Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
Dixy said:
And exactly how does enraging and demoralizing and disincentivising a significant part of the workforce help reduce waste, fraud and error?
1. Nobody said it would do that so why ask as though somebody did2. Therefore pointless argumentative question
3. Cart before horse - cut the waste, fraud and error first, then look around at what's possoble.
This thread has pages and pages of the usual suspects lecturing on the inefficiencies of the NHS. Yet only a couple of years ago the NHS was labelled the most efficient healthcare system in the world by the OECD. The same people claim the NHS budget is 'biblical' yet the NHS survives on a significantly lower amount of funding (as a % of GDP) than most European nations. The NHS budget of 120billion equates to just £2000 per person in a country of 60million. If you have any concept of the costs involved in healthcare you will know this is not a lot of money.
Perhaps take a moment to educate yourselves instead of continually propagating the right wing myths that the NHS is expensive and inefficient. It isn't.
Perhaps take a moment to educate yourselves instead of continually propagating the right wing myths that the NHS is expensive and inefficient. It isn't.
Letter in yesterday's Telegraph sums it up for me:
letter said:
SIR – Junior doctors went on strike last week against proposals that they work weekends, while at the same time insisting that they already do work weekends.
They also say that, because their work is a vocation, their grievance has nothing to do with the money, although paying them more money would solve their grievance.
Is anyone else confused ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/12154594/Letters-Regardless-of-political-wrangling-the-people-will-have-the-last-say-on-EU.htmlThey also say that, because their work is a vocation, their grievance has nothing to do with the money, although paying them more money would solve their grievance.
Is anyone else confused ?
tdog7 said:
This thread has pages and pages of the usual suspects lecturing on the inefficiencies of the NHS. Yet only a couple of years ago the NHS was labelled the most efficient healthcare system in the world by the OECD. The same people claim the NHS budget is 'biblical' yet the NHS survives on a significantly lower amount of funding (as a % of GDP) than most European nations. The NHS budget of 120billion equates to just £2000 per person in a country of 60million. If you have any concept of the costs involved in healthcare you will know this is not a lot of money.
Perhaps take a moment to educate yourselves instead of continually propagating the right wing myths that the NHS is expensive and inefficient. It isn't.
60 or more years as a political football, constant restructuring to suit party political whim, and yet it's a model of efficiency and the best in the world?Perhaps take a moment to educate yourselves instead of continually propagating the right wing myths that the NHS is expensive and inefficient. It isn't.
A modern miracle, eh? And certainly unique among government departments.
This one sums it up better for me
SIR – On Friday I rang the constituency office of Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, for a surgery appointment.
The charming receptionist said there were none available for a month. I asked if there were any weekend surgeries but was told he only does Fridays.
Dr Malcolm Parsloe Hastings, East Sussex
SIR – On Friday I rang the constituency office of Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, for a surgery appointment.
The charming receptionist said there were none available for a month. I asked if there were any weekend surgeries but was told he only does Fridays.
Dr Malcolm Parsloe Hastings, East Sussex
tdog7 said:
This thread has pages and pages of the usual suspects lecturing on the inefficiencies of the NHS. Yet only a couple of years ago the NHS was labelled the most efficient healthcare system in the world by the OECD.
As you've read pages and pages of the usual suspects leturing, you'll have seen that the OECD point was already covered. Amazingly it was on Wednesday 13th January when you were lecturing about it and also, surprisingly, I replied.turbobloke said:
tdog7 said:
...and finally, just before you come back at me with 'the NHS is expensive and inefficient'....IT IS NOT, the OECD found it the most efficient healthcare system assessed, and we spend a lower percentage of GPD on healthcare than most developed countries.
It's a fair point to use relative performance in benchmarking, but absolute values matter as well. The amounts of money involved remain eye-watering.Depending on which source is chosen, the total fraud, waste and error in the NHS amounts to between £10bn and £25bn which is around 9% of the budget (min) based on approximately £115bn.
This is not the fault of Junior Doctors, but that's not the point when looking at overall NHS funding, efficiency and taxpayer vfm.
tdog7 said:
Perhaps take a moment to educate yourselves instead of continually propagating the right wing myths that the NHS is expensive and inefficient. It isn't.
The NHS is expensive and inefficient, the fact that there are worse examples changes nothing.Johnnytheboy said:
Both the author of the letter and you are guilty of massive over simplification. Junior doctors went on strike over a proposed contract that claims to decrease the number of hours doctors work, whilst increasing the number available at weekends, without decreasing the number available during the week. A mathematical impossibility. The contract also claims to be cost neutral, yet all doctors will get paid the same, but for some reason pay protection is offered for 3 years. If all doctors will be paid the same, why is pay protection needed????. But above all, why bother? The NHS already functions 24/7. Junior doctors working is more 24/7 than any other staff group, probably in any industry. So why make them so angry for such little perceived gain......it's cost neutral remember.turbobloke said:
The NHS is expensive and inefficient, the fact that there are worse examples changes nothing.
And yet despite a month of research time, the only evidence you have is 'it's inefficient because I say so'. Show me some well conducted evidenced based research proving the catastrophic inefficiency of the NHS, like say a report from the OECD, and I might start to believe you. But you can't, so you won't. Oh and before you try, Daily Mail articles will not be accepted.....tdog7 said:
But above all, why bother? The NHS already functions 24/7. Junior doctors working is more 24/7 than any other staff group, probably in any industry. So why make them so angry for such little perceived gain......
letter said:
Junior doctors went on strike last week against proposals that they work weekends, while at the same time insisting that they already do work weekends.
tdog7 said:
turbobloke said:
The NHS is expensive and inefficient, the fact that there are worse examples changes nothing.
And yet despite a month of research time, the only evidence you have is 'it's inefficient because I say so'. Show me some well conducted evidenced based research proving the catastrophic inefficiency of the NHS, like say a report from the OECD, and I might start to believe you. But you can't, so you won't. Oh and before you try, Daily Mail articles will not be accepted.....Putting aside the point that you appear to lack awareness over the nature of primary and secondary sources, this has been discussed long before your January effort, and numerous sources of a non-Daily Mail / Mirror nature have been examined.
World Health Organisation 2010
Gee & Button Report 2014
National Health Executive review of Gee & Button also 2014
An Evidence Based Study of Government Waste, Error and Inefficiency; Hamilton, 2015
From one of the above and relating to fraud alone: "Countering fraud effectively would reduce these losses and free up massive resources for better patient care" which remains incentive enough to continue to address waste fraud and error in the NHS regardless of what others may or may not be doing.
You'll know about each of the above.
turbobloke said:
Lecturing some? Irony strikes again.
Putting aside the point that you appear to lack awareness over the nature of primary and secondary sources, this has been disucssed long before your January effort, and numerous sources of a non-Daily Mirror nature have been examined.
World Health Organisation 2010
Gee & Button Report 2014
National Health Executive review of Gee & Button also 2014
An Evidence Based Study of Government Waste, Error and Inefficiency; Hamilton, 2015
From one of the above and relating to fraud alone: "Countering fraud effectively would reduce these losses and free up massive resources for better patient care" which remains incentive enough to continue to address waste fraud and error in the NHS regardless of what others may or may not be doing.
You'll know each of these
Showing there are inefficiencies in an organisation is not the same as showing it is inefficient, it must be compared to other organisations that provide the same service. The fact that waste exists in an organisation the size of the NHS is obvious. I am not for a moment claiming that it is perfect. Absolutely we should always try and reduce waste and improve efficiency as much as possible. But to claim the NHS is an inefficient provider of healthcare is wrong, as when compared to other providers of healthcare it proves to be the most efficient.Putting aside the point that you appear to lack awareness over the nature of primary and secondary sources, this has been disucssed long before your January effort, and numerous sources of a non-Daily Mirror nature have been examined.
World Health Organisation 2010
Gee & Button Report 2014
National Health Executive review of Gee & Button also 2014
An Evidence Based Study of Government Waste, Error and Inefficiency; Hamilton, 2015
From one of the above and relating to fraud alone: "Countering fraud effectively would reduce these losses and free up massive resources for better patient care" which remains incentive enough to continue to address waste fraud and error in the NHS regardless of what others may or may not be doing.
You'll know each of these
£2000 each per year for comprehensive healthcare is a bargain. The mother of all great deals. It is astonishing. People in the US would fall over themselves to get a comprehensive health insurance policy for £2000. Most people spend more than that each year at starbucks.
Johnnytheboy said:
Doctors are angry because they already work on average 1:4 weekends, but the people who employ them don't think they work weekends at all, and want them to work more weekends and take a 15% pay cut at the same time. There are numerous other problems with the contract, thats why almost all doctors, junior or otherwise are against it, as are most of the medical Royal colleges. But clearly Jeremy Hunt (and you) know something about providing healthcare they don't.
I work for a medical supplies company and am currently sat in the theatre coffee room at a very prestigious private hospital, waiting for a patients very well known health insurance company to make their mind up whether they're going to pay for a procedure which was planned 3 weeks ago, and for which the patient has a very clear clinical need, NICE approved etc. I've been here since 7.30am along with a team of 5 others. The patient has paid handsome health insurance premiums and in fine p.h fashion is under the impression that he's getting a vastly superior service to someone slumming it on the NHS. Insurance based care is clearly superior and the only way forward, we're told.
Meanwhile my colleague is today doing a similar job in a large, 'inefficient, wasteful and staffed by lazy layabouts' NHS Hospital around half a mile away. They've already finished 2 cases and the patients will be home this afternoon. Sadly they won't have private en-suite facilities and an extensive menu choice though.
Off topic for the JDs I know, but very relevant to that of efficiencies...
Meanwhile my colleague is today doing a similar job in a large, 'inefficient, wasteful and staffed by lazy layabouts' NHS Hospital around half a mile away. They've already finished 2 cases and the patients will be home this afternoon. Sadly they won't have private en-suite facilities and an extensive menu choice though.
Off topic for the JDs I know, but very relevant to that of efficiencies...
turbobloke said:
Dixy said:
And exactly how does enraging and demoralizing and disincentivising a significant part of the workforce help reduce waste, fraud and error?
1. Nobody said it would do that so why ask as though somebody did2. Therefore pointless argumentative question
3. Cart before horse - cut the waste, fraud and error first, then look around at what's possoble.
vonuber said:
johnfm said:
It is partly privatised already. Keep up at the back.
Good use of cliche though - top marks for that.
I assume that you are in full favour of privatisation then? And also give Hunt your full backing?Good use of cliche though - top marks for that.
As such, I don't think doctors are particularly more 'important' than other professionals needed to do stuff for society.
If some privatisation proves to improve planning, delivery, funding etc, so be it.
What does the evidence say? I expect there isn't any clear evidence, but two sets depending on which 'side' of the argument you fall.
johnfm said:
vonuber said:
johnfm said:
It is partly privatised already. Keep up at the back.
Good use of cliche though - top marks for that.
I assume that you are in full favour of privatisation then? And also give Hunt your full backing?Good use of cliche though - top marks for that.
As such, I don't think doctors are particularly more 'important' than other professionals needed to do stuff for society.
If some privatisation proves to improve planning, delivery, funding etc, so be it.
What does the evidence say? I expect there isn't any clear evidence, but two sets depending on which 'side' of the argument you fall.
IanA2 said:
Regardless, surely all the above chart proves is that despite massive spending on the NHS, the patient experience is poor, which does support the need for a significant review of how and why the NHS does so that more money can be spent on actual services to patients.
spaximus said:
Purchasing, each hospitals has people involved, they don't want a central contract where an order can be drawn from. They love the negotiations even when they are crap, The suppliers love it as they get more from one hospital for exactly the same products.
I can support this with first hand experience. Went through my CIPS with a class of 20+ NHS buyers. All flatly rejected the idea of any centrally sourced deal, even for things like pens and paper because "how would a central dept understand our stakeholders wants and needs?".The absolutely loved the 7 stage tendering process too, despite the fact that most companies reject it out of hand as too much work for the return, so all you end up with is vendors that talk to each other before submitting quotes.
Before tackling salaries someone needs to go through purchasing with a massive broom
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff