What is says, a single tax rate applied to all income, and a universal set of benefits. Changing either results in changes for everyone, no more targeting tax rises or benefit cuts at other people, they impact everyone.
Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
What is says, a single tax rate applied to all income, and a universal set of benefits. Changing either results in changes for everyone, no more targeting tax rises or benefit cuts at other people, they impact everyone.
Example?
Of course, that's exactly what the government wants to happen. They want to see the NHS fail.
NHS failure = Less taxes for the rich and more to invest in offshore schemes. Not only that because they have the money they will take over and start charging like in America. Death and life will become an economy and money maker for them.
They are evil byond comprehension, Why they are allowed to even remain outside of a massive prison complex for evil gits i have no idea.
They are evil byond comprehension, Why they are allowed to even remain outside of a massive prison complex for evil gits i have no idea.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,889
- Location
- Rutland
Who is demanding more money?
That is no excuse. Would you rather they all left for jobs outside of healthcare or private sector?
Dolph, you have some strange ideas; you're quite happy for failed bankers to pay themselves millions in bonuses but not for junior doctors in the NHS to try and maintain their current levels of pay and conditions. Bizarrely, I suspect you'd be OK with the same junior doctors earning three times as much doing the same job in a private hospital, and funding for that level of pay coming from the same source i.e. Joe Taxpayer. 
Junior doctors? They are certainly trying to increase the cost of providing service and reduce the amount available for patient care...
I would rather we had a service run for the patients not for the staff, that means ending various poor employment practices within the service.
If the staff really think they can all walk elsewhere and earn more, then the pay rates need rethinking, but if this was the case, they wouldn't be striking...
Dolph, you have some strange ideas; you're quite happy for failed bankers to pay themselves millions in bonuses but not for junior doctors in the NHS to try and maintain their current levels of pay and conditions. Bizarrely, I suspect you'd be OK with the same junior doctors earning three times as much doing the same job in a private hospital, and funding for that level of pay coming from the same source i.e. Joe Taxpayer.
I have a choice of banks, I don't have a choice of healthcare (because you pay whatever).
That's the key difference. In the absence of structural incentives to drive performance, alternatives, even if less efficient, must be used, hence careful regulation is needed to ensure the patient is kept at the forefront of all decision making.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,889
- Location
- Rutland
Nonsense, they're asking for their pay to not be cut, Saturday's until 10pm not considered a normal work day and their hours not increased.
There has never been any suggestion of increasing pay at all.
Increasing staffing costs if you prefer. The end result is the same, money taken from patient care into the staff's pocket.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,776
- Location
- Leicestershire
How so? Because they don't want to work long weeks which would put patients health at risk because they are being asked to work crazy hours for the same money?
When you become prime minister I'm moving abroad....
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,889
- Location
- Rutland
The government want to increase staffing levels but not pay for it.
If you were asked to work an extra day a week for the same money (actually less but that's another debate) or work the same hours and take a 20-30% pay cut would you consider youself to be "demanding more money"? Seems far fetched to me.
Just because healthcare workers wages come out of the health budget does not mean they can be ridden roughshod over and have no right to defend their position. It won't just be the doctors either, the nurses will be next, the auxiliary staff - all those cruel people robbing from patients
Last edited:
The government want to increase staffing levels but not pay for it.
If you were asked to work an extra day a week for the same money (actually less but that's another debate) or work the same hours and take a 20-30% pay cut would you consider youself to be "demanding more money"? Seems far fetched to me.
Just because healthcare workers wages come out of the health budget does not mean they can be ridden roughshod over and have no right to defend their position. It won't just be the doctors either, the nurses will be next, the auxiliary staff - all those cruel people robbing from patients
The problem here is you are starting from a position that you are currently correctly compensated for the role.
The correct level of pay is not set based on what you have or what you would like, but on what is required to recruit and retain staff of the required ability. Anything less than that results in poor customer/client experience, and anything more than that will start to hit the services that can be offered.
If I was asked that, I'd take my labour elsewhere assuming that my objection was justified by being able to get the better terms elsewhere. Striking is what people do when they can't actually get a better deal elsewhere en masse.
The bottom line is that the NHS has a finite budget. Staff costs form a large part of any business budget, but when you have outdated working practices or conditions (such as the expectation that evenings and weekends attract substantial premiums) or that working hours should be dictated by the staff not the needs of the customer, then it starts to get problematic.
I guess it really does depend on who you think the NHS should be run to benefit.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,701
So staff should work any hours for the lowest wage possible? Wages in the UK are fairly low/average for Europe, so I'm not sure why the pay should be cut with an increase in unsocial working.
You say that you don't have a choice of who provides your healthcare, do you think the trainees within the NHS have a choice who they work for? The government have a monopoly on training contracts, but a 15% pay cut in return for working more Saturday's and evenings seems a bad deal to me. Taking away any safe guards on hours and reducing break times to the lowest legal requirements for a demanding profession sound a good deal?
I'd happily support breaking the government monopoly on the NHS and training (see mainland Europe for how to do this and maintain a state funded system, no other european country runs their health service as we do, and most of them get better outcomes than we do).
The problem is you can't start with the current status quo and say 'This is right', you have to look at the big picture.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,889
- Location
- Rutland
The big picture as you naively see it will involve destroying staff moral, devastating recruitment and driving away talent. You can't have an NHS that is patient focussed if you have no staff.
Who in their right mind is going to think chosing a career in medicine is a good idea if you're working a 60hr week, on shift patterns into your late 60s for middle management money along with the stress and responsibility that goes with the job? We used to do exactly that in the past for considerably more money and it was unsafe, but now the government wants to go back to a similar system without paying for it - it'll be unsafe and destructive.
I look at the current situation and think "this is pretty bad but I can pay my mortgage and see my child occasionally" and the new contract as "that is shocking, I can afford my mortgage if I accept a significant increase in hours, risk to patients and rarely see my kid".
Who in their right mind is going to think chosing a career in medicine is a good idea if you're working a 60hr week, on shift patterns into your late 60s for middle management money along with the stress and responsibility that goes with the job? We used to do exactly that in the past for considerably more money and it was unsafe, but now the government wants to go back to a similar system without paying for it - it'll be unsafe and destructive.
I look at the current situation and think "this is pretty bad but I can pay my mortgage and see my child occasionally" and the new contract as "that is shocking, I can afford my mortgage if I accept a significant increase in hours, risk to patients and rarely see my kid".
Last edited: