Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
The original Nick the Greek said:
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from BUPA and the like through in work benefits, This group should be offered a tax discount ith all NHS services withdrawn from this group.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.
crankedup said:
Are they in a minority? I thought they were the majority?
No. The communists in the Labour party and all the militant "let's get back to 1974" protest groups that hang around this party (in the same ways flies hang round a bucket of s
t) want you to believe that.The fact is, if you take account of junior doctors who aren't members of the militant union (BMA)and the circa 6% of BMA members that were not eligible to vote (because they are unaffected by the changes), then 52% of junior doctors did NOTvote for strike action.
All out comrades...
MG-FIDO said:
Nick I think you're wrong on most points but you're entitled to your opinion.
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.
We will agree to disagree.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.
For clarity. 52% of junior doctors did NOT vote to strike.
turbobloke said:
Fraud and waste? It's 27% with 25% used as a memorable round figure which isn't exaggerated. Then add error, a different form of waste, and the cost/percentage increases further.
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.
I'll be honest, that's a far better effort than I was expecting. But seriously, you are citing a report from 2004, in 2016. Hardly contemporary or applicable to the current NHS. Despite this, I'd still be fascinated to read it, do you have a link (I have googled it but the Prof has, as you would expect, published quite widely)? If it does indeed state that the NHS could have been delivered for 22% less under optimal conditions, I'm not sure that's equivalent to it wasting the same amount of money. To give a PH analogy, I can get from A to B in a VW polo, doesn't mean the extra £200,000 on doing it in a Ferrari 458 is wasted. Who assessed whether this money was wasted? and on what basis?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.
The original Nick the Greek said:
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.
Mr GrimNasty said:
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.
If they were self serving then as the brightest of the bright they could have walked in to any degree they chose and any job they chose, greedy is when you take more than you put back but it is harder to find any group that give more to humanity. They have the total backing of their consultants and as a profession deserve far more respect than people who post insulting garbage with no evidence for their contentions.
Whilst meaningful dialogue was taking place they called off action, ensured that cover was always in place with far more notice given than required. One of their key demands was that Trusts had to be penalized for riding roughshod and abusing working hours. countless posters have gone off topic and talked about errors, having been scheduled to work 7 consecutive 13 hour night shifts and after 6 hours of the final shift you are faced with someone who will die if you fail to make difficult decisions, it is not you who should be sanctioned for an error.
The Hippocratic oath disappeared a long time ago from most med schools.
Where do you get your statistics from about % members of the BMA and % that voted, even Hunt acknowledged that they had an absolute mandate.
As to the assertion that I am a lefty, it proves you base your facts on pure fantasy.
And if you think they should all be got rid of, just think that tomorrow when the person you love most in this world (probably yourself) gets hit by a drunk driver and arrives in hospital doing their best to die, it will be the people you disdain so much that works a miracle for far less than you would offer there and then.
Rovinghawk said:
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?
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
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?
If the difficult problems are being solved, please give me an example. According to the university research TB referred to, there's a lot of problems that aren't being addressed.
The original Nick the Greek said:
crankedup said:
Are they in a minority? I thought they were the majority?
No. The communists in the Labour party and all the militant "let's get back to 1974" protest groups that hang around this party (in the same ways flies hang round a bucket of st) want you to believe that.The fact is, if you take account of junior doctors who aren't members of the militant union (BMA)and the circa 6% of BMA members that were not eligible to vote (because they are unaffected by the changes), then 52% of junior doctors did NOTvote for strike action.
All out comrades...
We enjoy Vodka as well!
mph1977 said:
The original Nick the Greek said:
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.
The original Nick the Greek said:
MG-FIDO said:
Nick I think you're wrong on most points but you're entitled to your opinion.
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.
We will agree to disagree.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.
For clarity. 52% of junior doctors did NOT vote to strike.
As for private health care, I have that, full top cover and yet the exceptions list is huge. You are entitled to your view no matter how misguided. You seem blinded by the BMA being a union and cannot see the full picture. You need to hope when you do need to use your private health there are still well trained Doctors around.
And as for the Hippocratic oath, that hasn't been sworn for years, yet time and again it is mentioned as some sort of get out of paying well for medical staff card. Just because someone wants to care for people does not give us the right to treat them with such contempt.
I fear there is no point arguing with you as your mind is made up.
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Rovinghawk said:
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?
If the difficult problems are being solved, please give me an example. According to the university research TB referred to, there's a lot of problems that aren't being addressed.
crankedup said:
Only Union Members carry the Right to vote. That's the way it is, now if the remaining 52% are offended by the actions of this minority group perhaps they should become Union Members. Problem solved.
We enjoy Vodka as well!
https://fullfact.org/health/did-98-junior-doctors-vote-strike/We enjoy Vodka as well!
Might be as high as 52% voted, but that would be of all JD, not just union members.
spaximus said:
You must use the same calculator as Jeremy Hunt does. This the same calculator that suggested over 40% worked, ergo disagreed with the strike. It did not take into account those the BMA had agreed would work to cover A&E. intensive care and oncology.
As for private health care, I have that, full top cover and yet the exceptions list is huge. You are entitled to your view no matter how misguided. You seem blinded by the BMA being a union and cannot see the full picture. You need to hope when you do need to use your private health there are still well trained Doctors around.
And as for the Hippocratic oath, that hasn't been sworn for years, yet time and again it is mentioned as some sort of get out of paying well for medical staff card. Just because someone wants to care for people does not give us the right to treat them with such contempt.
I fear there is no point arguing with you as your mind is made up.
The BMA is a union. By any definition of a union.As for private health care, I have that, full top cover and yet the exceptions list is huge. You are entitled to your view no matter how misguided. You seem blinded by the BMA being a union and cannot see the full picture. You need to hope when you do need to use your private health there are still well trained Doctors around.
And as for the Hippocratic oath, that hasn't been sworn for years, yet time and again it is mentioned as some sort of get out of paying well for medical staff card. Just because someone wants to care for people does not give us the right to treat them with such contempt.
I fear there is no point arguing with you as your mind is made up.
I realise the HO hasn't been sworn for years. It kinda makes my point...
Not sure who your insurer is, I go private for everything from corrective laser for vision, teeth, to my psychiatrist.
The 40% (allegedly) of JDs that worked was not part of my figure. It is symply that not all JDs want to be part of a militant union, indeed some are now leaving the BMA. And secondly, only those JDs that will be effected by the new contract were eligible to vote. This precludes 6% of BMA members from voting.
spaximus said:
You must use the same calculator as Jeremy Hunt does. This the same calculator that suggested over 40% worked, ergo disagreed with the strike. It did not take into account those the BMA had agreed would work to cover A&E. intensive care and oncology.
As for private health care, I have that, full top cover and yet the exceptions list is huge. You are entitled to your view no matter how misguided. You seem blinded by the BMA being a union and cannot see the full picture. You need to hope when you do need to use your private health there are still well trained Doctors around.
And as for the Hippocratic oath, that hasn't been sworn for years, yet time and again it is mentioned as some sort of get out of paying well for medical staff card. Just because someone wants to care for people does not give us the right to treat them with such contempt.
I fear there is no point arguing with you as your mind is made up.
The BMA is a union. By any definition of a union.As for private health care, I have that, full top cover and yet the exceptions list is huge. You are entitled to your view no matter how misguided. You seem blinded by the BMA being a union and cannot see the full picture. You need to hope when you do need to use your private health there are still well trained Doctors around.
And as for the Hippocratic oath, that hasn't been sworn for years, yet time and again it is mentioned as some sort of get out of paying well for medical staff card. Just because someone wants to care for people does not give us the right to treat them with such contempt.
I fear there is no point arguing with you as your mind is made up.
I realise the HO hasn't been sworn for years. It kinda makes my point...
Not sure who your insurer is, I go private for everything from corrective laser for vision, teeth, to my psychiatrist.
The 40% (allegedly) of JDs that worked was not part of my figure. It is symply that not all JDs want to be part of a militant union, indeed some are now leaving the BMA. And secondly, only those JDs that will be effected by the new contract were eligible to vote. This precludes 6% of BMA members from voting.
The original Nick the Greek said:
crankedup said:
That very much depends upon the quality of the contract being purchased. Either way though yes profit is the key driver as always.
You're not a member of "Socialist Worker" are you?On a wider front, Currently I believe the pendulum has swung to far in favour of
the employers although Government has introduced legislation introducing a living wage as an appeasement to workers..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff