Save the NHS!

[scorza]

We're not stupid you know.

The whole point of having a flaming procurement department is that if someone goes out of business they find someone else.

If it gets to that point I'd say the procurement department have already failed I'd say.

Personally I think NHS procurement needs a massive shake up. ANYONE who signs these deals knowing how much of a rip off they are should be fired.

Procurement should be about tough and gruelling negotiations in getting the best possible deal for the NHS and the taxpayer, not just being a ****ing lazy ****wit and signing any old contract cos they can't be arsed to do their jobs properly and negotiate.

Whenever I order up stuff for us, I ALWAYS ALWAYS manage an extra discount on stuff. If you dont ask then you dont get!

Best discount I ever got for one of our bigger purchases was 41%. Had I not pushed and pushed this would have never happened.

If I can do it for my department, why cant the utterly useless, lazy ****wits who are signing off the big stuff do it?

Its pathetic. They should all be fired. THEY are part of the problem and they should be disgusted with themselves.

The NHS potentially has mega bargaining power, they should be using it.

How do you know they don't negotiate discounts? BTW, biggest discount our procurement guy has ever got is 68% For bespoke stuff like the doomed NPFIT project you probably won't get any discount however. Incidentally if you're looking for someone to blame for the NPFIT fiasco I suggest we start with the Management Consultancy who said it was all possible in the first place - McKinsey.

 

[scorza]

Mainly down to the Labour government who got rid of loads of nurses and created lots of middle manager non jobs.

Sorry, under Labour the number of qualified nurses working for the NHS rose by almost 100,000 (Source)

 

[The_Abyss]

Will you bring the salaries in-line with the private sector to make this fair also? You do realise that private salaries are greatly higher than NHS for nursing and doctor roles?

*edit* Nevermind. This is just a troll about how you think doctors are paid far too much money despite the fact that it takes 3-5 years (depending on banding) for doctors to get paid the same as a newly qualified tube driver.

No trolling. I didn't specify doctors. Nor tube drivers (have a problem with them?). Nor did I specify pay.

I specified the grossly unfair and unaffordable nature of defined benefit public sector pension schemes.

Your comment on private sector salaries for doctors seems to suggest that you'd be an advocate of private sector healthcare.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I specified the grossly unfair and unaffordable nature of defined benefit public sector pension schemes.

I wonder what the wage bill would have been now though had they never existed? Plenty in the public sector, especially in Health, are there because it's more of a vocation than just a job - they put up with pay and conditions because not only do they feel they are making a real difference to peoples lives, but because they know they'll be looked after when they retire.

Any changes to pension agreements - which I don't disagree need to happen - must surely only include new entrants into the scheme, it's very unethical to effectively retrospectively change something somebody has put perhaps decades of work in under the impression they would acheive once they retire.

 

[scorza]

No trolling. I didn't specify doctors. Nor tube drivers (have a problem with them?). Nor did I specify pay.

I specified the grossly unfair and unaffordable nature of defined benefit public sector pension schemes.

Your comment on private sector salaries for doctors seems to suggest that you'd be an advocate of private sector healthcare.

Nothing unaffordable about public sector pensions (Source). What's unfair imo is that private sector pensions are so crap for the vast majority of people.

 

[cm1179]

Best discount I ever got for one of our bigger purchases was 41%. Had I not pushed and pushed this would have never happened.

you purchased off someone who was willing to drop by 41%

does that make sense to you?

 

[Dolph]

Its not that simple. Most private hospitals have little or no facilities for HDU/ITU care. If someone suffers a complication or becomes unwell after surgery, they get transferred to the nearest NHS hospital for further care.

Where the private hospital then pays the NHS for use of the facilities

 

[The_Abyss]

I wonder what the wage bill would have been now though had they never existed? Plenty in the public sector, especially in Health, are there because it's more of a vocation than just a job - they put up with pay and conditions because not only do they feel they are making a real difference to peoples lives, but because they know they'll be looked after when they retire.

Any changes to pension agreements - which I don't disagree need to happen - must surely only include new entrants into the scheme, it's very unethical to effectively retrospectively change something somebody has put perhaps decades of work in under the impression they would acheive once they retire.

If they've put decades of work in, then they'll have decades of preserved benefits. I'm not suggesting a 'Rentokill' but you can change the terms of existing employees - this happens all the time.

Sorry, but I do not buy the line that all people in public sector employment are there to 'make a difference', nor do I believe plenty of them do. And their pay and conditions are no worse than the private sector - in many cases they are superior.

Does unethical include bankrupt? Because that's pretty much what the public sector is right now. We could have course run it right up until total collapse, or we could reform it now.

It is not acceptable to talk about 'driving benefits down to the lowest level, we should be driving private sector up to the same level as public sector' because they are simply not affordable anywhere - end of.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Sorry, but I do not buy the line that all people in public sector employment are there to 'make a difference',

I didn't say that. I said 'Plenty'. I'm sure dictionary.com will be able to assist if you think the definition of the word 'plenty' has somehow changed to mirror that of 'all'.

 

[The_Abyss]

Nothing unaffordable about public sector pensions (Source). What's unfair imo is that private sector pensions are so crap for the vast majority of people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14134847

So in your opinion, who's going to make up for the crap nature of private sector pensions. The taxpayer? Oh wait.

 

[The_Abyss]

I didn't say that. I said 'Plenty'. I'm sure dictionary.com will be able to assist if you think the definition of the word 'plenty' has somehow changed to mirror that of 'all'.

Sorry, but I do not buy the line that all people in public sector employment are there to 'make a difference', nor do I believe plenty of them do.

Read the whole paragraph.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why should I? You quoted me, and explained you didnt buy a line which I didn't actually say.

I don't care if you buy, get free or pre-order the line 'all people in the public sector are there to 'make a difference'' because I never posted such a line and never would, because it's not true.

There are plenty of people quite happy to spend 12 hour shifts of an evening scooping up drunk people and rushing them to hospital for £24k a year. There are plenty of people quite happy to spend a working life caring for the elderly at less than £20k a year and so on and so forth. Don't let the fact there are, as with almost any sector, people who do none of these things detract from the fact that like it or not, plenty of people do contribute a heck of a lot and get back not an awful lot, with the exception of a half decent pension at the end.

It's the same with our military. Even senior officers pay is hardly glowing compared to the sort of money somebody with similar ability and seniority would get in the private sector, before you consider the greater risk to life - but at the end, at least they get a decent pension.

By all means change the rules for those yet to make this lifelong commitment.

 

[scorza]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14134847

So in your opinion, who's going to make up for the crap nature of private sector pensions. The taxpayer? Oh wait.

Your link talks about total liabilities which is rather irrelevant since it's something of a worse-case scenario. The cash flow projection (the most important measure of financial health imo) shows public sector pension payments staying well below 2% of GDP.

 

[frosty03]

Where the private hospital then pays the NHS for use of the facilities

Its the patient or their insurance which pays upon transfer. The private hospital doesn't pay out anything.

 

[The_Abyss]

Why should I? You quoted me, and explained you didnt buy a line which I didn't actually say.

I don't care if you buy, get free or pre-order the line 'all people in the public sector are there to 'make a difference'' because I never posted such a line and never would, because it's not true.

I quoted your entire post. Not edited.

 

[Dolph]

I wonder what the wage bill would have been now though had they never existed? Plenty in the public sector, especially in Health, are there because it's more of a vocation than just a job - they put up with pay and conditions because not only do they feel they are making a real difference to peoples lives, but because they know they'll be looked after when they retire.

The problem with nurses pay and conditions is national pay bargaining and a monopolistic employment environment creates a situation where all the power is in the hands of the employer, not the employee. It's a shame they are so brainwashed that they keep opposing any attempt to free them from it.

Any changes to pension agreements - which I don't disagree need to happen - must surely only include new entrants into the scheme, it's very unethical to effectively retrospectively change something somebody has put perhaps decades of work in under the impression they would acheive once they retire.

No, you just preserve already accrued entitlement, while allowing new entitlement to accrue on the new terms.

 

[The_Abyss]

Your link talks about total liabilities which is rather irrelevant since it's something of a worse-case scenario. The cash flow projection (the most important measure of financial health imo) shows public sector pension payments staying well below 2% of GDP.

Which is the same scenario the private sector is obliged to use. Or actually something a little worse.

Cash flow projection - very telling. Cash flow projection for funding of future pension liabilities shows exactly that they are unfunded today, but only funded by cash tomorrow. I'm glad you recognise that because that cash is generated by the private sector - you know - that GDP?

Total liabilities is not at all irrelevant. It is entirely relevant. It is what we will owe.

 

[Dolph]

Your link talks about total liabilities which is rather irrelevant since it's something of a worse-case scenario. The cash flow projection (the most important measure of financial health imo) shows public sector pension payments staying well below 2% of GDP.

2% of GDP per annum is affordable to pay out for a tiny proportion of the population?

 

[scorza]

Which is the same scenario the private sector is obliged to use. Or actually something a little worse.

Worse than a worse-case scenario? You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Cash flow projection - very telling. Cash flow projection for funding of future pension liabilities shows exactly that they are unfunded today, but only funded by cash tomorrow.

That's how cash flow forecasts work.

Total liabilities is not at all irrelevant. It is entirely relevant. It is what we will owe.

No it isn't lol.

 

[The_Abyss]

There are plenty of people quite happy to spend 12 hour shifts of an evening scooping up drunk people and rushing them to hospital for £24k a year. There are plenty of people quite happy to spend a working life caring for the elderly at less than £20k a year and so on and so forth. Don't let the fact there are, as with almost any sector, people who do none of these things detract from the fact that like it or not, plenty of people do contribute a heck of a lot and get back not an awful lot, with the exception of a half decent pension at the end.

It's the same with our military. Even senior officers pay is hardly glowing compared to the sort of money somebody with similar ability and seniority would get in the private sector, before you consider the greater risk to life - but at the end, at least they get a decent pension.

By all means change the rules for those yet to make this lifelong commitment.

I missed the above edit first time.

You're placing a higher value on these jobs than the jobs that any other people do. Yes, they may well contribute a lot. So do lots of other people. I'm sure you do to, whether you're in private or public sector, no matter what job you're in. The public sector isn't exclusive in dealing with vomit or risk to life.

Why is this public sector employee making a lifelong commitment, but private sector isn't? Why is there some belief that the roles are different? Can private sector employees not be dedicated to their customers (some of whom I'm sure may be public sector - after all, we're only talking about who pays them for delivering their service)?