No, we have informed opinions (I am the head of a clinical service in the NHS by the way, so yeah, I like to think I know a little about the politics behind its funding). If you think your opinion is better informed, you can choose to: - enlighten us with your viewpoint; - wisely keep your counsel and let others talk. But your need to mock suggests that you are not feeling as secure in your viewpoint as you'd like to pretend.
It will change the dynamic. Thus far the government has always been able to rely on the fact that health professionals won't strike because of their professional concern for he patients. That fundamental attitude would have to change in private health care where the first question a health service will have to ask is not: "Does this patient need help?" but: "Does this patient have insurance?". The general public needs to realise what it looks like when they are not the first priority in business anymore. (By the way, the government has launched an open consultation for the public on setting the mandate to NHS England from 2016 to 2017; deadline is tomorrow. Not been very public about it, has it?) People still believe that if you have not enough cake there is a magical way of slicing it differently so that somehow you end up with more cake.
I would wager that if you lowered the barrier to doctor training, reduced or removed the intial debt their training leaves, increased the number of home grown doctors and guaranteed a reasonable work week. They would probably work for a lot less money.
Hehe. I'm just reading the occasional updates of drama in the thread, with people giving regurgitated facts that support their opinions. Yes I am guilty of mockery but it is so,etimes really hard not to bite when even so,eone like you Nexxo, cannot see past their own bias. Or the regular drama that Isaac adds. We all know the job of government right now is a poisoned chalice. We all know if Labour were still in power the debt would be bigger, the deficit would be higher, the length of time to taken to pay off the debt would be higher, the NHS would be more unmanageable, the public sector would be more out of control, the interest we pay back on our debt is better spent on the UK rather than fund managers multi million pound yacts and mansions. But no. You guys keep fighting Labours' corner. The rest of the tax paying population can make their own minds up with logic and common sense where they want their hard earned tax to go - like growing the UK economy to pay for the public sector? Like building up the UK rather than building up the unmanageable public sector. (Added) same old same old. Make way for the usual spouting off about how everyone is wrong that doesn't support the public sector completely and blindly.
I think you are projecting. Do we, or are you the one regurgitating? Last time I checked nobody was mentioning Labour nor resorting to ludicrous clichés like "managers' multi million pound yachts and mansions" (the NHS has a third of the managers of the private sector, BTW). I mean, seriously? We're talking about the economic concept and principles of austerity, and this is the best contribution you've got? It was private sector banking that caused the credit crunch and public sector government money that bailed them out --money originally intended for public services had to be handed to private sector banks. These bailout costs of 2008-2009 dwarfed the financial tax revenues of the boom years, which were below the tax revenues of manufacturing even at their peak (compare this to how manufacturing has been treated by this government, with the steel industry being the latest victim). And how have these banks repaid this debt? With reluctance to lend to small businesses and entrepreneurs which are the backbone of the private sector but exorbitant bonuses for bankers (since we're talking about multi million yachts and mansions). So tell me: what sector has been a drain on the economy? But please, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. Keep spouting the clichés straight from the Daily Mail while putting words in our mouths in the hope that the noise of your mocking will make you sound so clever. But blissful ignorance works well for Cameron too.
Has forum_user offered an opinion? I thought the only opinion offered was the rather flawed one that if you're spending to much you have to make cuts, because that's what people do on a micro-economic scale, along with absolutely nothing to backup his opinion. I dare say Nexxo would welcome any facts that supported the other side of the argument, i know i would, IIRC I've even asked for someone like yourself to provide details or facts on why austerity is the solution, details and facts that haven't been forthcoming. We don't know the debt would be bigger, the deficit would be higher, the length of time to taken to pay off the debt would be higher if Labour was in power, in fact most post in this thread have steered clear of party politics, most posts have been discussing austerity and the pros or cons of such a economic policy. You seem to be the only one using a discussion about an economic policy as a party political discussion, something that probably shows your lack of understanding, austerity isn't an economic policy that's limited to two political parties in the UK, austerity or anti-austerity is an economic policy that has been enacted in one way or the other across the whole world, by parties on both the left & right since the financial crisis. It's got nothing to do with Labour, as i said above austerity or anti-austerity isn't exclusive to Labour and Conservatives, it's a world wide, cross party economic policy.
Nice find! Love this line by Oxfordshire council leader - "As for Cameron’s claim about government grants, Hudspeth comments: “I cannot accept your description of a drop in funding of £72m or 37% as a ‘slight fall’.” Makes you wonder whether the PM's advisors are even competent enough for the job or do they have ulterior motives.
Yup. Cameron is prepared to make tough choices; he just isn't prepared to live with the consequences. Seems that losing public services sucks after all.
It has occurred to me that there are very few people arguing against, or debating with , you guys. But when this partcular thread is the Nexxo, Corky and Isaac show it is hardly surprising. On the same point, you guys are hardly building much of a following either. Interesting.
Oh sorry, I thought that this was the 'Serious Discussion' section. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest or political campaign or something. Still no reasoned argument from you however, just more attempts at mockery. Interesting.
I can't be the only one that misses Nexxo's ban hammer. The conservatives are doing exactly what they always do shrink the state and promote big business/rich institutions. Anyone who voted for them and is surprised by this doesn't really have an excuse. The real trouble is there isn't really a credible opposition currently, Labour/Corbyn have some good ideas the worlds just not in the position for them right now. Trident for example, it's pretty obvious to me it's not needed but until my fathers generation passes your never going to win that one.
We'd love a debate. We have several times invited you to explain how you think austerity as an economic policy works. What evidence supports it? What logic or rationale underlies it? Please explain. We have been asking you several times. We have explained our views, with facts and references. Please feel free to subject them to a critique (no, "socialist BS" is not a reasoned critique). Please feel free to show evidence to the contrary. We have asked you several times now, but we get mockery and derision in return. So again: make your point. I don't think we can make it any clearer that we would like you to contribute to this debate. We are still waiting.
The strike is Hunt's fault and he is now resorting to personal attacks on individuals rather than engaging in any reasonable debate. He's trying to make out that a 76% respondent rate with 97% voting for strike action is somehow the doings of a handful of "militants", rather than what it is, the entire profession telling him to **** off. We're not stupid people and can make up our own minds as to his proposals. Speaking of his proposals... Hunt wants us to work longer (I already work 50-60 hour weeks), for less pay, and worse conditions of service. Those in part time or who take leave (eg parents) get even more screwed. It's going to harm patient care due to even more tired and stressed doctors and yes, our bank balances. But then we don't get paid that much - with my additional supplements I get £32k a year, which is a pittance compared to what I could get in another country. Cut my salary further and I'll seriously look at going elsewhere. On the other hand, MPs are happy to give themselves an 11% pay rise and work hardly ever. There's a massive gulf between them and public, where they're happy to wade around in cash whilst cutting everybody else's salary. Doctors don't strike lightly, because of the impact it has. However our consultants are backing us to the hilt, providing essential care on the strike days, so nobody is going to die because of it. If anything the care is going to better, as it will be entirely consultant delivered. So how do you avoid the strike? Negotiate in good faith without the preconditions set down that are downright unacceptable. Before Hunt's meddling we were nearly there with a new contract but he threw it all in the bin because he wanted a fight.
You want to try and start to stop austerity then how about the government stops spending 11.4 billion every year in foreign aid to stop poverty overseas. Before anyone says 'oh but that's a UN required target'. Your right it is and the UK is the only one that's been meeting it for the past two years so how about we try and stop poverty in the UK first and then try to help others. Don't get me wrong it's wonderful to stop somebody in a foreign country from staving but there are families in the UK just as bad off. It's just in the UK they are better hidden as they don't have journalists and film crews with a government sided bias taking pictures and videos just so they can point and say 'oh look at this poor children, aren't we doing a wonderful job helping them' Now I've no idea how much hospitals cost to build and run or how much would be needed to improve doctors pay or anything like that but I'm fairly sure that 11.4 billion would go a long way to providing a better life for the poor in the UK and that includes better funded health care for them.
Since when has an economic policy been exclusively owned by a particular political movement? You seem to be conflating an economic system with a social and political system, you do know the difference right?
Doctors aren't asking for a pay rise. We're asking to not get a 20% pay cut. As for how much the NHS needs? Something like £20bn by 2020 to stand still and £30bn to improve services.
Not to disagree but the numbers for how much the NHS needs are very difficult to predict and depends on many different factors, personally i think fullfact.org makes a fairly good attempt, at least it seems reasonable to me. BTW i think that £30bn shortfall would be without improving the service.
