Who do you want to choose how your ailments are sorted a bureaucrat or a medical bod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Printable View
Who do you want to choose how your ailments are sorted a bureaucrat or a medical bod?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
My wife works for the PCT (for now, it's being abolished) so I can give you some insight here. When they decide whether to fund non-NICE treatments or exceptional cases not normally covered by the NHS, the panel consists of local GPs, clinicians, and where appropriate outside specialists. Now, my other half is what you could describe as a "bureaucrat" as she organises and minutes the panels. You could theoretically do away with her role, which you would no doubt describe as a "non-job". So now either these meetings don't take place, or the doctors and surgeons give up time they could be using for actual medical work to book meeting rooms, arrange transport and parking, coordinate diaries, take the minutes, etc etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Sorry if this goes against your entrenched opinion, but any large organisation needs its share of bureaucrats. I have absolutely no doubt that there's waste and inefficiencies in the system, but the system proposed by the coalition makes no sense whatsoever. Instead of the PCT providing this service, individual GPs will have to do it themselves. This means either (A) they take even more time away from patient care to do admin work, or (B) they buy the service in from a profit-making private provider. Instead of a network of local commissioning bodies we'll have hundreds, all with their own varying views on what should and shouldn't be funded, all requiring admin staff and facilities, and introducing a true postcode lottery. It's madness.
Odd that isn't it, folk in the real world manage to hold meetings all the time without somebody there to whet nurse them, and how many meetings does she have about the meetings?
The work that people like your other half do still has to be done. What is likely to happen is that they'll be employed by gp commissioning groups instead. Its just going to end up in management being taken out of one place and put into another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
And maybe for a more realistic salary. The NHS salaries for pen pushers are far higher than equivalent jobs in private sector. So even if numbers were only slightly less the overall wage bill should be a lot less hurrah.
The folk protesting make me sick, if they were on more realistic wages then there wouldn't need to be as many job losses.
I see your link, and raise you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
TPA publish another flawed attempt at rubbishing the NHS | Liberal Conspiracy
Quote:
It is classic of TPA output in selectively presenting information to suit its conclusion.
The report title are those hypothecated as being “amenable to healthcare”, assuming that the “amenable mortality rate” for the UK can be measured against that for “selected European countries”.
The difference is then multiplied out to give a suitably large number, just over 11,500 for 2008.
This figure is then put forward, together with increased spending on the NHS between 2001 and 2011, and is held to prove that the NHS is not such A Good Thing and should therefore be reformed, although what a reformed system would look like is not told, possibly because the models followed in those “selected European countries” (the Netherlands, France and Spain) are all different.
There are a number of problems with this approach.
Firstly, as the TPA at least concedes, is the lifestyle factor, which is known to influence significantly life expectancy levels across the UK.
Second, the TPA seems unable to limit its comparison to the Netherlands, France and Spain, bringing in comparisons with Australia, Sweden, Norway, Canada and even Cuba.
And thirdly and potentially most important, the only country that has its healthcare spending examined in depth, together with productivity, pay and increases in frontline staff versus managers, is the UK.
The nearest the TPA gets to making a cost comparison is when they describe the system in Switzerland (yes, yet another comparator thrown in to the mix) as “expensive”.
So the NHS is getting rubbished by comparing it to systems across Europe and elsewhere, but there is no comparison of costs, just the inference that the NHS model is wrong and everyone else’s is better.
So what the TPA have presented is a partially researched hatchet job on the NHS, with sufficient information provided to fit the headline already written – rather like the Daily Mail, the kind of paper that eagerly churns over their press releases.
The sad reality is that informed debate on the NHS cannot be other than A Good Thing, but this is not it. It’s a waste of time.
As for these links, big wow. Nobody is denying - at least in this thread - that there's not waste and inefficiency in the NHS. It needs addressing, you'll get no argument from me. But the kind of reforms being enacted by the coalition (despite Cameron looking straight into a camera lens during the televised pre-election debates and promising no such thing) are not the answer. They'll create more admin and bureaucracy, not less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Yet to be seen whether it does but even if it did create more jobs but with more realistic salaries for these peoples ability then that is a good thing no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Over paid, useless folk have no place within the NHS - sack em.
So you're in favour of getting rid of "non-jobs", your phrase de jour, but quite happy to create jobs which dupicate existing roles? For goodness sake man, make your mind up. What little credibility you may have once had is long gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
But they won't duplicate will they if the first lot are sacked, doh!
Talk of credibility yet can't even follow plain English.
It really is not that hard to follow, too many people are doing jobs that just aren't needed, and they are useless at their jobs too yet are paid handsomely for doing sweet FA, meetings about meetings doing nowt, yet feeling v important about themselves.
They are parasites and need treating as such. They are worse than dole scroungers as they cost so much more.
I do apologise if I've confused you, I shall try ever so hard to explain myself clearly. The duplication arises not from replacing sacked public sector staff with a similar headcount in the private sector, that much is so obvious that I didn't feel it needed spelling out. Rather, the problem is that instead of having a small number of commissioning bodies, the coalition's plans involve each GP cluster potentially becoming a commissioning body in its own right. Each of which will need to either find their own staff (and this is where the potential for an increase in headcount arises), or to buy in services from private providers (who will need to produce a profit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Profit in itself is not "a bad thing", far from it; but these plans lay the way for the private sector to profit from something which is currently provided by NHS staff.
Any thoughts yet about the Taxpayers Alliance report being debunked as worthless, by the way? (Little hint for you before you try to dismiss my source as biased: switch on your irony detector and ask yourself whether there could possibly be any bias in your own source ;) )
Yet more guesswork........
It would be nigh on impossible to make it less efficient than it is now.
And the private sector would pay more realistic wages than the public sector so if there is an increase in numbers it'll still be cheaper, so not sure what your beef is.
Unless of course you have a vested interest in useless unemployable people being paid well for doing non essential work, well do you?
Liberal Conspiracy - what a flaming joke, you'd have to be stark raving mad to believe anything that site said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Facepalm, as I believe the youth of today are fond of saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
So it is fact when a site you find says one thing but utter rubbish when one I find says something different
facepalm indeed
I love the private sector too, they pay me about 7-8 times what I get paid by the NHS for the same work. Can't beat it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
No as what they say makes sense unlike some unheard of loony fringe website, Liberal conspiracy indeed, epic fail quoting that website, well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Beauty of the private sector is you are paid what you are worth unlike the public sector who expect annual pay rises regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
I would personally want YOU, Bolton Midnight to choose how my ailments are sorted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Absolutely. No doubt we would be right as rain in no time thanks to his input.Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
Trust me you don't I'd send most to the vet as they are better than doctors as their patients can't tell them owt yet some get cured, some get shot granted but it is still pretty impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
My rule of thumb with my kids is unless the bone is poking out through their skin I'm not interested.
What do you know, hospitals going bust because they have been mismanaged by the public sector so badly.
BBC News - NHS hospital in Cambridge to be run by private firm
and there are many more
BBC News - Why is Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals Trust in debt?
and the oh so wonderful NHS doesn't seem to get such a glowing report from the Patients Association
Patients Association launches damning report into poor care in England
yep so as I said all along, things are certainly not tickety boo with the NHS
Oh missed this one off
BBC News - Trafford General Hospital 'could be privatised'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Executive pay consultants behind escalating boardroom salaries | Business | The GuardianQuote:
...in 1978, the head of British Aerospace was paid £29,000. By 2010, the head of its successor company, BAe Systems, collected a package worth nearly £2.4m, a rise of 8,000%...
And your point is what exactly?
I'm sure the CEO of Vodaphone gets a fair whack but he earns it and if the service was crap I could switch to Orange couldn't I? Public sector doesn't work like that, we can't shop around so as they have a monopoly the pay at the top should reflect that by being a lot less.
The value, or lack of, placed on different jobs and the increasing salary gap as illustrated here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
The haves and the have-nots: City workers pay soars 12% to £83,000 a year... but manual workers get just 2.4% rise | Mail Online
Army Pay Scales - Armed Forces - British Army Officers Pay Rates - Other Ranks Pay Rates
so a captain or major gets the same as tube driver and less than a diversity or 5 a day manager :confused:
So, despite profits falling 88% the head of BAe Systems earned 41 times as much as a major in 2010 :crazy:
It seems that a certain sector rewards inefficiency far more than another ever has.
So do you think it is right to pay a 5 a day co-ordinator over 30k?
A simple yes/no will suffice.
Yes/NoQuote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
No he doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
The firm earnt the money. People who produced the goods and services for sale earnt the money. Management of itself produces no discernible salable product.
Market forces determine how much he is paid.
I'll take that as a don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
So which part of the public sector do you 'work' for then?
That would be a fair assumption given that none of us have seen any details of this co-ordinator job you've talked about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
We know far more about Vittorio Colao so do you think it is right to pay a CEO €932,000 salary plus bonuses making a total of €2,264,000 in 2009?
What do you think they don't exist then? Or climate change coordinator or real nappy coordinator etc etc. What is it like putting your head in sand, taste okay?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Doesn't bother me as I'm not paying it, so they are free to pay him a trillion euros and hour as far as I'm concerned. Let those who use Vodafone worry about it.
Grasped it yet?
It would simply be very useful if you could provide the details of such a job seeing as you asked the question, or is there a problem finding one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Grasped it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
cba, only a complete idiot would require a link to prove they do exist.
You've got it then have you, well done, shame it took you so long. Presume that'll be the end to your pointless and incorrect replies then?
It's absolutely impossible to tell from a job title alone. It sounds a lot for very little, but what's the overall benefit to the taxpayer down the line if these kids' health is improved as a result of this job? They might need less frontline treatment, they might take less time off work as adults in the future, they might raise their own kids better. Might.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Simply put, if paying somebody £30K generates savings of £30,000.01 or more then the answer to your question is "yes".