Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

Didn't Circle Healthcare come to the same conclusion ?

The conclusion that, because no-one else does it, it isn't worth doing?

They assumed they'd be able to run a hospital more efficiently than it was already being run. It was only after they tried doing it that they realised they couldn't.

That's a false conclusion.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

So the "essential changes" you refer to aren't the ones being proposed by JH / the changes that this entire thread is about?

The thread seems to cover a number of wider areas related to the cost of the NHS.

[IanA2]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

Didn't Circle Healthcare come to the same conclusion ?

The conclusion that, because no-one else does it, it isn't worth doing?

They assumed they'd be able to run a hospital more efficiently than it was already being run. It was only after they tried doing it that they realised they couldn't.

That's a false conclusion.

It is however pretty much what Circle told the Health Select Committee.

[mph1977]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

Didn't Circle Healthcare come to the same conclusion ?

The conclusion that, because no-one else does it, it isn't worth doing?

How many other countries have a National Health Service that resembles the NHS?

Hinchingbrooke was a gamble

there are many hoispitals Larger than hinchingbrooke which had bee merged into multi site trusts a number of years ago as 'too small to be viable '

[Countdown]

mph1977 said:

Hinchingbrooke was a gamble

Therein lies the advantage of the Private Sector. They can always shut up shop and go home if they can't make a profit.

[mph1977]

Countdown said:

mph1977 said:

Hinchingbrooke was a gamble

Therein lies the advantage of the Private Sector. They can always shut up shop and go home if they can't make a profit.

the gamble was to busk it through that term and then get their hands on a viable trust after they had 'proved it'

i am unaware of a standalone DGH trust as small as hinchingbrooke ( vs some of the tertiary only trusts)

[IanA2]

Countdown said:

mph1977 said:

Hinchingbrooke was a gamble

Therein lies the advantage of the Private Sector. They can always shut up shop and go home if they can't make a profit.

And not just Circle that packed up and went home with their tails between their legs. There have been many failed forages into the health sector. These failures evidence the brilliance of the "management consultant/venture capital" partnerships claims (eg Circle) to be able to provide better services than the current public sector providers. They can't and they just walk away.

Edited by IanA2 on Sunday 22 November 20:15

[Dixy]

turbobloke said:

My interest in the junior doctors' strike vote arose primarily from seeing JDs on a protest with placards carrying Labour Party propaganda

This is what you are talking about https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=junior+doctor+pr...j4tdVeE5ikI8TB0ztSsBPi0ijGE%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiLjZLV6qTJAhWLcBoKHSBoCMAQyjcIKQ&ei=pSBSVsumG4vhaaDQoYAM#imgrc=_&usg=j4tdVeE5ikI8TB0ztSsBPi0ijGE%3D

But can you explain why it is Labour party propaganda. I happen to believe that the NHS is something Britain should be immensely proud of and should be saved.

[sidicks]

Dixy said:

But can you explain why it is Labour party propaganda. I happen to believe that the NHS is something Britain should be immensely proud of and should be saved.

'Saved' from what? That sounds like emotional (political?) rhetoric to me.

Spending on the NHS has increased by around 180% in the last 15 years (and a 50% increase as a % of GDP) - to 'save' it, we need to radically re-think what and how it provides care. Continually increasing spending is not a viable option.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 22 November 20:28

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

'Saved' from what? That sounds like emotional (political?) rhetoric to me.

Spending on the NHS has increased by around 180% in the last 15 years (and a 50% increase as a % of GDP) - to 'save' it, we need to radically re-think what and how it provides care. Continually increasing spending is not a viable option.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 22 November 20:28

People are getting older, living longer, and troughing on more pizzas and buregrs. Advances in healthcare mean that we can now fix more people for longer. All this costs more.

[sidicks]

Countdown said:

People are getting older, living longer, and troughing on more pizzas and buregrs. Advances in healthcare mean that we can now fix more people for longer. All this costs more.

Which seems to support my previous post..,,

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

You are entitled to that opinion.

As you are you to yours however irrelevant for this thread they might be.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

I thought Hunt's proposals were supposed to be "cost neutral". How is that going to mean more money to fund services?

I've said nothing about Hunt's proposals.

Indeed you didn't. That would be on topic.

[jjlynn27]

Countdown said:

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

Didn't Circle Healthcare come to the same conclusion ?

The conclusion that, because no-one else does it, it isn't worth doing?

They assumed they'd be able to run a hospital more efficiently than it was already being run. It was only after they tried doing it that they realised they couldn't.

It's not only because no-one else is doing it, but you knew that already. The reason that no one else is doing it because it is hugely inefficient. Having seven day full-on service is not some kind of innovation where there was an Eureka moment, it's political posturing. 'Do you want 40% more for the same money?. People complaining about lack of '7 day service' are the same ones usually complaining about 'public sector' costs.

The Hitchinsbroke (sp?) hospital and Circle; They've pulled out because they had 30% increase in admissions, year on year, and 'efficiency savings' were brought in of around 10% (IIRC). They've lost £5mil of their own money, according to chief exec of Circle.

Can we please get this tread back on track, and if necessary open yet another 'zomg public sector nhs spending all my moneys and I have to wait for my hip replacement and zimmer frame'.

[JagLover]

The Crack Fox said:

On the unfortunate occasions I've been sat in A&E, usually for ages, waiting for one of the harassed staff to treat one of my kids for their latest scrape, I have not once thought that we're spending too much on the NHS. In fact, I would quite happily pay a bit more.

We are already paying a bit more (it is the only government department which has had real terms increases and £8bn more has been promised)

The question is with the NHS whether extra resources benefit patient care or are just swallowed up by staff wages/pensions.

[turbobloke]

sidicks said:

Dixy said:

But can you explain why it is Labour party propaganda. I happen to believe that the NHS is something Britain should be immensely proud of and should be saved.

'Saved' from what? That sounds like emotional (political?) rhetoric to me.

It's pure propaganda, Labour style. So, here are some more ideas for the next set of junior doctor protest placards.









Any such slogans from pro-Conservative sources have proved extremely difficult to find, it's Labour propaganda pure and simple.

Not recognising what's going on within politicised union activism is naiveté at an implausible level.

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

We are already paying a bit more (it is the only government department which has had real terms increases and £8bn more has been promised)

What? Impossible! Junior doctors say we need to save the NHS, so presumably it needs saving from extra spending under a Conservative gov't. Not a chance. The presence of a Conservative gov't is their issue when and where such slogans and chants are seen/heard.

Obviously.

[jjlynn27]

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

We are already paying a bit more (it is the only government department which has had real terms increases and £8bn more has been promised)

What? Impossible! Junior doctors say we need to save the NHS, so presumably it needs saving from extra spending under a Conservative gov't. Not a chance. The presence of a Conservative gov't is their issue when and where such slogans and chants are seen/heard.

Obviously.

Obviously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34449073

That damned leftie. 98% who voted for strike must also all be Labour supporting Union stooges.

As for the increase in funding. That would indeed be an increase if demand for service is the same. It's not. Again completely irrelevant for this thread as the subject of this proposal is not an increase in spending.

[turbobloke]

jjlynn27 said:

turbobloke said:

JagLover said:

We are already paying a bit more (it is the only government department which has had real terms increases and £8bn more has been promised)

What? Impossible! Junior doctors say we need to save the NHS, so presumably it needs saving from extra spending under a Conservative gov't. Not a chance. The presence of a Conservative gov't is their issue when and where such slogans and chants are seen/heard.

Obviously.

Obviously.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34449073

One person's view, carefully selected. It considers expectations and offers.

How does it alter slogans and chants which obviously embody Labour propaganda? It can't rewrite history or alter the motives of those involved.

[Dixy]

turbobloke said:

It's pure propaganda, Labour style.

I give in and agree with you completely, all junior doctors are lazy money grabing socialist lefty labour supporters who are only doing this as a massive sulk because their party did not win the last election.

You win, now we are both wrong.