Junior Doctor's contracts petition

[sidicks]

Jasandjules said:

Oh I see. I thought you had something concrete.

More concrete than your evidence to the contrary...!!

Jasandjules said:

The way I see it is that the Govt are taking steps so that they can privatise certain areas of the NHS. Simple as that. They are targetting a few areas so that when the privatisation kicks in it will be "better" and thus a "success".

Just the cynic in me really.

Given the vast majority of the population is strongly in favour of the NHS, then a large scale privatisation would be at odds with a) the electorate and b) their manifesto.

Regardless, privatising some areas of the NHS should not necessarily be a problem,

[voyds9]

Randy Winkman said:

Tories blame the effects of cuts on everyone but themselves.

And who calls an increase in funding a cut.

NHS spending is nearly £2000 per person

Total spending up £50B in last 12 years

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-...

There is a point we need to say enough

Stevanos said:

IanA2 said:

There are 1.3 M folks employed by the NHS. Individual negotiations might eat up a fair bit of time.

But doctors are quite senior? They seriously don't have the option to negotiate their contracts on their own?

Of course they can negotiate.

It is take it or leave it.

If they don't take it they are free to set up in private practice.

Just like any other one man band business.

jjlynn27 said:

So with waiting times targets being missed mostly due to lack of staff, and one of the lowest costs per capita, you think that solution is to cut it back aggressively?

How much of the USA is state funded.

Would the general public appreciate a large increase in their NHS contributions for an improved health service.

Edited by voyds9 on Saturday 17th October 23:25

[ellroy]

Quite.

5% of the population employed by the NHS? Seriously?

Look a their lovely golden plated pensions.

(#)followthemoney

[bladerrw]

voyds9 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Tories blame the effects of cuts on everyone but themselves.

And who calls an increase in funding a cut.

NHS spending is nearly £2000 per person

Total spending up £50B in last 12 years

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-...

There is a point we need to say enough

Stevanos said:

IanA2 said:

There are 1.3 M folks employed by the NHS. Individual negotiations might eat up a fair bit of time.

But doctors are quite senior? They seriously don't have the option to negotiate their contracts on their own?

Of course they can negotiate.

It is take it or leave it.

If they don't take it they are free to set up in private practice.

Just like any other one man band business.

jjlynn27 said:

So with waiting times targets being missed mostly due to lack of staff, and one of the lowest costs per capita, you think that solution is to cut it back aggressively?

How much of the USA is state funded.

Would the general public appreciate a large increase in their NHS contributions for an improved health service.

Edited by voyds9 on Saturday 17th October 23:25

What as... plumbers? These are junior doctors we are talking about, they can't set up their own practices.

[Rovinghawk]

Dixy said:

Which report are you referring to, as what Hunt i proposing is not supported by any report.

It's under "More details" in the link to the petition that you posted.

If that's too difficult, here it is:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

[voyds9]

bladerrw said:

What as... plumbers? These are junior doctors we are talking about, they can't set up their own practices.

I believe that was the point.

They are able to practice as doctors but without the experience few people will visit them.

If they need the experience they need to play within the system or go to a country where they are able to practice without experience.

NHS spending has grown disproportionately to income in UK

http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/ov...

Funding for the NHS comes directly from taxation. Since the NHS transformation in 2013 the NHS payment system has become underpinned by legislation. The Health & Social Care Act 2012 moves responsibility for pricing from the Department of Health, to a shared responsibility for NHS England and Monitor. When the NHS was launched in 1948, it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £9 billion at today’s value). For 2015/16, it was around £115.4 billion. Visit NHS England’s website for more detailed information about how NHS England and Monitor are planning to manage the budget.

so approx a 13x (adjusted) increase in funding. At what point is it enough.

[jjlynn27]

voyds9 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Tories blame the effects of cuts on everyone but themselves.

And who calls an increase in funding a cut.

NHS spending is nearly £2000 per person

Total spending up £50B in last 12 years

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-...

There is a point we need to say enough

your link says said:

The NHS was rated as the best system in terms of efficiency, effective care, safe care, coordinated care, patient-centred care and cost-related problems. It was also ranked second for equity.

voyds9 said:

Of course they can negotiate.
It is take it or leave it.
If they don't take it they are free to set up in private practice.
Just like any other one man band business.

Except it's nothing like 'any other one man band business'. When 'they' set up private, aka locums, do you have any ideas how much they cost. And who is paying for it?

jjlynn27 said:

voyds9 said:

How much of the USA is state funded.

More than any other total spending of any country in that list. Also, USA figure doesn't include insurance program administration and research. Those figures are included for other countries, making USA spending per capita even higher. And they were last in the table for quality, value for money and pretty much everything else.
These are example costs for cancer treatment (per year)

usanews.com said:

Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums.

And those are the costs just for cancer drugs, drugs for managing side effects are not included in those figures. But we need to say enough.

voyds9 said:

Would the general public appreciate a large increase in their NHS contributions for an improved health service.

What is 'large increase in NHS contributions'? The general population doesn't have a choice really, it will pay more for the health service. The only question is the way of paying for the services, and how much more.

I'd imagine that general population doesn't know that the biggest reason for bankruptcies in USA are medical bills. Or that 72% of bankruptcies are by people who actually have private health insurance. Would general population have a problem with a system where 10 million people (adjusted for population figures) are struggling to pay medical bills or resorting to skipping prescription medicine because they can't afford them.
I'd, for one, have a problem with system like that, even for the system that delivers the best care, let alone worst.

[VolvoT5]

voyds9 said:

Would the general public appreciate a large increase in their NHS contributions for an improved health service.

Well I would argue yes to increases in taxation to fund the NHS as decent healthcare is a top priority. The alternative is a PAYG system or insurance based and I can't see how either will work out cheaper or better for everyone.

I think the evidence shows care costs will increase regardless, the question is how to pay for it and ensure everyone has access to good treatment.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

What is 'large increase in NHS contributions'? The general population doesn't have a choice really, it will pay more for the health service. The only question is the way of paying for the services, and how much more.

The 'general population' thinks that 'someone else' should pay.

jjltnn27 said:

Or that 72% of bankruptcies are by people who actually have private health insurance. Would general population have a problem with a system where 10 million people (adjusted for population figures) are struggling to pay medical bills or resorting to skipping prescription medicine because they can't afford them.
I'd, for one, have a problem with system like that, even for the system that delivers the best care, let alone worst.

Straw man argument - no-one is suggesting that is the sort of approach the UK system should move to.

[loafer123]

Isn't this sort of argument what ACAS is for?

[IanA2]

jjlynn27 said:

voyds9 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Tories blame the effects of cuts on everyone but themselves.

And who calls an increase in funding a cut.

NHS spending is nearly £2000 per person

Total spending up £50B in last 12 years

http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-...

There is a point we need to say enough

your link says said:

The NHS was rated as the best system in terms of efficiency, effective care, safe care, coordinated care, patient-centred care and cost-related problems. It was also ranked second for equity.

voyds9 said:

Of course they can negotiate.
It is take it or leave it.
If they don't take it they are free to set up in private practice.
Just like any other one man band business.

Except it's nothing like 'any other one man band business'. When 'they' set up private, aka locums, do you have any ideas how much they cost. And who is paying for it?

jjlynn27 said:

voyds9 said:

How much of the USA is state funded.

More than any other total spending of any country in that list. Also, USA figure doesn't include insurance program administration and research. Those figures are included for other countries, making USA spending per capita even higher. And they were last in the table for quality, value for money and pretty much everything else.
These are example costs for cancer treatment (per year)

usanews.com said:

Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums.

And those are the costs just for cancer drugs, drugs for managing side effects are not included in those figures. But we need to say enough.

voyds9 said:

Would the general public appreciate a large increase in their NHS contributions for an improved health service.

What is 'large increase in NHS contributions'? The general population doesn't have a choice really, it will pay more for the health service. The only question is the way of paying for the services, and how much more.

I'd imagine that general population doesn't know that the biggest reason for bankruptcies in USA are medical bills. Or that 72% of bankruptcies are by people who actually have private health insurance. Would general population have a problem with a system where 10 million people (adjusted for population figures) are struggling to pay medical bills or resorting to skipping prescription medicine because they can't afford them.
I'd, for one, have a problem with system like that, even for the system that delivers the best care, let alone worst.

Yup, you've covered the main points. What I find interesting is that many people I've spoken to can't seem to get their head around the level of public expenditure in the States. They just splutter in a sort of "does not compute" way.

Hunt et al are intending to carve up the health service and sell it off. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I said they want to shut they NHS down.

[sidicks]

IanA2 said:

Hunt et al are intending to carve up the health service and sell it off. That's what I meant in an earlier post when I said they want to shut they NHS down.

Except they aren't.

[abucd4]

My fiancee is currently on a 12 hour shift, which actually takes 14 hours on average, day six of a 12 day stretch, where she will be covering TEN wards as one vulnerable and inexperienced 23 year old. The bottom line of these new contracts is that this is apparently not 'anti-social' and unsafe, and it will make it easier for hospitals to stretch these shifts even longer putting patients lives at risk.

This whole non-weekends thing is a load of media spin and is quite frankly rubbish, the only reason there aren't more people there on the weekends is due to excessive cuts, not due to a shortage of doctors willing to work them. If any of you would be happy to work 14 hours covering 10 wards of incredibly sick people then you know where to sign up.

She is a very strong person, but doing shifts like that, dealing with 3 difficult deaths in one shift, then going to do it again for 12 days in a row before just two days off and then into night shifts, all whilst hearing the media and the uninformed public call them money grabbing, 'unionised' and backwards is tough for anyone to deal with.

[sidicks]

abucd4 said:

My fiancee is currently on a 12 hour shift, which actually takes 14 hours on average, day six of a 12 day stretch, where she will be covering TEN wards as one vulnerable and inexperienced 23 year old. The bottom line of these new contracts is that this is apparently not 'anti-social' and unsafe, and it will make it easier for hospitals to stretch these shifts even longer putting patients lives at risk.

This whole non-weekends thing is a load of media spin and is quite frankly rubbish, the only reason there aren't more people there on the weekends is due to excessive cuts, not due to a shortage of doctors willing to work them. If any of you would be happy to work 14 hours covering 10 wards of incredibly sick people then you know where to sign up.

Please can you outline how much NHS spending has decreased in the last few years?

abucd4 said:

She is a very strong person, but doing shifts like that, dealing with 3 difficult deaths in one shift, then going to do it again for 12 days in a row before just two days off and then into night shifts, all whilst hearing the media and the uninformed public call them money grabbing, 'unionised' and backwards is tough for anyone to deal with.

Who is calling them 'money grabbing'?

[abucd4]

sidicks said:

Who is calling them 'money grabbing'?

I'm thinking of cuts in terms of how many fewer staff are on the wards now compared to when she started training 6 years ago, there has been a distinct drop in the levels of staffing.

As for money grabbing, that relates to a number of comments seen on social media from the uninformed.

[sidicks]

abucd4 said:

I'm thinking of cuts in terms of how many fewer staff are on the wards now compared to when she started training 6 years ago, there has been a distinct drop in the levels of staffing.

And yet the stars posted earlier...



...suggest a 20% rise in NHS staff in the last 5 years!

[abucd4]

sidicks said:

And yet the stars posted earlier...



...suggest a 20% rise in NHS staff in the last 5 years!

In terms of numbers on wards though? The NHS is a big organisation and not just made up of doctors. The increasing costs of locum doctors suggest otherwise.

[abucd4]

abucd4 said:

In terms of numbers on wards though? The NHS is a big organisation and not just made up of doctors. The increasing costs of locum doctors suggest otherwise.

In the interests of absolute disclosure I'm not willing to get into a battle here. I'm simply offering my insight into the lives of three Junior doctors I know, all based on Merseyside, all facing the same issues on a daily basis.

[sidicks]

abucd4 said:

In terms of numbers on wards though? The NHS is a big organisation and not just made up of doctors. The increasing costs of locum doctors suggest otherwise.

In that case, contrary to claims above, there must be scope to make considerable savings in staff costs within the NHS, maybe allowing for increased support on the wards..!!

[Dixy]

sidicks said:

...suggest a 20% rise in NHS staff in the last 5 years!

An example of this that might enlighten, current recruitment for senior staff at a hospital, surgical consultant £84k, compliance manager £124k.