Save the NHS!
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
You are speaking complete and utter rubbish. Are you Jeremy Hunt in disguise ?
All change produces short term changes in morale etc, especially when unions mislead their members as to the impact. That short term impact is also always cited as a permenant change by those opposing the change.
Once again, the appropriate level of compensation for a role is not set by what the employee wants. If the junior doctors really think they could all earn more elsewhere, they wouldn't be striking.
With the hours point, again, the NHS has a fixed budget. If you have x hours to cover and a fixed budget, then you can either have fewer staff working more hours splitting the wage pot, or more staff working less hours splitting the wage pot. If you choose to pay premiums for some hours, that also has to be factored in.
The alternative is that you increase the proportion of the budget spent on patients and give it to the staff instead.
Looking objectively at the situation and ignoring the lies of the BMA is not ignorance.
Junior medics’ attempt to plunge NHS into crisis in mass walkout http://dailym.ai/1NAS821
This could be good, how do you think budgeting works when you can't increase income?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,890
- Location
- Rutland
This makes more sense. You've been fed that daily mail trash piece and are pretending to understand the situation.
In what way would you suggest the BMA have mislead doctors? The BMA have been pretty conservative through this process to my mind.
Junior doctors can all earn more else where either out of medicine in the uk or in medicine overseas. They'd rather do what they're good at and not be forced to change career or country so are striking to defend this.
Compensation for a job is based on a balance of factors. Working as a doctor is complicated by having a monopoly employer who thinks they are able to enforce a contract without significant negotiation. Then leaving the doctors with no option apart from striking. You also need to provide enough recompense to reflect the level of stress, responsibility, cost of training and level of expertise otherwise you will destroy recruitment which is already pretty bad. Your notion that you should simply pay staff as little as possible is nonsense.
Last edited:
Your ignorance of the situation is entirely evident by this nonsense you continue to spout. Either that, or you're being deliberately antagonistic.
If you had a proper grasp of the situation, you'd understand that pay is actually a secondary issue here. The primary concern is that the new contract will equate to poorer health care due to unsafe working hours and loss of staff.
Yes, the NHS budget is limited ( duh ! ) but there are so many other inefficiencies that central government and local trusts should be tackling instead eg. money wasted on non-clinical/management roles, excessive expenditure on locum staffing, bed blocking of frail elderly in hospitals due to inadequate care in the community. The list goes on ...
I normally read the guardian
. However given the behaviour of the BMA the daily mail article wouldn't surprise me at all.I've also stated I would support the ending of the NHS monopoly in employment and training.
Also please read what I have written, not the minimum possible, the minimum necessary to recruit and retain. You can pay less than that if you don't mind high staff turnover.
I doubt we'll ever agree though, we have different vested interests in this.
Why not tackle those inefficiencies as well, rather than instead?
Will the care be poorer and the outcomes worse than the current skeleton service outside of core hours?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,701
I normally read the guardian
I've also stated I would support the ending of the NHS monopoly in employment and training.
Also please read what I have written, not the minimum possible, the minimum necessary to recruit and retain. You can pay less than that if you don't mind high staff turnover.
I doubt we'll ever agree though, we have different vested interests in this.
So as they can't fill a&e or GP posts would you agree that the pay/benefits need to increase? As the numbers of applications to medicine is falling, does that again point to issues with staffing on the horizon under the current system?
If they can't fill the roles, then yes, although it is likely they wouldn't need to be increased nationally but in response to specific needs.
The counter to that is that oversubscribed roles need to see their pay/benefits adjusted of course...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,890
- Location
- Rutland
It's hard to read your comments when you make ridiculous statements like:
"When the staff are constantly demanding money from the budget is diverted from patient care to their pockets, there has to be some responsibility placed on the staff."
"Junior doctors? They are certainly trying to increase the cost of providing service and reduce the amount available for patient care..."
We're not maintaining adequate recruitment and retainment on the current contract, go to any A&E department in the country and you'll see the number of agency staff on duty. I'm not sure you'll find an oversubscribed role in medicine. I've not worked in a department that is fully staffed for years.
Skeleton staffing is an interesting term, one I think is incorrect. This new contract will make it even harder to recruit doctors into the areas which are already thin on the ground. In the short term you'll get more hours out of the staff you have, but the long game is more important.
You still haven't detailed what you think the BMA has done wrong.
This is the key point. We need a more efficient NHS while it lasts. We need to cut the reliance on expensive agency staff by driving up recruitment and improving working conditions. The new contract will do the opposite. Hunt's plan to cap agency pay is beyond laughable - if this happens I suspect A&Es will collapse nationwide almost immediately, such is level of reliance on locums.
Last edited:
No they aren't, they want the NHS budget increased to be able to treat patiteints. Any money they want is on top of the budget.
We all know you have an axe to grind, I suggest you actually start speaking to people who work at the coal face in the NHS.
Those two statements are factual. The money for staff by definition impacts money available for other things.
In some areas, yes, but not every short staffing scenario is due to a lack of candidates.
https://www.generalandmedical.com/News/Crisis-within-NHS-as-Trusts-told-to-leave-vacancies
What else do you call having large numbers of departments closed during evenings and weekends?
The long game ultimately is outcome for patients, I ask again, do you think the outcome of the reform will be greater on patient outcomes than the current weekend deficit?
As to what the BMA has wrong, expecting premium hours for what,in just about every service industry outside public sector, is standard rate for a start. The demand to keep annual pay progression is another anachronism, as is paying hours for non resident on call.
The problem is the NHS is treated as a sacred cow. It isn't money that causes the NHS to lag behind other countries in patient outcomes, labour debunked that myth by doubling spending in real terms and making no real difference. That means the NHS needs to evolve but the vested interests challenge this at every turn.
The cost of providing healthcare has also gone up in that time. Every other developed country also increased spending per person by roughly the same amount during that time. Your argument here is invalid.
Healthcare is expensive. It will get more expensive as time goes on. And personnel are also an important part of healthcare. Would you want to be treated by a over worked, under paid nurses and doctors that have only been there a short amount of time and recently imported from other countries due to high staff turn over? There certainly won't be as many people queuing to train in healthcare in this country if you were put in charge.
You might not find this believable, but a lot of people actually want to serve the public and will fight to maintain their benefits/renumeration instead of bailing out.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 368
76% turn out as well.