Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,784
True but if you really need doctors and one will cost 50k but you get them immediately or the other costs you nothing and you wait 5 years...you pay the money
In Britain, Austerity Is Changing Everything (NYT Article)
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
No you don't. You invest in the future. It's shortsightedness that constantly screws our public services in this country. They don't look 2-3 years down the line nevermind 5, 10 or 15.
I'm suggesting that if you
1) restrict net inward migration and
2) adopt some forward planning
(which is easier due to point 1)
That you can somewhat plan years in advance how many doctors you need to train without being reliant on a continual stream of imported ones. In the short term you may still need to seek (skilled) immigrants to bridge the gaps till training catches up with demand (which you have made more predictable from point 1)
1) restrict net inward migration and
2) adopt some forward planning
(which is easier due to point 1)
That you can somewhat plan years in advance how many doctors you need to train without being reliant on a continual stream of imported ones. In the short term you may still need to seek (skilled) immigrants to bridge the gaps till training catches up with demand (which you have made more predictable from point 1)
The foreign doctor probably works for less money as well, maybe does longer hours, maybe spent longer studying and longer training due to lower costs. I have no problems with people coming to work here. That said however, if too many people climb onto a life boat then it sinks for everyone.
It seems we are not ready for global culturism. Still too vast a divide of wealth between nations. Still too much bitter nationalism, especially from the English who still have that imperial attitude from a by-gone era; "Great Britain". I think it's possibly time to drop the Great, the empire is long gone and as we exit the EU, GB will soon know how small and insignificant it really is these days.
Coming from a dual passport holder, i will remain an EU citizen and I can sit on the fence if I want to stay in the UK or leg it to Europe.
It seems we are not ready for global culturism. Still too vast a divide of wealth between nations. Still too much bitter nationalism, especially from the English who still have that imperial attitude from a by-gone era; "Great Britain". I think it's possibly time to drop the Great, the empire is long gone and as we exit the EU, GB will soon know how small and insignificant it really is these days.
Coming from a dual passport holder, i will remain an EU citizen and I can sit on the fence if I want to stay in the UK or leg it to Europe.
Congrats, you've successfully posted rubbish!
They work to exactly the same rules. For the same pay. For the same number of hours. Same training period.
Got any more rubbish to spout?
The NHS has pay bands and I suspect that NHS managers don't discriminate and make Johnny Foreigner work longer.
Aww did my comment about England get your imperial panties in a bunch?
I wasn't aware you knew the ins and outs of every medical training regime in the world.
Pay bands are wide. Pay is often based not only on the job but on the salary expectations of the employee and their life style. It's easy to price yourself out of a job. It's also easy to under price yourself to get more jobs. I'm fairly certain this applies to the civil service as it does to the private sector.
It is very expensive to raise a a child to adult good, and very, very expensive to train them to be a doctor. Or you could get a doctor for no expense from abroad.
And even if you wanted to educate more doctors within the UK you would need the facilities and resources to do that, which simply don't existnand are hard to setup.
And if you do go down that route then you need the student applicants. There is no evidence that even with more capacity more people would start a medical degree, even if they were good enough, not with the NHS salaries and work conditions.
Which brings me to the next point. Even if You invested significantly to handle more medical placements, you need to prevent the graduates going abroad or working for big pharama etc.
And even if you wanted to educate more doctors within the UK you would need the facilities and resources to do that, which simply don't existnand are hard to setup.
And if you do go down that route then you need the student applicants. There is no evidence that even with more capacity more people would start a medical degree, even if they were good enough, not with the NHS salaries and work conditions.
Which brings me to the next point. Even if You invested significantly to handle more medical placements, you need to prevent the graduates going abroad or working for big pharama etc.
Are you for real ?
If cant see it does exactly that then you need to take a closer look.
Not really. So again...speaking rubbish. Bye bye darling.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
The argument for austerity might have worked a few years ago for most of the population, but lots of things have now changed, and I really think the government is now on the losing side of the argument to continue it.
The cross-party review for NHS funding for the 70th anniversary of the NHS is already being undertaken, and with calls for spending to be at least a 4% annual increase, goes against the chancellor's proposal of giving only 2%. Furthermore, by using the same philosophy the Chancellor employed during the winter in giving less money than is needed over petty spats (see here: https://www.theguardian.com/society...ed-on-funding-after-fury-at-nhs-bosss-demands), is extremely damaging and risky given that we had the worst NHS winter crisis this year because less money was given than was asked to help deal with the situation. Which is the point. Giving money, but less than is needed, over a period of nearly a decade will cause problems. The same principle is applicable to other areas of the economy. It is no secret why we have the problems we have.
The cross-party review for NHS funding for the 70th anniversary of the NHS is already being undertaken, and with calls for spending to be at least a 4% annual increase, goes against the chancellor's proposal of giving only 2%. Furthermore, by using the same philosophy the Chancellor employed during the winter in giving less money than is needed over petty spats (see here: https://www.theguardian.com/society...ed-on-funding-after-fury-at-nhs-bosss-demands), is extremely damaging and risky given that we had the worst NHS winter crisis this year because less money was given than was asked to help deal with the situation. Which is the point. Giving money, but less than is needed, over a period of nearly a decade will cause problems. The same principle is applicable to other areas of the economy. It is no secret why we have the problems we have.
Please continue to parade your ignorance here before departing for Europe....
The 'great' part in the name 'Great Britain' isn't and never was there as a statement of the status (or lack thereof) of this island but was in fact put there to seperate the physically larger island of 'greater Britain' from the physically smaller area of 'little Britain' that is roughly approximate to modern day Brittany in northern France!
In French it’s necessary to specify that you’re referring to Britain by saying Grand Bretagne, because the French name for Brittany is Bretagne..... Hence its largely down to your continental chums that we now call this island 'Great Britain'!
The 'Great' bit predates the 'imperial' (empire/colonial) era of these Isles by many years
And perhaps you could point us to some countries, globally, that are apparently ready for 'global culturism'?
Last edited:
Austerity even the form of it we've had in this country should never be adopted as a long term policy IMO - there are times when it is prudent to utilise it as a tool but it should always be wielded with intent as part of a long term plan not used as a default position. (I kind of feel like the Tories are too afraid to actually do anything with intent with the economy as they wouldn't have anyone else to blame if it exploded on them - this way they can wash their hands of any failures).
I've not really seen a massive shift in my shopping bill - there are some things that have gone up loads but other things have gone down loads as well - one factor is that a lot of companies have progressively massaged down quantities while keeping the price which has a net effect of increasing the bill overall. I think people are too stuck in their habits to shop around, etc. and some companies are taking advantage of that. To be fair though some people just won't have the time and/or other pressures that make it harder to get the best deals.
The biggest impact I've seen for people across most of the spectrum from poor to moderately well off is housing - some of my acquaintances who are only just about making ends meet are increasingly struggling with rent and it is making some of them very miserable.
One other aspect I think goes below:
I think one aspect is that certain things that used to be far more optional are essential parts of life like having a mobile phone and contract (even pay as you go) and for many things a computer and/or tablets, etc. and other things like that which aren't cheap but are becoming more and more essentials and putting a bigger strain on people's budget than things like changes to food and other every day essential prices, etc. looking back on it I had a fairly comfortable upbringing but if my parent had been paying for things like mobile phones we'd have struggled a lot more.
I've not really seen a massive shift in my shopping bill - there are some things that have gone up loads but other things have gone down loads as well - one factor is that a lot of companies have progressively massaged down quantities while keeping the price which has a net effect of increasing the bill overall. I think people are too stuck in their habits to shop around, etc. and some companies are taking advantage of that. To be fair though some people just won't have the time and/or other pressures that make it harder to get the best deals.
The biggest impact I've seen for people across most of the spectrum from poor to moderately well off is housing - some of my acquaintances who are only just about making ends meet are increasingly struggling with rent and it is making some of them very miserable.
One other aspect I think goes below:
I think one aspect is that certain things that used to be far more optional are essential parts of life like having a mobile phone and contract (even pay as you go) and for many things a computer and/or tablets, etc. and other things like that which aren't cheap but are becoming more and more essentials and putting a bigger strain on people's budget than things like changes to food and other every day essential prices, etc. looking back on it I had a fairly comfortable upbringing but if my parent had been paying for things like mobile phones we'd have struggled a lot more.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,784
Work pays for mine though.
And I upgrade my PC far less than I used to.
And I upgrade my PC far less than I used to.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2014
- Posts
- 1,170
When you spend above your means for a sustained period you have to cut your expenditures, no one likes austerity, no one wanted austerity but when you're skint you're skint. We've had to cut back after the Blair / Brown years and we're all suffering that pain.
I'm meaning in general - wasn't so much in response to your post specifically just that along those lines I think there are more demands on the average person's budget for what used to be almost frivolous things like mobile phones that are now almost a de-facto aspect of modern life and even though not necessarily "essential" doing without them is more of a disadvantage than anything else even just in things like finding a job, etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,366
Austerity is economically retarded. But it was never about that; rather it was about re-establishing the class system.
How is it 'retarded' to seek to limit the rate at which state borrowing is going up? (note not paying off any debt... Just reducing the rate its accruing).... Because failing to do so can demonstrably lead to some really bad consequence.....
And how exactly does any of this (re) establish a class system?
While that is sensible and I agree, you can't really do it when large part of voting population only have few years left to live. Not sure it would go down well if you tell them that they have to wait 5 years+ for care, if they are still alive that is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,647
Bootstraps bro, too many whiners in this thread bro....
I also can't wait for Brexit. Gonna be lit fam.