Obviously not enough to entice more into the profession.
Private medical care is a misnomer. The correct term is: Let us balls
up the simplest operation because we know the NHS will bail us out as
the hozzie of last resort.
Because that is what striking is all about - to improve one's lot when
all other negotiations have failed. Would you make strikes illegal?
Maggie Thatcher tried very hard to do so and look where it got her! If
you don't want to make strikes illegal, then logically you must
support striking workers.
Good. That includes the freedom NOT to work, yes?
Well, stap me if I don't roll about laughing, but could that be
because they were not being offered high-paid jobs at higher pay?
Big of you!
...ah, slavery! Let's shed a tear.
Can you spell g-r-e-e-d? Can you understand f-a-i-r p-l-a-y? Just what
added value does one man bring to the business by earning fifty, yes
FIFTY times the rate of the low-paid worker? Doesn't that strike you
as a massive imbalance which is completely unfair and foments digust
and loathing in the workforce, which inevitably will eventually go out
on strike to get the fair play it deserves? And who picks up the tab
for the income support which helps low-paid families to get by when
they are faced with the excessive rises in stealth taxes? That's
right, the people earning just a bit more. Certainly not upper
management. Do you think that people like Crozier would leave the
country if they had to pay just a little bit more tax on their vast
earnings? Do you think if they did that Britain would have no other
fairer-minded managers willing to occupy key posts for less?
So if it's not wrong, why the pejorative "typical"? Sounds like you're
on the right, but I won't hold that against you.
It's not a free market! It is rigged in favour of the big
corporations. What is free about Tesco, ADSA, and Sainsbury's to
decimate the High Streets of Britain, force nearly all food shopping
to be undertaken by car, lobby for Sunday opening and ruin the one day
off a week, and turn Britain into a 24/7 consumer society? Anyone in
their right mind would see that British society has become more hectic
and less caring over the past ten years, and that is because we work
the longest hours in Europe often for a pittance. The corporations,
aided and abetted by their Government lackeys, are to blame for the
sorry state in which we live.
I'm not anything except an ordinary member of the public who likes
some things from Labour, others from the Tories, but will vote Liberal
Democrat. If you had a referendum tomorrow, what do you think the
proportion would be of those supporting a reduction in high earnings
to benefit low-paid workers or employ more midwives?
How else will any advance be achieved? You must think that employers,
the Government, big corporations will suddenly be assailed by an
attack of guilt! How do you negotiate an advance from Ł9,000 to, say,
Ł12,000 (a minmally reasonable wage) if the employer simply tells you
to eff off? Employers are cheating the better paid by relying on their
tax take to pay for income support, whereas if the employers could
only, just possibly, stop feathering their own nests quite so
luxuriously, there'd be more to pay the low-paid workers and less
income support required. So it comes down to greed, pure and simple,
on the part of corporations, mainly the larger ones. Family businesses
are somewhat different because the boss knows the workers personally
and he, the boss, has a local reputation to maintain. But once
coporations get so large that the management starts occupying the
ivory towers, any connection to the actual workforce, without which
the whole business would be screwed, is lost.
Well, I do. I am 58 and I'm still waiting for Britain to become
anything like a decent country, having lived for many years abroad.
Apathy. Wait until the vast mountains of personal debt, encouraged by
the big four banks, come crashing down and you will see the public in
revolt that will make the poll tax seem like a vicar's tea party.
Ordinary people don't seem to realise that they are going to LOSE
THEIR HOUSES! In their thousands. But that's okay if one's been
"earning" Ł500 grand and managed to save a few bob.
That's a strange idea and is a long way from the truth.
Over the past five years I've had occasion to need to use secondary
healthcare with respect to four different issues. None of them would
have been regarded as immediately life threatening in the acute sense,
although one would be if untreated in the long term and two required
surgery. None would be regarded as elective or cosmetic conditions
either, all resulting in some impact on quality of life.
I would not have been able to obtain a consultation for any of them,
let alone treatment in under a year by using the NHS, for two of them
almost two years. Appointments couldn't even be scheduled until 3
months ahead of the available dates.
I was able to obtain private consultation and treatment and follow up
in 4 weeks for three of the cases and 8 weeks for the other two - that
was simply because time needed to elapse before the follow up.
Appointments were scheduled when the physican was available of course,
but there was a lot of flexibility. I was able to make changes on two
occasions and only slip a week before the next available appointment.
The facilities, equipment, staff and treatment were beyond reproach -
all of the latest medical equipment etc.
In all of the cases, the consultants carry out both private and NHS
work, so it is not correct to say that one sector is robbing the
other. All of them said that the main limiting factor is
availability of supporting services, not consultant time.
I checked out the credentials of all of the consultants and surgeons
that I saw. It is reasonably easy to do so from the GMC web site and
then a search for the individual in terms of research papers and
clinical work that they have done. Each had published at least two
peer reviewed papers.
When one considered the hurdles to achieve accreditation to work at
this level, it is frankly amazing that people stay the course, but
they do. I talked to every single consultant and surgeon that I met
about this. All of them felt that it was important to make their
skills available to the public health service but they were too
frustrated by its limitations and bureaucracy to allow it to be their
sole source of work and income. In effect, most viewed the private
sector as a means to bring their income to an acceptable level and to
maintain their sanity. Sad but true.
If we look at the economics, again taking a personal example. I
don't mind commenting that I am reasonably well remunerated as
represented by what I can contribute to my company's business. As a
result, I contribute a lot into the state system by virtue of my
taxes, NI contributions and my employer NI contributions. These are
certainly a great deal more than I would take from the system, even if
I were using it. To a point I don't have a problem with that. In a
civilised society, I think it's reasonable to contribute for the needs
of others and perhaps for one's own needs in later life.
In order to achieve an acceptable level of service for healthcare I
turn to the private sector to provide it. The public sector could do
something but not in a timescale that is acceptable or useful.
To address that, my employer pays for health insurance. This is
hardly cheap at several Łk per annum. From the financial
perspective, this is treated as further income and so the full gamut
of tax, employee and employer NI are addeed to it. In effect I have
to pay for about half of the cost out of net income. On top of this
there is insurance tax of another 5% IIRC.
So adding this all up, I am unburdening NHS facilities, I am providing
funding to a source of income for highly skilled clinicians who are
not able to derive an acceptable income from the NHS. Yet I get
penalised either deliberately or accidentally by the tax system.
I have no problem with contributing "over the odds" for the benefit of
others. However, I would like to see a return to me that is equal to
the value of a treatment under the NHS. In other words, if a
particular piece of treatment costs Ł3000 through the NHS, then I
should receive a voucher for that, or a substantial part of it which I
can either "spend" at an NHS facility or at a private one,
supplemented by insurance or cash..
For people who can't or don't wish to supplement their healthcare, the
state sector would then have more resources to provide treatment
because more of the population would be able to afford to seek
treatment part funded by themselves if they need it.
In terms of prioritisation of public sector services, those with life
threatening or seriously debilitating conditions would have more
The problem comes in the present outdated notion of free treatment at
the point of delivery and trying to create a one size fits all
service. It doesn't work. The best that can be achieved is
mediochre treatment. Those who want healthcare faster and on a more
convenient basis are penalised, and those who are unable or don't wish
to pay for it draw a short straw as well.
It would be far more effecitve if a more open market were created and
people could choose what they want to spend on healthcare vs. other
things. The current notion of over management of the available
resources to make sure that nobody gets more of the state pie than the
next man misses the point completely.
Resource should not go into the equipment for the groundsman to create
a level playing field but into the quality of the players and the
involvement in the game for the supporters.
The current NHS system is rotten to the core in terms of what is meant
to be a service for all. You can always tell how an organisation
wants to be viewed by its PR and marketing.
With respect to the NHS, two things spring immediately to mind.
- A series of radio commercials to entice nursing staff back to work
for them. The premise was that the person was grateful to the NHS
for providing care for her ageing mother. What a crock. For
something that is meant to be a public sector service, it is audacity
in the extreme to suggest that people should be grateful for what they
- Illuninated signs on the sides of cranes on construction sites.
What do they think they are doing spending money on that type of
nonsense? The only explanation is political humbug and correctness.
It certainly doesn't benefit any patients.
That is why I have no problem in making the proposition that the
current system and notion of it should be shut down and replaced with
something that addresses patient requirements rather than outmoded
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Administration in the public services as opposed to the "sharp end"
should be pared back. Severely. I would do so much more agressively
than Letwin is suggesting,.
Investment should be related to the service being delivered, (as it
were) not the administration of it.
It should be shut down and replaced with a system appropriate for the
21st century, not one suited to the idealism of the mid 20th.
In effect the taxpayer is the customer of all of this. The question
becomes one of do we want to spend more money protecting jobs which
can be automated or outsourced to other countries more cheaply or do
we want to pay more in tax towards propping up or even increasing the
public share of GDP to fund what is ultimately untenable?
To me the answer to that is abundantly clear.
If Royal Mail were working properly then that would be justified. In
general I see no reason why senior executives should not receive
remuneration at the level that they do. If the shareholders
disagree then they can vote accordingly. It really isn't anybody's
business what people earn anyway except in so far that director's
remuneration goes into annual reports and so forth anyway.
Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders.
It isn't anybody else's business.
The NHS isn't vital at all. It's outmoded and should be replaced by a
mixed system of public and private provision. People should
contribute to a state fund via tax of some sort and receive healthcare
vouchers in return. These could then be spent at state run
facilities or topped up with private insurance or payment if the
patient wishes private care or earlier treatment.
A system of public healthcare and a private one where users of it are
not penalised for doing so. As it is, huge sums are wasted on admin
in the public sector and people wishing to buy their own healthcare,
thus unburdening the state system are penalised for doing so, several
As you say, nobody looks at the big picture
The right thing to do would be to spend some of the money saved in
retraining and reskilling those affected by such outsourcing. There
is nothing new in the notion of jobs in certain sectors moving to
lower cost production areas. Ultimately, attempting to control that
by artificial means and props doesn't work. It would be far better to
accept that that is the way that the market is going and dealing with
They are nobody's business apart from the parties involved.
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
< snip drivel >
A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish
Costa's. They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they MAKE
MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is stupidity.
The standards are always lowered.
It does. You have to slowly introduce outsourcing, so skills and
They are! Through the drugs I buy, prescribed by the NHS, I pay fro SKB
That begins by accepting that outsourcing is going to happen rather
than wasting time trying to protect untenable situations.
So complain to the NHS. They don't have to buy drugs from SKB.
Equally you don't have to have drugs prescribed by the NHS in the
SKB is a commercial enterprise, not a charity. If it wishes to
handle its executive remuneration in a particular way that is up to it
and its shareholders. In the context of its overall balance sheet,
this is a tiny amount anyway. its customers are at liberty to buy
elsewhere if they don't like it.
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the
needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would
be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.
There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.