Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
vonuber said:
Funny really, they seem to be able to suddenly find extra money for things like bombing foreign lands or whatever crisis suddenly comes up and threatens to make them look bad or would provide a photo opportunity for Cameron to appear on the news looking concerned.
We've supposedly got the 5th or so largest economy in the world with a relatively small population. It shouldn't be this difficult.
Money isn't "found", it's borrowed, and has to be paid back with interest! The magic money tree is a difficult one to replicate...We've supposedly got the 5th or so largest economy in the world with a relatively small population. It shouldn't be this difficult.
It's not 'difficult' - it's impossible for people to pay c. 10% of their actual salaries for 40 years and expect to receive 60% of their final salaries increasing with inflation for 25-35 years, without massive subsidy.
It just means that more and more taxpayer money is being spent on benefits for public sector workers and less and less on actual public services.
It shouldn't be that hard for people to understand....
jjlynn27 said:
We've done pensions to death.
The money has to come from somewhere...jjlynn27 said:
These changes are coming to force from next August. The questions, once again, how can you have both 15% and 11% as cost neutral.
Who said that both options are intended to be 'cost neutral'? I thought that the current proposal on the table was supposedly 'cost neutral'?jjlynn27 said:
And where are you going to find doctors to fill gaps left by reducing existing hours.
Maybe you recruit some more, but first you need to save money from somewhere - I wonder where that might be...IanA2 said:
I suppose this is just more left wing nonsense:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue...
I guess it depends what conclusions you are drawing...http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue...
Having a relatively cursory read of the article at the link, the one thing that seems to stand out is that more expenditure does not automatically mean a better system. Arguably the opposite
sidicks said:
The money has to come from somewhere...
Agreed.sidicks said:
Who said that both options are intended to be 'cost neutral'? I thought that the current proposal on the table was supposedly 'cost neutral'?
15% ddrb report = cost neutral.
11% hunt = cost neutral (current offer).
sidicks said:
And where are you going to find doctors to fill gaps left by reducing existing hours.
Maybe you recruit some more, but first you need to save money from somewhere - I wonder where that might be...
All good, but recruit from where? There are posts at the moment that are unfilled for ages. Shortages in some specs, like A&E and psych are so acute that in psych, trainees are covering multiple hospitals. Even if you bring docs from abroad, they need to pass quite a few exams which are not walk in the park. And some trainees are leaving as they can get much, much better deal elsewhere, abroad or diff industry altogether. Or Wales & Scotland.Maybe you recruit some more, but first you need to save money from somewhere - I wonder where that might be...
sidicks said:
Nice sarcasm, but you failed to answer, what / who does the NHS need saving from?
Interesting how you and turbo both hang so much bile on this term "save", if it such a left wing thing can you explain why Jeremy is so reluctant to sing God SAVE the Queen.I happen to think that the clinicians are the bedrock of the NHS and having the very best will give us the best healthcare, we can recruit Doctors that buy their certificates in Manila and pay them four fiths of sod all, the Australians are delighted to pay our highly regarded medics four times what they are paid here for half the hours.
As I have made clear on any thread I can the first group I would save the NHS from would be the lawyers who prey on it at every opportunity.
The next bunch it needs protecting from are the bean counters in grey suits who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
This 7 days a week red herring has nothing to do with Doctors working week, they are always there, stand at the exit to a staff car park at 5pm and see the exodus, the thing you will notice is none of them have a stethoscope hung around their neck.
sidicks said:
Money isn't "found", it's borrowed, and has to be paid back with interest! The magic money tree is a difficult one to replicate...
It's not 'difficult' - it's impossible for people to pay c. 10% of their actual salaries for 40 years and expect to receive 60% of their final salaries increasing with inflation for 25-35 years, without massive subsidy.
It just means that more and more taxpayer money is being spent on benefits for public sector workers and less and less on actual public services.
It shouldn't be that hard for people to understand....
You're obsessed with pensions (even though my point was not about that nor even addressed to you, but a general comment on the state of the NHS). Why? Is it just envy?It's not 'difficult' - it's impossible for people to pay c. 10% of their actual salaries for 40 years and expect to receive 60% of their final salaries increasing with inflation for 25-35 years, without massive subsidy.
It just means that more and more taxpayer money is being spent on benefits for public sector workers and less and less on actual public services.
It shouldn't be that hard for people to understand....
vonuber said:
You're obsessed with pensions (even though my point was not about that nor even addressed to you, but a general comment on the state of the NHS). Why? Is it just envy?
sidicks is like a dog with a bone on this and typically he forgets the following
- there is an employer contribution
- if the NHS scheme had been funded rather than the government choosing to run it PAYG it would be in surplus to a significant amount
mph1977 said:
sidicks is like a dog with a bone on this
and typically he forgets the following
- there is an employer contribution
You seem to forget that the taxpayer is the employer.and typically he forgets the following
- there is an employer contribution
And that the published employer contribution is only a fraction of the total cost.
mph1977 said:
- if the NHS scheme had been funded rather than the government choosing to run it PAYG it would be in surplus to a significant amount
As always, absolute nonsense.Stick to talking about stuff you understand i.e. the NHS
vonuber said:
You're obsessed with pensions (even though my point was not about that nor even addressed to you, but a general comment on the state of the NHS).
Not addressed to me, yet you quoted my post!!vonuber said:
Why? Is it just envy?
Ah, the 'envy' defence comes into play (as usual). How boring.
Amazing how those who are so keen to moan about public services being 'underfunded' are apparently oblivious to where much of the money is spent.
sidicks said:
mph1977 said:
sidicks is like a dog with a bone on this
and typically he forgets the following
- there is an employer contribution
You seem to forget that the taxpayer is the employer.and typically he forgets the following
- there is an employer contribution
And that the published employer contribution is only a fraction of the total cost.
mph1977 said:
- if the NHS scheme had been funded rather than the government choosing to run it PAYG it would be in surplus to a significant amount
As always, absolute nonsense.Stick to talking about stuff you understand i.e. the NHS
Are you disputing NHS pensions own figures saying they take in more than they pay out and have done for many years...
are you also disputing that if the scheme was 'fully funded' and these surpluses allowed to accrue and be invested rather than being spent again in year by the treasury , your asserted 'black hole' would not be the size you assert it to be ?
once again envy and chicken little politics rule ...
king cmph1977 said:
in terms of the employer contribution you continue to assert that the pension entitlement is gained solely by the employee contribution, not the the toal contributions
I have asserted nothing of the sort. Sorry you're still struggling with this.The employer pays a small proportion of the total cost, taxpayers pay the rest ie. there is a massive subsidy from private sector to public sector.
mph1977 said:
Are you disputing NHS pensions own figures saying they take in more than they pay out and have done for many years...
This rubbish again? You clearly don't understand how defined benefit pensions work - stick to areas where you do have expertise!mph1977 said:
are you also disputing that if the scheme was 'fully funded' and these surpluses allowed to accrue and be invested rather than being spent again in year by the treasury , your asserted 'black hole' would not be the size you assert it to be ?
If these schemes were 'fully funded' then (by defnition) there wold be no surplus or deficit, just the right amount of funds. Presumably you actually mean 'funded'?Regardless, what you are referring to aren't genuine surpluses, as explained on numerous occasions.
mph1977 said:
once again envy and chicken little politics rule ...
Once again it seems that economic ignorance rules from your perspective.Edited by sidicks on Monday 23 November 22:17
Murph7355 said:
IanA2 said:
I suppose this is just more left wing nonsense:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue...
I guess it depends what conclusions you are drawing...http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue...
Having a relatively cursory read of the article at the link, the one thing that seems to stand out is that more expenditure does not automatically mean a better system. Arguably the opposite
IanA2 said:
Correct, one of the reasons the NHS is able to provide the services it does is because it is significantly more efficient than, for example, the US. This is internationally recognised. Just think how much better it could be if it was brought up to the OECD average.
What pensions do the staff get in these other countries healthcare ?Downward said:
IanA2 said:
Correct, one of the reasons the NHS is able to provide the services it does is because it is significantly more efficient than, for example, the US. This is internationally recognised. Just think how much better it could be if it was brought up to the OECD average.
What pensions do the staff get in these other countries healthcare ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff