|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 22, 2023 12:39:41 GMT
Now doctors are joining in and nurses are threatening more and deeper strikes next month. Do you support them? Perhaps if many in the public sector hadn't been subject to decade long pay freezes then this action wouldn't be necessary. But they have and it is. I support them.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2023 12:42:09 GMT
Now doctors are joining in and nurses are threatening more and deeper strikes next month. Do you support them? Perhaps if many in the public sector hadn't been subject to decade long pay freezes then this action wouldn't be necessary. But they have and it is. I support them. Those who are in the public sector were pushed to the back of the line by the abundance of cheap labour curtesy of the EUSSR.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 22, 2023 12:47:50 GMT
Perhaps if many in the public sector hadn't been subject to decade long pay freezes then this action wouldn't be necessary. But they have and it is. I support them. Those who are in the public sector were pushed to the back of the line by the abundance of cheap labour curtesy of the EUSSR. There is a lot of truth in this . If one of the reasons that NHS staff deserve more money is because of a shortage of labour then it should be accepted that an abundance of immigrant labour is a factor for reducing wages .
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2023 19:16:45 GMT
Because every year the population gets a little older and frailer on average, the available remedies for ailments increase in number and cost per remedy and staff ane energy costs go up It's not rocket science to understand why the NHS costs more and more, it's delusional to think it shouldn't. With advancement in sciences the cost per remedy goes down. No because new remedies like that £2.5M per patient gene therapy become available and those new remedies that prolong life do not mean that those final high reliance on NHS days disappear, they are just pushed back in time with the interim also providing an extra load on the NHS. This isn't a bad thing but it is an increasingly in real terms expensive thing.
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 22, 2023 19:19:00 GMT
Sack all equality and diversity and HR personnel from the NHS and have nurses and doctors doing the HR stuff themselves. And pay them more out of the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 22, 2023 19:24:11 GMT
Well go on then present us with your maths on the matter For starters ..
In all four nations of the UK, refugees and asylum seekers with an active application or appeal are fully entitled to free NHS care. The situation for refused asylum seekers is more complicated and is not the same across all nations.
‘health tourism’, where people come to the United Kingdom with the express intent of using health services to which they were not entitled, was estimated to cost between £60 million and £80 million per year.
I haven't got a calculator capable of working out those maths or % ^^
That would be less than 0.1% of NHS costs then. I note that you've shifted your ground to exclude migrants. 16.5% of NHS staff are non British citizens and on top of that we have many more that were born outside the UK and now have British citizenship. All are migrants and mean the NHS costs are significantly reduced - and their wage costs are ~46% of all costs. That far outweighs that 0.1% debit side
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 22, 2023 19:27:39 GMT
For starters ..
In all four nations of the UK, refugees and asylum seekers with an active application or appeal are fully entitled to free NHS care. The situation for refused asylum seekers is more complicated and is not the same across all nations.
‘health tourism’, where people come to the United Kingdom with the express intent of using health services to which they were not entitled, was estimated to cost between £60 million and £80 million per year.
I haven't got a calculator capable of working out those maths or % ^^
That would be less than 0.1% of NHS costs then. I note that you've shifted your ground to exclude migrants. 16.5% of NHS staff are non British citizens and on top of that we have many more that were born outside the UK and now have British citizenship. All are migrants and mean the NHS costs are significantly reduced - and their wage costs are ~46% of all costs. That far outweighs that 0.1% debit side It should be zero percent...That is our money the NHS are pissing against the wall.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 22, 2023 20:15:13 GMT
With advancement in sciences the cost per remedy goes down. No because new remedies like that £2.5M per patient gene therapy become available and those new remedies that prolong life do not mean that those final high reliance on NHS days disappear, they are just pushed back in time with the interim also providing an extra load on the NHS. This isn't a bad thing but it is an increasingly in real terms expensive thing. The cost of these new medicines is taking the piss. I suggest we develop them ourselves and undercut the American rip-off merchants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2023 20:25:49 GMT
Because the NHS is so large 0.1% of their budget is £180,200,000 which is one heck of a lot of dosh.
The funding for the NHS should be a function of population and inflation.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 23, 2023 1:04:30 GMT
That would be less than 0.1% of NHS costs then. I note that you've shifted your ground to exclude migrants. 16.5% of NHS staff are non British citizens and on top of that we have many more that were born outside the UK and now have British citizenship. All are migrants and mean the NHS costs are significantly reduced - and their wage costs are ~46% of all costs. That far outweighs that 0.1% debit side It should be zero percent...That is our money the NHS are pissing against the wall. yes ideally it should be 0% but the effort required to get it to 0% would be disproportionate and worse we'd see people dying because they'd been denied treatment because someone wrongly suspected they weren't British Even in the USA non citizens get immediate emergency care free.
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 23, 2023 2:05:28 GMT
It should be zero percent...That is our money the NHS are pissing against the wall. yes ideally it should be 0% but the effort required to get it to 0% would be disproportionate and worse we'd see people dying because they'd been denied treatment because someone wrongly suspected they weren't British Even in the USA non citizens get immediate emergency care free. Total bollocks people having been coming to the UK for vanity treatment no one begrudges those who visit here legaly and then become ill during their stay.....Why should the UK taxpayers have to pay to have some woman from nogland have her tits inflated or arse enhanced?
EDIT: and why should UK taxpayers be forced to pay for UK residents who have had cosmetic surgery in other countries which has gone horribly wrong and has to be rectified?
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Feb 24, 2023 20:25:58 GMT
Sack all equality and diversity and HR personnel from the NHS and have nurses and doctors doing the HR stuff themselves. And pay them more out of the difference. That's more insightful than some might have thought, Vinny. Back when I joined the NHS in the late 80s, hospitals were run mostly by former clinicians who understood healthcare and 'personnel departments' were small. The uncomfortable reality for those right of centre, however, is that the NHS management and burgeoning HR industry therein that we have today is a result of Thatcher and her legacy. The belief during the Thatcher era was that the most efficient way to run public services was as if they were businesses. Cue an influx to NHS management of (mostly) men in suits, waving MBA certificates, who being deprived of a profit to make, switched to 'saving taxpayers' money' instead. As a result, we now have an NHS that has moved from 'how can we help?', to 'how can we NOT help?'. Constantly looking for ways to avoid giving a service and meanwhile diverting funds into pseudo-commercial vanity projects and finding more jobs for people in suits at the expense of people in tunics and lab coats. I feel like this shouldn't need re-stating, but for those who don't know (and to remind those who don't care), my day job is teaching student nurses. Daily, I diligently evangelise for holistic, patient-centred care, based on the best available evidence, but I know deep down that when my charges hit the wards as qualified nurses, they are going to be going home every night disillusioned and miserable because the care they aspired to give as students is beyond their reach. They will have spent their shift finding ever more inventive ways to fob patients off with the bare minimum they can get away with, simply because there is insufficient time, insufficient staff and insufficient resources to give patients the 'best practice' care they were taught to deliver. The same is true for doctors. They are under intense pressure from NHS management to fob patients off with the minimum they can medico-legally justify, to try and keep costs down. All healthcare professionals, from doctors and nurses to paramedics, radiographers, physios, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners and biomedical scientists are trained and educated to deliver gold standard care...and then arrive newly qualified in the NHS to find that even bronze standard is beyond their reach. Why? Because since Thatcher, with the collusion of Blair/Brown, the priority has shifted to doing everything on the cheap. For the record, I don't believe that even the Tories are planning to privatise the NHS, but the right's appetite for monetising anything they can has resulted in lower quality public services, because contracts are awarded not to the best bid, but to the lowest bid. A financial race to the bottom, where money is prioritised over quality of service. This country is surely now run by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 24, 2023 22:34:59 GMT
Love the way that the NHS, which has struggled to provide a service since the day it was created, would now be OK if if some bird who has been dead for 10 years and out of office for 33 had not dragged it down...
|
|
|
Post by Cartertonian on Feb 25, 2023 9:50:36 GMT
Always happy to provide you with a chuckle on a Friday night, Pac However, what you choose to dismiss with ridicule is the reality across our public sector, which was set in train by the Tories in the late 1980s and stands as an example of the unintended consequences of ideologically motivated governance. We don't work for the bosses, we work for accountants, whose job is not to provide a service - whether that's health, education, police, fire or even defence - but to find ways of doing everything on the cheap. You and Red had left MOD before any of this started to impact significantly on Defence, but by the time I finally left last year, we truly were working for MOD finance directors and not for Generals, Admirals or Air Chief Marshals. In my assessment, all of these strikes are a consequence of this Tory inspired direction of travel that dates back to the Iron Lady. Two personal examples: My dad retired from the police as a Superintendent in 1981 and his pension lump sum enabled him to buy a 4-bed, detached house with garage outright and still have enough pension to live on. I retired from the RAF in 2013 as a Squadron Leader (which is a rank-equivalent of police Superintendent) and my lump sum was only enough for a deposit on a similar house and there was no way I could have lived on the remaining pension. When I started nursing in 1989, as a student nurse I was a salaried NHS employee on £7,500pa and that was enough to enable me and my wife - on my salary alone - to buy our first house. My students qualifying this year will have amassed £28,500 of student debt and will have no chance of buying a house unless they have other sources of income. If the plans enacted under Thatcher and still clung to by the Britannia Unchained Bovver Boys and Girls were supposed to improve British society, for whom were they making those improvements? It seems to me that an aggressively pro-business, capitalist approach to governance has only improved matters for a select minority and made life measurably worse for everyone else.
|
|