Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
Hosenbugler said:
The original Nick the Greek said:
The junior doctors are a bunch of self serving, greedy individuals, who are a disgrace to their profession.
Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
About how I see it. Watching those idiots hopping up and down with placards really does make you wonder who is just taking up being doctors in recent times. I really did expect better of a profession I thought better of. Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
Rovinghawk said:
Estimates of fraud & error are 10-25%; this is not efficient.
There are numerous examples of stupid practices; this is not efficient.
A very simplistic conclusion is that it could become more efficient if people in the NHS accept that there is a problem, accept the need to do something about it & actually do something. Denial of problems & demanding more money is not a sustainable or sensible answer.
Numerous anecdotal examples are not evidence, as you well know, but you have no real evidence of inefficiency so you'll go on spouting about 'my mates sister says there's lots of waste in the NHS' etc etc. Fraud and error of 25% in the NHS, seriously, this is Daily Mail chanting at best. If you genuinely want to convince me that 30billion pounds is wasted in the NHS I'll need some sort of actual citation from a reliable source......not just you typing it. I acknowledge the NHS isn't perfect, and I completely agree that we should seek out 'efficiency savings' where ever they can be found. I agree that every pound wasted is a pound too much. But its perfectly possible to accept that and still see our NHS as the remarkable public service it is, which provides enormous value to the nation, despite chronic underfunding. Imagine what we could do if funding matched our European neighbours like Germany (and we continue to strive for efficiency savings).......There are numerous examples of stupid practices; this is not efficient.
A very simplistic conclusion is that it could become more efficient if people in the NHS accept that there is a problem, accept the need to do something about it & actually do something. Denial of problems & demanding more money is not a sustainable or sensible answer.
tdog7 said:
Numerous anecdotal examples are not evidence, as you well know, but you have no real evidence of inefficiency so you'll go on spouting about 'my mates sister says there's lots of waste in the NHS' etc etc. Fraud and error of 25% in the NHS, seriously, this is Daily Mail chanting at best. If you genuinely want to convince me that 30billion pounds is wasted in the NHS I'll need some sort of actual citation from a reliable source......not just you typing it. I acknowledge the NHS isn't perfect, and I completely agree that we should seek out 'efficiency savings' where ever they can be found. I agree that every pound wasted is a pound too much. But its perfectly possible to accept that and still see our NHS as the remarkable public service it is, which provides enormous value to the nation, despite chronic underfunding. Imagine what we could do if funding matched our European neighbours like Germany (and we continue to strive for efficiency savings).......
Who pays for your increase in funding?And how much?
IroningMan said:
crankedup said:
If only life were that simple!
And what are we to o with the drugs companies that rip off our hospitals by overcharging ?
Err, maybe not buy from them in the fragmented way we do now?[/quoteAnd what are we to o with the drugs companies that rip off our hospitals by overcharging ?
Yes of course, are you suggesting a centralised ordering system for the whole of the NHS ?
The original Nick the Greek said:
Who pays for your increase in funding?
And how much?
Whoever wants a decent health service. The costs of healthcare are going up, due to increasing age of the population, as well as numerous other co-morbidities such as obesity, yet funding as a percentage of GDP is going down. This makes no sense. And how much?
KarlMac said:
crankedup said:
KarlMac said:
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
And what are we to o with the drugs companies that rip off our hospitals by overcharging ?
There are fortunes to be saved in the general office supplies, without even looking at the specialist equipment. Last I knew there still wasn't centralised contracts for wholesale energy, stsrionary or work wear. This is the easy stuff.
tdog7 said:
Whoever wants a decent health service. The costs of healthcare are going up, due to increasing age of the population, as well as numerous other co-morbidities such as obesity, yet funding as a percentage of GDP is going down. This makes no sense.
Count me out, I go private.But the two questions still stands.
Who pays?
How much?
Dixy said:
Hosenbugler said:
The original Nick the Greek said:
The junior doctors are a bunch of self serving, greedy individuals, who are a disgrace to their profession.
Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
About how I see it. Watching those idiots hopping up and down with placards really does make you wonder who is just taking up being doctors in recent times. I really did expect better of a profession I thought better of. Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
Just because you have a jaundiced view of reality and start a thread expecting unanimous support for self-serving pointless disruptive political activists, don't for one minute think the rest of the world agrees with you.
The original Nick the Greek said:
tdog7 said:
Whoever wants a decent health service. The costs of healthcare are going up, due to increasing age of the population, as well as numerous other co-morbidities such as obesity, yet funding as a percentage of GDP is going down. This makes no sense.
Count me out, I go private.But the two questions still stands.
Who pays?
How much?
The original Nick the Greek said:
The junior doctors are a bunch of self serving, greedy individuals, who are a disgrace to their profession.
Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
Are they in a minority? I thought they were the majority?Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
Edited by The original Nick the Greek on Monday 15th February 19:05
tdog7 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Estimates of fraud & error are 10-25%; this is not efficient.
There are numerous examples of stupid practices; this is not efficient.
A very simplistic conclusion is that it could become more efficient if people in the NHS accept that there is a problem, accept the need to do something about it & actually do something. Denial of problems & demanding more money is not a sustainable or sensible answer.
Numerous anecdotal examples are not evidence, as you well know, but you have no real evidence of inefficiency so you'll go on spouting about 'my mates sister says there's lots of waste in the NHS' etc etc. Fraud and error of 25% in the NHS, seriously, this is Daily Mail chanting at best.There are numerous examples of stupid practices; this is not efficient.
A very simplistic conclusion is that it could become more efficient if people in the NHS accept that there is a problem, accept the need to do something about it & actually do something. Denial of problems & demanding more money is not a sustainable or sensible answer.
Spouting...we're hitting high levels of irony once again.
As it happens the waste figure arose in a report issued in 2004 and it applies to the additional cost due to extra funding being put ahead of reform to cut waste. At 2004 levels of funding, the same NHS (service) could have been delivered for £90 billion, instead of £110 billion. That's a 22% increase, wasted, and things got worse. The report in question was written by Professor N Bosanquet, Professor of Health Economics at University College London.
Typical Labour. Throw other people's money at an issue, distort provision and reduce quality with arbitrary targets, then increase the amount of other people's money being flung around, and finally sit back as it fails badly.
Add in fraud at ~5% and we're already 2 percentage points above 25% without considering error costs. The fraud figure was in a report from the University of Portsmouth Centre for Counter-Fraud Studies.
That throw-away, blasé, sarcy Daily Mail comment looks particularly shallow at this point.
johnfm said:
Well, the point is, do each of the countries mentioned have the same measure for "1 ICU bed"?
Is there a link between number of beds and quality of care (or level of spend or whatever the chap is trying to show by posting it) - either a correlation or a causation effect?.
Without that it is just numbers.
i did point that out above , does 'ICU bed' actually mean what the UK would call a level 3 critical care bed or does it mean HDU beds (l2) as well, what about 'level 1 ' beds ... Is there a link between number of beds and quality of care (or level of spend or whatever the chap is trying to show by posting it) - either a correlation or a causation effect?.
Without that it is just numbers.
crankedup said:
KarlMac said:
Maybe if we efficiently purchased the basics then the impact of being overcharged for drugs wouldn't have the same drain.
There are fortunes to be saved in the general office supplies, without even looking at the specialist equipment. Last I knew there still wasn't centralised contracts for wholesale energy, stsrionary or work wear. This is the easy stuff.
Yup that is the easy stuff.There are fortunes to be saved in the general office supplies, without even looking at the specialist equipment. Last I knew there still wasn't centralised contracts for wholesale energy, stsrionary or work wear. This is the easy stuff.
Or would you rather not bother because there's hard stuff not being tackled?
tdog7 said:
If you genuinely want to convince me that 30billion pounds is wasted in the NHS I'll need some sort of actual citation from a reliable source.....
TB mentioned some British university research- good enough for you?(edited for typo)
Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 15th February 21:04
Rovinghawk said:
tdog7 said:
If you genuinely want to convince me that 30billion pounds is wasted in the NHS I'll need some sort of actual citation from a reliable source.....
TB mentioned some British university reearch- good enough for you?Not a single copy of the Daily Mail in sight
Dixy said:
Hosenbugler said:
The original Nick the Greek said:
The junior doctors are a bunch of self serving, greedy individuals, who are a disgrace to their profession.
Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
About how I see it. Watching those idiots hopping up and down with placards really does make you wonder who is just taking up being doctors in recent times. I really did expect better of a profession I thought better of. Putting money before the care of their patients. Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath?
Fortunately, the striking junior doctors are in a minority. Let's hope this minority of militant, unionised self centred idiots get their cummupance.
I don't think many of the doctors I work with are self serving or greedy. I spent 3 years studying economics at the LSE before deciding to go into medicine. Even now after 6 years additional training and 3 years on the job I earn less than I would have been paid back then to work at JPMorgan as a fresh faced graduate. In fact, in my first year as a doctor I was paid less per hour than I used to make selling curtains in a department store despite my timetable becoming far more irregular and antisocial. It's fair to say that if it was all about money we'd all be doing something else.
Similarly most junior doctors have come out of school with top marks in traditional subjects. They'll also have taken part in a range of extra curricular activities and volunteered. They could go into any number of fields but choose to work in one that they thought was worth working in despite the negatives. People realise the hours are going to be long and that many weekends and nights will be spent away from home. Most realised they might get sent to a distant part of the country only to be moved somewhere else after a year or two (in fact many registrars are sent to a different city on a 6 month- 1 year basis) but whilst they've accepted all this there is a point at which most people say enough is enough. I don't think this makes them greedy or self serving.
You also suggest that the striking junior doctors were a minority. That's incorrect, even Hunt only claimed that 43% of junior doctors didn't strike and you'll find that the majority of those were providing emergency care, the same level of care provided routinely at weekends and nights in most hospitals when Hunt would have you believe junior doctors are sat at home.
The fact is that this isn't about pay. Nobody wants a pay cut, but equally nobody's putting pay above patient care. The truth is most of the junior doctors roles I've seen have been stretched to the limit as it is. As a result most junior doctors work far beyond their contracted hours every week and past what the working time directive suggests is a safe limit. Despite this Hunt is proposing that he'll have more doctors working weekends and evenings and he's going to achieve this without increasing the overall numbers. I don't see how this intended as anything more than a political point scoring exercise at best or yet another step towards privatising the NHS at worst. It certainly isn't about improving patient care and rejecting the contract isn't about greed.
crankedup said:
Taxpayers fund the NHS, I reckon the Nation should continue funding for what is a fantastic Natioal asset. For those that do not have access to private medical care, most people benefit from BUPA and the like through in work benefits, This group should be offered a tax discount ith all NHS services withdrawn from this group.
A very reasonable proposition.I'd be up for it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff