:05

[Ruskie]

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

You talk like I'm making it up!! Increased budgets are only one side of it. They are increased but savings are demanded in other areas. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Not to mention an increase in demand each year that has to be paid for. Read this article and tell me cute aren't having an affect?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/05/nhs...

As per the document that YOU posted - there are no cuts, only increases above inflation for every year apart from one and in that year spending still increased.

So no cuts whatsoever.

'Addenbrooke’s has been cutting costs since 2011 to help deliver its share of the £20bn NHS-wide, four-year savings drive ministers have demanded, which ends in March.'

[Ruskie]

They are increased yes but when other factors are applied they aren't really increased are they? That's just the headline.

[whoami]

Ruskie said:

What's your background in pre-hospital care? Obviously you must have some knowledge of the field to answer the question?

You asked a question and I answered it.

I would be perfectly happy to be treated by someone of that age.

I know 20 year old people who are as weak as water and folk in their 60's who I can hardly keep up with.

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

'Addenbrooke’s has been cutting costs since 2011 to help deliver its share of the £20bn NHS-wide, four-year savings drive ministers have demanded, which ends in March.'

Savings in some areas with increased spending in other areas, resulting in overall increased NHS spending.

As opposed to:

Ruskie said:

As an aside the NHS is in complete disarray due to this government and its austerity.

[sidicks]

Ruskie said:

They are increased yes but when other factors are applied they aren't really increased are they? That's just the headline.

Yes they are really increased in both nominal and real terms.

[Ruskie]

sidicks said:

Ruskie said:

'Addenbrooke’s has been cutting costs since 2011 to help deliver its share of the £20bn NHS-wide, four-year savings drive ministers have demanded, which ends in March.'

Savings in some areas with increased spending in other areas, resulting in overall increased NHS spending.

As opposed to:

Ruskie said:

As an aside the NHS is in complete disarray due to this government and its austerity.

You disagree? Waiting times for operations? Waiting times for seeing a GP? Waiting times in A&E?

I just checked on my original statement and it wasn't £10m (I suspect this is my counties figure) but £46m reduction in the budget amongst a 6% rise in demand for my trust. How is that not a cut in frontline services budgets as a result of austerity generally?

[sidicks]

I

Ruskie said:

You disagree? Waiting times for operations? Waiting times for seeing a GP? Waiting times in A&E?

I just checked on my original statement and it wasn't £10m (I suspect this is my counties figure) but £46m reduction in the budget amongst a 6% rise in demand for my trust. How is that not a cut in frontline services budgets as a result of austerity generally?

Spending is up. Significantly. All the figures show this, so any claims about 'austerity' are nonsense.

The government allocate total spending on the NHS, not individual budgets.

If demand is increasing so quickly that significant budget increases are insufficient to fund the required services that just emphasizes that something needs to be done to manage demand....!!