Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
968 said:
The reality is that the public here seem not to understand the economics of healthcare and how expensive it actually is
I think the public understand exactly how expensive it is as they pay for it.Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
Derek Smith said:
968 said:
turbobloke said:
Really? What proportion of PHers i.e. "the public here" would you say have private healthcare in place compared to "the public out there"? Paying twice in effect. People want it, know it's not free, and plenty who can afford to do so will pay more than tax to have a reasonable chance of getting it.
Lots of people know that healthcare is getting more expensive as treatments advance and the population gets older and fatter. The issue is reminding some people what the country can afford, and that's not generally a private sector problem.
That expression used above by sidicks reflects the position well.
I'm always amused by the faith people have in private insurance. You're paying for a very limited service which deals exclusively in elective work which is non urgent. Indeed the insurance companies will only agree to fund treatments which are NICE approved for the NHS which seems curiously to miss the point. The premiums go up and the level of service/ range of conditions covered goes down and yet no one complains here, because it's the private sector.Lots of people know that healthcare is getting more expensive as treatments advance and the population gets older and fatter. The issue is reminding some people what the country can afford, and that's not generally a private sector problem.
That expression used above by sidicks reflects the position well.
What the NHS provides is unlimited access to often extremely costly interventions which private insurers will not fund. It also provides care for acutely sick patients around the clock, so no, you're not paying for it twice. You're paying for a different service with private insurance and paying to avoid waiting times which are inevitable in an understaffed NHS and paying principally to see a consultant in their private time though that seems so scandalous to some here.
The extra payment for the insurance was merely to jump the queue.
They were pretty chuffed that they dodged 5.5mths of pain while waiting.
4x4Tyke said:
I've signed it but, it won't make an iota of difference to this government who are intent on dismantling the NHS just as predicted at the election.
I guess you are correct if your definition of 'dismantling the NHS' equals 'spending increasing amounts of money on the NHS'?Otherwise...
I don't know if people really appreciate just how bad things are in hospitals? It is horrific. The demand for the NHS is outstripping the available resources already. If they want a true 7 day service it will require a massive cash injection and investment in staff. Where that money would come from I have no idea.
As an example of how budget cuts are affecting my local hospital.
2012-13 + £220k
2013-14 - £1.8m
2014-15 - £11m
The hospital has suddenly dropped into the red due to having to make wholesale budget cuts whilst maintaining the same service. How can they be expected to extend to a 7 week? There is no money to do it.
As an example of how budget cuts are affecting my local hospital.
2012-13 + £220k
2013-14 - £1.8m
2014-15 - £11m
The hospital has suddenly dropped into the red due to having to make wholesale budget cuts whilst maintaining the same service. How can they be expected to extend to a 7 week? There is no money to do it.
sidicks said:
4x4Tyke said:
I've signed it but, it won't make an iota of difference to this government who are intent on dismantling the NHS just as predicted at the election.
I guess you are correct if your definition of 'dismantling the NHS' equals 'spending increasing amounts of money on the NHS'?Otherwise...
One thing is for sure, if militants carry on like they are, with regards to any attempts to reform or improve or save money in the health service, then it is they that will be responsible for the demise of the NHS.
It really is an unpleasant mess, we see now that it is all about greed, money, with this next generation of Doctors, some of them claiming they can't even afford to live - out of touch with reality and rapidly losing any public sympathy.
968 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Except it is 7 days a week for emergencies which is what the public wants, not routine appointments and ops on the weekend. But go ahead and spout uninformed nonsense. The employees already work on weekends, the employees that don't are guess who? Patients want 7 days. Other services work 7 days
Lets see how it pans out
Without me trawling back through the thread does anyone know what moneys on offer?
Just spoken to the father, of a junior doctor, I work with. I have a good deal more sympathy between what the govt are imposing and what it will be (indeed what it is already) in reality.
If someone was contracted to working 5days per week 7am-6pm mon-fri, then actually she's been working 7am till 10pm (as the night shift rota'd to work didn't come in) mon-fri no extra pay, and was also in working all of Saturday (double time - fair enough, I say) and then get told your new contract is 7days on 7am-7pm, 3days off, followed by 7 straight nights, 3off. Not sure I'd want to be a junior doctor at the end of a week of nights for anything. Also it doesn't help that it's clear that the govt want to staff the NHS 7days at the cheapest price, and his daughter is run ragged as a junior doc as the consultants spend their time in their offices doing paperwork and then in the 7day plan are expected to be on call (on the golf course) for now at least (as they'll be next, along with nursing and support staff).
The guy's daughter turned down Australia last year, to stay, he thinks she's regretting it now, had she known, etc, etc and will probably reapply. Australia? Twice the pay, 4days on (12hr shifts), 4days off. No brainer, I only wish I could emigrate there, as they seem to be doing things right. The govt could tell us all the truth, we are poorer and getting poorer, and we will all (well the workers that is) will have to work harder for less, but they can't because then they'd have to explain why and changes would need to be made to how we live in this country and change how (in places) indulgent we've become without being able to pay for it all.
Anyway I've signed.
If someone was contracted to working 5days per week 7am-6pm mon-fri, then actually she's been working 7am till 10pm (as the night shift rota'd to work didn't come in) mon-fri no extra pay, and was also in working all of Saturday (double time - fair enough, I say) and then get told your new contract is 7days on 7am-7pm, 3days off, followed by 7 straight nights, 3off. Not sure I'd want to be a junior doctor at the end of a week of nights for anything. Also it doesn't help that it's clear that the govt want to staff the NHS 7days at the cheapest price, and his daughter is run ragged as a junior doc as the consultants spend their time in their offices doing paperwork and then in the 7day plan are expected to be on call (on the golf course) for now at least (as they'll be next, along with nursing and support staff).
The guy's daughter turned down Australia last year, to stay, he thinks she's regretting it now, had she known, etc, etc and will probably reapply. Australia? Twice the pay, 4days on (12hr shifts), 4days off. No brainer, I only wish I could emigrate there, as they seem to be doing things right. The govt could tell us all the truth, we are poorer and getting poorer, and we will all (well the workers that is) will have to work harder for less, but they can't because then they'd have to explain why and changes would need to be made to how we live in this country and change how (in places) indulgent we've become without being able to pay for it all.
Anyway I've signed.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 11th February 19:35
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 11th February 19:36
Rovinghawk said:
I think the public understand exactly how expensive it is as they pay for it.
Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
No. You really don't. I suggest you ask some Americans about how much they pay and how much simple treatments/surgery costs there. Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
As an example this afternoon I saw 25 patients and injected 18 of them with be of two medicines, lucentis and Eylea. These medicines alone cost £900 ish. Most of these patients require at least 7 injections in the first year of treatment. That's per eye and the disease often affects both. Of course consumables mean the cost of treatment is around £1000-£1500 per eye per treatment. I've got around a thousand patients in my clinic having treatment or review every 6 weeks. It's no coincidence that bupa refuses to fund treatment for this condition, because it's expensive, very expensive and they refuse to bear the cost. This clinic runs everyday of the week 8-6pm at the same volume. This model is replicated in health trusts around the whole country. So healthcare is very expensive.
Mr_B said:
spaximus said:
No it is not. No one in their right minds would want to take a 30% pay cut and they will. What is also in the mix is that hospitals will now try to get more hours work out of the same people. My daughter is in A&E at present on 12 hour night shifts this week, by the time she has done I dread to think what her hours will total. Certainly it will be well outside the EU working time directive, which is already a joke in hospitals.
Sometimes when I see her she is exhausted, so much so I wish she had gone into another career but yet the pleasure she gets when she and the others pull people back from the edge of death and sometimes beyond, keeps her going.
If your are of the mindset that it is just a money issue you are misinformed. Every single issue was negotiated away, and the final one was the hours which counts as unsocial.
But as I said the loser will be the English NHS not the Doctors as they have a choice, which patients in the NHS will not
I can't say I've really followed this, but the 30% pay cut you mention is going to raise an eyebrow or two. How does that figure come about ?Sometimes when I see her she is exhausted, so much so I wish she had gone into another career but yet the pleasure she gets when she and the others pull people back from the edge of death and sometimes beyond, keeps her going.
If your are of the mindset that it is just a money issue you are misinformed. Every single issue was negotiated away, and the final one was the hours which counts as unsocial.
But as I said the loser will be the English NHS not the Doctors as they have a choice, which patients in the NHS will not
At the other end of the scale is A&E where they work horrendous shift patterns and a large number of night shifts. They get a 50% banding. No Doctors get overtime under normal circumstances, this is covered by the supplement and reflects the unsocial hours that have been agreed for years.
Now Hunt has reclassified what is unsocial and via very complicated smoke and mirrors and as a result the pay will drop, significantly for those in the high bandings, the ones we need in emergencies.
The claims he makes are it will make no Doctor worse off and they will work less hours is impossible. Lets be frank if it was would Doctors have gone on strike. This is why Hunt says it is just about pay, it is not. What will happen is hospital managers will push Doctors to work longer and longer as they know they won't just leave people who need them. Protection of those who are being pushed too far is being removed, hospitals were fined if they exploited Doctors, this is being taken away so what do you think will happen.
Negotiation has been on going and a solution was offered that would have worked. It was put to Hunt who is alleged to have personally vetoed it. He refused to answer that question in Parliament he has caused this and I fear where this will end.
968 said:
Rovinghawk said:
I think the public understand exactly how expensive it is as they pay for it.
Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
No. You really don't. I suggest you ask some Americans about how much they pay and how much simple treatments/surgery costs there. Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
As an example this afternoon I saw 25 patients and injected 18 of them with be of two medicines, lucentis and Eylea. These medicines alone cost £900 ish. Most of these patients require at least 7 injections in the first year of treatment. That's per eye and the disease often affects both. Of course consumables mean the cost of treatment is around £1000-£1500 per eye per treatment. I've got around a thousand patients in my clinic having treatment or review every 6 weeks. It's no coincidence that bupa refuses to fund treatment for this condition, because it's expensive, very expensive and they refuse to bear the cost. This clinic runs everyday of the week 8-6pm at the same volume. This model is replicated in health trusts around the whole country. So healthcare is very expensive.
What I don't agree with is the concept that more mony is the only answer. Apart from the fraud & waste that goes on, how much do inefficient practices cost and why don't we improve them before whingeing about ack of money?
Mr GrimNasty said:
sidicks said:
4x4Tyke said:
I've signed it but, it won't make an iota of difference to this government who are intent on dismantling the NHS just as predicted at the election.
I guess you are correct if your definition of 'dismantling the NHS' equals 'spending increasing amounts of money on the NHS'?Otherwise...
One thing is for sure, if militants carry on like they are, with regards to any attempts to reform or improve or save money in the health service, then it is they that will be responsible for the demise of the NHS.
It really is an unpleasant mess, we see now that it is all about greed, money, with this next generation of Doctors, some of them claiming they can't even afford to live - out of touch with reality and rapidly losing any public sympathy.
I wonder if public perception will ever change so much, I could do with a break from being a hate figure
968 said:
Rovinghawk said:
I think the public understand exactly how expensive it is as they pay for it.
Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
No. You really don't. I suggest you ask some Americans about how much they pay and how much simple treatments/surgery costs there. Maybe we think it doesn't need to be that expensive or would like better value for the price.
Tell me that the NHS is highly efficient.
As an example this afternoon I saw 25 patients and injected 18 of them with be of two medicines, lucentis and Eylea. These medicines alone cost £900 ish. Most of these patients require at least 7 injections in the first year of treatment. That's per eye and the disease often affects both. Of course consumables mean the cost of treatment is around £1000-£1500 per eye per treatment. I've got around a thousand patients in my clinic having treatment or review every 6 weeks. It's no coincidence that bupa refuses to fund treatment for this condition, because it's expensive, very expensive and they refuse to bear the cost. This clinic runs everyday of the week 8-6pm at the same volume. This model is replicated in health trusts around the whole country. So healthcare is very expensive.
However, I'm 100 per cent behind you regards health insurance, an even bigger rip-off. If you work for a company that offers you a Bupa scheme whatever, that's fine (but the people I know in work schemes also pay towards it, it's a lie that it's free). I've never had and never will have health insurance. Why? Because the moment you become a liability, they won't renew. I know three people locally, including the lady I dropped off yesterday, who have had years (I mean 'years') of cover, but the moment she got her current very nasty disease, you know what, her renewal was impossible. All those payments, all those years for sweet FA! Now she's in the queue with the rest, just when she needed that insurance most.
sidicks said:
4x4Tyke said:
I've signed it but, it won't make an iota of difference to this government who are intent on dismantling the NHS just as predicted at the election.
I guess you are correct if your definition of 'dismantling the NHS' equals 'spending increasing amounts of money on the NHS'?Otherwise...
All this talk about emmigrating to Oz for double the salary and different working hours.
Do they have a mass shortage of doctors? How many vacancies do they have its not limitless and clearly once you have more and more flowing then rates will fall as the need to attract reduces.
Why do Indians etc come to the UK to work as doctors and not Oz?
Why do the junior doctors think it's ok to qualify here with upwards of £600k per person state investment in their training for them to walk away? When I trained as an accountant there was a policy if you left within 3years IIRC you had to repay £X amount towards the professional training costs this is fairly common practice.
Do they have a mass shortage of doctors? How many vacancies do they have its not limitless and clearly once you have more and more flowing then rates will fall as the need to attract reduces.
Why do Indians etc come to the UK to work as doctors and not Oz?
Why do the junior doctors think it's ok to qualify here with upwards of £600k per person state investment in their training for them to walk away? When I trained as an accountant there was a policy if you left within 3years IIRC you had to repay £X amount towards the professional training costs this is fairly common practice.
Northern Munkee said:
The guy's daughter turned down Australia last year, to stay, he thinks she's regretting it now, had she known, etc, etc and will probably reapply. Australia? Twice the pay, 4days on (12hr shifts), 4days off.
So, with all this talk of doctors being about to emigrate to Australia to avoid this contract, they have a 7 day service? What's the extra pay for "unsocial" days?Welshbeef said:
All this talk about emmigrating to Oz for double the salary and different working hours.
Do they have a mass shortage of doctors? How many vacancies do they have its not limitless and clearly once you have more and more flowing then rates will fall as the need to attract reduces.
Why do Indians etc come to the UK to work as doctors and not Oz?
Why do the junior doctors think it's ok to qualify here with upwards of £600k per person state investment in their training for them to walk away? When I trained as an accountant there was a policy if you left within 3years IIRC you had to repay £X amount towards the professional training costs this is fairly common practice.
20 per cent of all Australian doctors are Asian, if that little statistic helps.Do they have a mass shortage of doctors? How many vacancies do they have its not limitless and clearly once you have more and more flowing then rates will fall as the need to attract reduces.
Why do Indians etc come to the UK to work as doctors and not Oz?
Why do the junior doctors think it's ok to qualify here with upwards of £600k per person state investment in their training for them to walk away? When I trained as an accountant there was a policy if you left within 3years IIRC you had to repay £X amount towards the professional training costs this is fairly common practice.
Rovinghawk said:
I agree it's sometimes expensive.
What I don't agree with is the concept that more mony is the only answer. Apart from the fraud & waste that goes on, how much do inefficient practices cost and why don't we improve them before whingeing about ack of money?
It's very simple. More money is required to recruit more staff. Medical staff in the hospitals are not inefficient. Quite the opposite. Without them and their attitude of diligence and working well beyond their contract, the whole system would collapse. This country has one of the lowest numbers of doctors per head of population. We cannot train staff fast enough as people retire, and yet demand is ever increasing, drugs become ever more complex (ironic that the market is being criticised on ph of all places, drug costs for lucentis and Eylea are the same in all countries btw). There is huge inefficiency within the NHS but the vast majority of it arises from managers and the managerial level. What I don't agree with is the concept that more mony is the only answer. Apart from the fraud & waste that goes on, how much do inefficient practices cost and why don't we improve them before whingeing about ack of money?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And yet the fall guys in the NHS are the doctors and nurses who are the frontline. The government see them as an easy target rather than face up to their own inadequacy and the utter ineptitude of the managerial staff they appoint, who are the best paid members of hospital staff doing the least hours and certainly not on a weekend. The bottom line is a truly 7 day ELECTIVE NHS is only achievable if there are 7 days worth of staff and currently there are barely staff to run a 5 day service, hence the argument for this contract.Welshbeef said:
But still if they can earn 2x salary there why come here?
They don't anymore. Sadly the number of Asian doctors choosing to emigrate to the uk has dropped dramatically, to be replaced by Bulgarian and Greek doctors who don't speak English well and are far less qualified. Most also work for locum agencies so they earn more.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff