Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Junior doctors row: 98% vote in favour of strikes
Topic Started: Nov 19 2015, 12:09 PM (382 Views)
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
The strike legislation proposed by the Tory government would not prevent this. ( I am not responsible for the BBCs headline, so argue with them not me.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34859860

Junior doctors row: 98% vote in favour of strikes

By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent


1 hour ago

From the section Health

Junior doctors in England have overwhelmingly voted in favour of going on strike in their dispute with ministers over a new contract.

Some 98% voted in favour of a full strike and 99% in favour of action just short of a full strike.

The first walk-out will start on 1 December with another two dates earmarked for later in the month.

The British Medical Association said it was "inevitable" disruption would be caused to patients.

The action is likely to lead to the cancelling and rescheduling of thousands of routine appointments, tests and operations with the NHS forced to prioritise emergency cases.




BMA leaders said they regretted this, but added ministers had left them no choice because the contract was "unsafe".

The union has asked the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) to get involved to offer independent arbitration - something the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which normally stays out of politics, has said it supports.

The dates for industrial action are:
◾08:00 GMT 1 December to 08:00 GMT 2 December (junior doctors to staff emergency care)
◾08:00 GMT to 17:00 8 December (full strike)
◾08:00 GMT to 17:00 16 December (full strike)

The BMA balloted just over 37,700 members - over two-thirds of the workforce - and 76% took part in the ballot.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:01 PM
gansao
Nov 20 2015, 11:45 AM
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 11:42 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep


Or pay them what they need to be motivated and live a reasonably full life. How about that?
And how would you pay for that when we already have a massive deficit?

The NHS affordability from day 1 was based on low wages and duress to get junior doctors to work ridiculous hours. Neither is defensible

As I've said before, the NHS we want is unaffordable and getting more unaffordable every year. Tough discussions and tough decisions are needed. Jeremy Hunt stepping in with an ill thought out idiocy really doesn't help.
A solution is to expand the private sector provision and emulate the Bismarck model. France and Germany outspend us on health provision per capita. Why? Because of the private sector contribution. I do not hear cries that the health outcomes in those countries are a danger to patients health to the extent that we have heard this about the NHS in some regions.

They say it is not about money, but only money will fix what they claim needs to be fixed. The demand for immediate health provision, even for hangovers and a social chit-chat, is not going to be moderated by anyone. The demand just increases. The other issue is that we put far too much effort into "end of life" situations and not enough into preventative. How are we ever going to change the balance?

I posted, at the old place, a graph of NHS spending against age and this was flat for most of our lives until around 65 years of age then it increased rapidly until around 85. The vast bulk of such spending is on OAPs. We OAPs have little to do but worry and talk about our health, we are costing the Tax Payers an absolute fortune and in many cases one wonders why.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionater
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Time to cut doctors hours on a sliding scale starting at a maximium of 60 and going down to 37 over the next 5 years as they bring in new doctors to fill the gap. Not sure what the government is trying to achieve with their current proposals but it's not that.

You can look at hospitals for cuts and find areas that could be improved I am sure but staffing up the doctors surgery and improving first line treatment has got to result in saving lives, preventing hospital visits and in the long term saving money.

Doctors shouldn't go on strick, I agree but more to the point they shouldn't be put in a situation that they would want to consider strick action.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Nov 19 2015, 11:10 PM
Rich
Nov 19 2015, 10:47 PM
Tigger
Nov 19 2015, 07:21 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I listened to the same report and the interviewee was a young female junior doctor who actually said yes to a strike. Eddie Mair used recognised data and said that a Jnr Dr's wages averaged out out £36000 per annum, the young lady then said that the gripe was about safety,wages but pay AND conditions,.......have a listen for yourself, I will supply the link as you know who did not.

It begins at 13 mins and 37 seconds in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06ppk4w#play


Yes if you earn 23 or 25k per year basic you can earn 36k if you put enough hours in. Where do you get the idea that 36k is a high wage for a doctor who works long hours?
Just like the above poster you too are assuming my thoughts, I have none one way or the other, I merely want to see a balanced debate for it would seem that only the BMC is to be believed and that the Government that was mandated to cut the public sector deficit is in the wrong, like it or lump it, that was why the Conservatives were voted in at the last election because the labour party could not be trusted to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 12:10 PM


The only way to afford it is to increase taxes.
Collecting the taxes owed would pay for it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 12:06 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:01 PM


As I've said before, the NHS we want is unaffordable and getting more unaffordable every year. Tough discussions and tough decisions are needed. Jeremy Hunt stepping in with an ill thought out idiocy really doesn't help.
Britain spends less of it's GDP on health services than many other countries and about half the amount the USA does.
(As has been referenced many times.) The "we can't afford it" argument does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Ah but how much of the USA spend is compulsory (ie taxpayer funded)

Your point would hold stronger if we look at France which does spend a higher % of GDP through taxpayer funded healthcare (IIRC it's the only one)

But

I suggest the majority view here and wider is that the NHS we have is not what is wanted and whether I put it well or not, that's my point. You might need 50% more to get the waiting lists, cancer care etc etc that most seem to want. And that is unaffordable.

And with an ageing population and new expensive cures every year it's going to get worse. A tough debate is needed, nigh on everyone is going to have to give up some of their ideals
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:53 PM
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 12:06 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:01 PM


As I've said before, the NHS we want is unaffordable and getting more unaffordable every year. Tough discussions and tough decisions are needed. Jeremy Hunt stepping in with an ill thought out idiocy really doesn't help.
Britain spends less of it's GDP on health services than many other countries and about half the amount the USA does.
(As has been referenced many times.) The "we can't afford it" argument does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Ah but how much of the USA spend is compulsory (ie taxpayer funded)

Your point would hold stronger if we look at France which does spend a higher % of GDP through taxpayer funded healthcare (IIRC it's the only one)

But

I suggest the majority view here and wider is that the NHS we have is not what is wanted and whether I put it well or not, that's my point. You might need 50% more to get the waiting lists, cancer care etc etc that most seem to want. And that is unaffordable.

And with an ageing population and new expensive cures every year it's going to get worse. A tough debate is needed, nigh on everyone is going to have to give up some of their ideals
IIRC, Upon gaining office this government asked the NHS how much funding over and above the normal funding would be needed for this term of office, the NHS replied, £8billion and that is what the government promised to give them in return for increased productivity.

At the very first time of asking for the increase the NHS has baulked at the idea and the BMA has refused to negotiate with Mr Hunt.

As I said in another post regarding another matter,"compromise"(from all parties concerned) should be the order of the day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 12:09 PM
Fine by me as long as you name the source of the funds. Whose budget are you going to raid?

You might have noticed but this Gov. was given a mandate to rid us of the deficit.
A couple of points, and I could name several more.

Scrap all PFI contracts, quite why this was not done as a precondition of bailing out the fuckers in the City is beyond me, RBS for example was the biggest ultimate holder of PFI scams and we bailed them out AND continued to be ripped off by their PFI's! Several billions are wasted on interest paid to these parasites. PFI contracts also tie the hands of hospitals who are then forced to use certain suppliers or services, as an alleged capitalist you should be appalled at this cartel like set up.

Then we could have proper competition in the drug and medical device industry to prevent these corporations routinely overcharging the NHS, having "sole supplier" clauses is an absolute joke and an open invitation to overcharge, basically kick politicians on the make and their friends in the business World out of our health service because they are a cancer at it's very heart.

Surely as someone anally fixated on deficit reduction you'd agree, unless of course you just hate the NHS............
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 19 2015, 02:40 PM
Alberich
Nov 19 2015, 02:19 PM
Some professions should be prevented from striking by law. The Police already are; for obvious reasons. The medical professions should be added .
It does not take a rocket scientist to work out when highly intelligent highly qualified people like junior doctors are shat on from great height by the Tory government it would not matter if they were not allowed to strike, they could resign by thousands and eff off somewhere abroad for more money and less hassle.
They need work like the rest of us, and like us they have to like it or lump it. There are many thousands of Doctors around the world who would be only too pleased to replace them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 20 2015, 10:16 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:53 PM
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 12:06 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Ah but how much of the USA spend is compulsory (ie taxpayer funded)

Your point would hold stronger if we look at France which does spend a higher % of GDP through taxpayer funded healthcare (IIRC it's the only one)

But

I suggest the majority view here and wider is that the NHS we have is not what is wanted and whether I put it well or not, that's my point. You might need 50% more to get the waiting lists, cancer care etc etc that most seem to want. And that is unaffordable.

And with an ageing population and new expensive cures every year it's going to get worse. A tough debate is needed, nigh on everyone is going to have to give up some of their ideals
IIRC, Upon gaining office this government asked the NHS how much funding over and above the normal funding would be needed for this term of office, the NHS replied, £8billion and that is what the government promised to give them in return for increased productivity.

At the very first time of asking for the increase the NHS has baulked at the idea and the BMA has refused to negotiate with Mr Hunt.

As I said in another post regarding another matter,"compromise"(from all parties concerned) should be the order of the day.
All disputes resolve themselves with negotiation. This one will be no different.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 20 2015, 11:27 PM
They need work like the rest of us, and like us they have to like it or lump it. There are many thousands of Doctors around the world who would be only too pleased to replace them.
Meester Tytoablaa can pleeze try deeze crytches as in my country de word for left leg is de same for ear infection.

And take fiftee paracetarmoll if your ear, sorry leg hurts, no dat should be fife hundred para.... er..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 20 2015, 11:29 PM
All disputes resolve themselves with negotiation. This one will be no different.
Or Jeremy *unt could get hit by a bus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 12:27 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:01 PM
gansao
Nov 20 2015, 11:45 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
And how would you pay for that when we already have a massive deficit?

The NHS affordability from day 1 was based on low wages and duress to get junior doctors to work ridiculous hours. Neither is defensible

As I've said before, the NHS we want is unaffordable and getting more unaffordable every year. Tough discussions and tough decisions are needed. Jeremy Hunt stepping in with an ill thought out idiocy really doesn't help.
A solution is to expand the private sector provision and emulate the Bismarck model. France and Germany outspend us on health provision per capita. Why? Because of the private sector contribution. I do not hear cries that the health outcomes in those countries are a danger to patients health to the extent that we have heard this about the NHS in some regions.

They say it is not about money, but only money will fix what they claim needs to be fixed. The demand for immediate health provision, even for hangovers and a social chit-chat, is not going to be moderated by anyone. The demand just increases. The other issue is that we put far too much effort into "end of life" situations and not enough into preventative. How are we ever going to change the balance?

I posted, at the old place, a graph of NHS spending against age and this was flat for most of our lives until around 65 years of age then it increased rapidly until around 85. The vast bulk of such spending is on OAPs. We OAPs have little to do but worry and talk about our health, we are costing the Tax Payers an absolute fortune and in many cases one wonders why.





In one of your many previous enterprises, it would have made sense to get rid of an old machine when it is outdated and costs more to keep running than it is worth. Do you suggest we treat people in the same manner?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Opinionater
Nov 20 2015, 07:40 PM
Time to cut doctors hours on a sliding scale starting at a maximium of 60 and going down to 37 over the next 5 years as they bring in new doctors to fill the gap. Not sure what the government is trying to achieve with their current proposals but it's not that.

You can look at hospitals for cuts and find areas that could be improved I am sure but staffing up the doctors surgery and improving first line treatment has got to result in saving lives, preventing hospital visits and in the long term saving money.

Doctors shouldn't go on strick, I agree but more to the point they shouldn't be put in a situation that they would want to consider strick action.

^
Good post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 20 2015, 11:41 PM
Or Jeremy *unt could get hit by a bus?
More likely by an ambulance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 21 2015, 09:05 AM
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 12:27 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:01 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
A solution is to expand the private sector provision and emulate the Bismarck model. France and Germany outspend us on health provision per capita. Why? Because of the private sector contribution. I do not hear cries that the health outcomes in those countries are a danger to patients health to the extent that we have heard this about the NHS in some regions.

They say it is not about money, but only money will fix what they claim needs to be fixed. The demand for immediate health provision, even for hangovers and a social chit-chat, is not going to be moderated by anyone. The demand just increases. The other issue is that we put far too much effort into "end of life" situations and not enough into preventative. How are we ever going to change the balance?

I posted, at the old place, a graph of NHS spending against age and this was flat for most of our lives until around 65 years of age then it increased rapidly until around 85. The vast bulk of such spending is on OAPs. We OAPs have little to do but worry and talk about our health, we are costing the Tax Payers an absolute fortune and in many cases one wonders why.





In one of your many previous enterprises, it would have made sense to get rid of an old machine when it is outdated and costs more to keep running than it is worth. Do you suggest we treat people in the same manner?
No. Stupid Strawman.

I want a system that works for the benefit of the vast majority and the adherents to the Soviet NHS model, in my view, are a road block to such. I see their dogma as not being Patient oriented, but system oriented. You are free to put up evidence that the Bismarck model is worse than the NHS and that the Germans would be better off ditching their system and adopting ours. But based on your track record here I do not expect you to attempt to substantiate any of your opinions which for me appear to be pure Red Nag plagiarised tosh.

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:53 PM
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 12:06 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:01 PM


As I've said before, the NHS we want is unaffordable and getting more unaffordable every year. Tough discussions and tough decisions are needed. Jeremy Hunt stepping in with an ill thought out idiocy really doesn't help.
Britain spends less of it's GDP on health services than many other countries and about half the amount the USA does.
(As has been referenced many times.) The "we can't afford it" argument does not stand up to close scrutiny.
Ah but how much of the USA spend is compulsory (ie taxpayer funded)

Your point would hold stronger if we look at France which does spend a higher % of GDP through taxpayer funded healthcare (IIRC it's the only one)

But

I suggest the majority view here and wider is that the NHS we have is not what is wanted and whether I put it well or not, that's my point. You might need 50% more to get the waiting lists, cancer care etc etc that most seem to want. And that is unaffordable.

And with an ageing population and new expensive cures every year it's going to get worse. A tough debate is needed, nigh on everyone is going to have to give up some of their ideals
France

Quote:
 
When you see a doctor or have medical treatment a percentage of the cost – usually about 70 per cent of standard GP fees for example – will be reimbursed for most people through the state via the CMU, the state health insurance scheme, so long as you are referred by your ‘attending doctor’ (see below). In the case of some major or long-term illnesses, 100 per cent of the costs are covered.

The remainder of the charge must be paid for either by the patient or through any supplementary health insurance. This is why most people also take out top-up health insurance (l'assurance complémentaire santé) often organised by a 'mutual society' (mutelle), or insurance provider.



French Doctors’ fees
Quote:
 
When you visit a doctor in France, you have to pay a fee upfront for the consultation. Most GPs in France have signed contracts with the national heath insurance scheme to provide medical services at nationally agreed rates and by law, the doctor’s fees must be posted on the surgery walls. These may vary according to whether it’s an evening or weekend visit or a home visit. You’ll be automatically be reimbursed a percentage of the fee by the state-run health insurance provider, leaving a small amount of money payable by yourself.


LINK

So the French system does allow/require private contributions normally funded through insurance.

I really do not understand why the social aspects of insurance are totally ignored by the NHS-philes?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Yes I quite like the French system of discouraging time wasters but (as I was corrected some months ago) they spend more state money per capita than we do
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply