You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
70% satisfaction when the Tories first came to power?
What went wrong?
It’s funny, isn’t it, how the very people advocating free market economics baulk at the idea of daring to allow free market economics loose on the labour markets. If NHS clinicians were allowed to negotiate their salaries at a local level, and simply leave and work at a neighbouring provider who was offering a few grand more if they didn’t like their current terms and conditions, salaries would escalate significantly. Those who advocate for the removal of national pay bands and privatisation, be careful what you wish for. You think healthcare is expensive now? Nurses in the US get $100k+ salaries, and we are in the midst of an unprecedented clinical labour shortage right now in the UK.
19% (not that I think we’ll get that) actually represents remarkably value for money if we were in a free labour market.
Not saying they, current govt, have done a good job but all the previous governments are also part of the problems.
Take a look at the graph I posted. I didn't vote Labour during that period of rising satisfaction rates, but, in hindsight, it's pretty clear that previous government was doing something right in aggregate (not claiming they got everything right, or that some of their mistakes don't impact on the service still now, but hard to argue against the idea that overall they were improving things... and a lot of that was about funding and staffing). It is clear that the government of the past 12 years hasn't had the same positive effect as that previous government. And Sunak's poor handling of this pay dispute is unlikely to have a positive effect either... to put it mildly.
My personal view is that social care is the challenge that’s clogging up the flow of patients
That can't be right - Boris Johnson had a plan to fix social care. Are you saying he was lying?
... the basic problem is that 12 years of neglect has left the UK with a system that isn’t fit for purpose and is increasingly intolerable to work in.
No, it is not 12 years but more than that. The problem did not start 12 years ago but it just hits the break point in the current climate.
It is an accumulation of incompetence over decades by all govts. I still remember very well that NHS is referred to as the "poisoned chalice" for political portfolio.
No previous govts saw this coming? I think they do but so long as it is not them they are not bothered hence the incremental approach until the breaking point.
In the far east the millionaire careers are: Politician, doctor (private but also consultants for govt), dentist (same as doctor) and lawyer. Wonder why.
Are you saying he was lying?
I believe the political weather changed 😉 . Everybody says they want to pay more, but nobody votes for those who plan to raise taxes. Plus ca change...
unprecedented clinical labour shortage right now in the UK.
As I said before, the answer is now a GCSE economics one. And quite a simple one at that.
It’s funny, isn’t it, how the very people advocating free market economics baulk at the idea of daring to allow free market economics loose on the labour markets. If NHS clinicians were allowed to negotiate their salaries at a local level, and simply leave and work at a neighbouring provider who was offering a few grand more if they didn’t like their current terms and conditions, salaries would escalate significantly. Those who advocate for the removal of national pay bands and privatisation, be careful what you wish for. You think healthcare is expensive now? Nurses in the US get $100k+ salaries, and we are in the midst of an unprecedented clinical labour shortage right now in the UK.
I can't believe I'm biting at this but if a nurse can individually negotiate a $100k salary why is that bad? They won't be getting that in a remote bit of Wales but they might actually need more than that to recruit in Westminster.
...and is $100k really that high anyway? What does (say) a nurse practitioner get? Back when the dollar was worth 50p that feels a little over the average for many nurses but not extreme. Amd since they get around the problems of pay banding with temps those staff must be costing *way* over $100k.
But so what? Calm individual negotiation has to be better than strikes and pay bands which ensure someone *has* to be unhappy somewhere because one size does not fit all with salaries and not everyone wants to strike.
I'm not seeing anyone opposed to letting the market decide and if you don't want the market to decide you should still be happy because the NHS can't be far off a monopoly so they can squeeze salaries down as much as they want if that's what you want.
My wife isn't a nurse, but a consultant therapy radiographer on a large cancer ward, the hours she works are ridiculous. She is paid for a 35 hour week, yet works 70-80 hours week in week out since COVID. She got a warning from HR as there was only one day last month she hadn't logged into her laptop, being responsible for timetabling patients, trying to find staff to treat them etc, and her and her colleagues are completely burnt out.
She is often sat on her laptop at 10pm on a Sunday night, if she hasn't completed all the volumes for her clinic the monday morning, she will be back and working at 4am, into the hospital to run clinic from 7.30am and finish and come home for 7pm, have tea and be back on sofa on laptop.
For this she just accumulates time of in lieu, yet then cannot take it.
The issue is that on her cancer ward, amongst the nurses, the midwives etc, they saw good staff leave after Brexit and return home or leave to do other jobs from Eastern Europe, being made to feel unwelcome.
Now following COVID and the hours they have all worked, staff are just simply burnt out, and tensions are really high. These staff just aren't being replaced, the bursaries and other funding to recruit new staff has been cut right back too.
Being selfish, for me its meant our whole life plays second fiddle to the NHS, my wife would not have it any other way, but she is dog-tired, we rarely have any sort of social life, I have had to place my studies outside of work on hold as we don't have time, and I have to be the sole person getting up to my type 1 diabetic daughter each night, as i try to allow my wife the 5-6 hours sleep she sometimes gets.
The issue is an uncaring government, who have chronically under-funded the NHS for a long time now. They were the first to ride the wave of love for the NHS and stand outside clapping their hands in first lockdown, when the NHS comes to government asking for help, its not been a hand clap, its been a clear 2 fingers stuck back up at them.
If the problem isn't fundamentally the government's issue I'd like to know what is. Under labour the waiting list for definitive treatment came down from 18 months to 18 weeks. What is it now?
Local authorities fund social care and council tax is capped as is the amount they can provide the care homes per patient.
There was a small event a few years ago that caused a mass emigration of staff causing the shortfall of staff within the NHS to size from 60,000 to 100,000.
Restore bursaries for those training in healthcare.
It’s funny, isn’t it, how the very people advocating free market economics baulk at the idea of daring to allow free market economics loose on the labour markets
Because, there is only a rigged market.
What's downright pathetic is this can all be fixed with the government purse.
No tax need be involved. But they don't really want you to know this do they?
and is $100k really that high anyway? What does (say) a nurse practitioner get? Back when the dollar was worth 50p that feels a little over the average for many nurses but not extreme. Amd since they get around the problems of pay banding with temps those staff must be costing *way* over $100k.
are you on drugs? The dollar hasn’t been worth 50p for 15 or more years. At the same time as arguing against a 4% plus inflation pay rise for nurses you say “is $100k really that high for a nurse salary?” If the NHS had to pay US salaries it would be broke. National banding of salaries works massively in the favour of national employers, but only if you don’t spank the arse out of it, like we are seeing now. Tories need to see that they have a good thing in national pay bandings because the alternative would be unaffordable, unsafe for the areas that couldn’t afford to compete and unfair on the taxpayers.
Being selfish, for me its meant our whole life plays second fiddle to the NHS, my wife would not have it any other way, but she is dog-tired, we rarely have any sort of social life, I have had to place my studies outside of work on hold as we don’t have time, and I have to be the sole person getting up to my type 1 diabetic daughter each night, as i try to allow my wife the 5-6 hours sleep she sometimes gets.
Look after yourselves. If the system breaks let it breaks because it is impossible for your (both) own health to suffer because of the system and still try to care for others.
The issue is an uncaring government, who have chronically under-funded the NHS for a long time now. They were the first to ride the wave of love for the NHS and stand outside clapping their hands in first lockdown, when the NHS comes to government asking for help, its not been a hand clap, its been a clear 2 fingers stuck back up at them.
Not sure why people buy into the governments' (all of them) propaganda when the reality is very different.
Under labour the waiting list for definitive treatment came down from 18 months to 18 weeks. What is it now?
No more money.
Not sure about the waiting list but I have been waiting for 8 to 9 weeks now just to get a rely.
the NHS had to pay US salaries it would be broke.
The NHS can only be broke if the government decides not to fund it.
That is the only reason.
That is the only reason.
Ideology. Absolute, evil, pathological hatred of people that are socioeconomically beneath them, and a deep rooted belief that they are fundamentally better and more deserving than the people they serve.
Tories need to see that they have a good thing in national pay bandings because the alternative would be unaffordable, unsafe for the areas that couldn’t afford to compete and unfair on the taxpayers.
You are technically incorrect.
The government can afford what ever it desires. You are stuck in old school lies of government spending and it doesn't reflect reality.
Tax payers are not on the hook for government spending. It doesn't work that way - they want you to believe it so.
Ask yourself the why the private sector never bails itself out in economic crisis?
Please, I’m begging you, don’t believe the media stories regarding militancy.
I don't.
From my limited view I think that these strikes have a lot more average man in the street* support than I have ever known. Certainly a lot of the allegations of militancy are meeting with robust replies from people who you wouldn't necessarily expect it from.
Let's face it, we all** clapped for the NHS when we were scared. We all saw how the government was laughing at the rest of us as they had their gatherings and parties. We all see how clapping achieved nothing to actually help the NHS and that derisory pay increases are leading to trained professionals leaving and working in supermarkets instead. The pay is often better, the working conditions are often better, the flexible working options are often better and you don't have to pay for staff parking(!) Plus myriad others. My wife has worked for NHS since she started work (27-odd years ago) - she has never been one for action, threat of action etc and believes (much to my bemusement) that directly serving members of the public is a reward in itself. However, she has been saying for the last few years (particularly during covid) that they are so under-staffed it is dangerous and that hastily trained agency staff are uneconomic and also bring obvious dangers with them.
We are four-square behind you.
*Other genders of person in streets are available.
**Obviously not everyone did, but the gist is that most people did.
You are technically incorrect.
oh, I know, but we are veering into complex economic theory which is not readily accepted by the public, who prefer the ‘economy as a household budget’ analogy, because they can get their head around it. Taxation as the means to control free capital, rather than as a means to pay for stuff blows the mind of most people; it’s just too abstract.
I was intrigued in what the leader of a political party which was founded by trade unions to represent them in parliament might have to say about an critical labour crises concerning an institution created by Labour to provide free universal healthcare, this was all I could find:
I would be grateful if someone could provide me with something more topical, I struggle to believe that Starmer hasn't said anything in the last couple of days concerning the issue.
It is all well and good to sit back an enjoy the spectacle of the Tories's political kamikaze strategy unfold but I am sure that healthcare workers would like to see a bit more public support from the next prime minister, as they engage a callous Tory government.
Labour's shadow health secretary publicly announcing that a Labour government would not give nurses their inflation plus 5% pay rise demand doesn't seem enough to me.
If the longer term solution to the crisis in the NHS is to vote out the current Tory government then Labour should perhaps be a bit more hands on.
When he is prime minister Starmer won't be able to enjoy the luxury of ignoring topical issues, he ought to get used to that now.
Please, I’m begging you, don’t believe the media stories regarding militancy.
You need to do what you need to do.
Media? Trust them at your own peril.
I based it on my own experience.
If the longer term solution to the crisis in the NHS is to vote out the current Tory government then Labour should perhaps be a bit more hands on.
Why offer solutions when you (Labour etc) could see Tory kamikaze in action? Why rock the boat? All politicians know they are in trouble if they become the govt in this two years. No money and energy crisis. No govt will last long or have a "honeymoon" period. The next govt will be in deeper trouble because people expect instant change or improvement. People want it yesterday.
The knock on effect from Covid-19 and energy crisis are enough to put all govts in trouble.
are you on drugs? The dollar hasn’t been worth 50p for 15 or more years. At the same time as arguing against a 4% plus inflation pay rise for nurses you say “is $100k really that high for a nurse salary?” If the NHS had to pay US salaries it would be broke. National banding of salaries works massively in the favour of national employers, but only if you don’t spank the arse out of it, like we are seeing now. Tories need to see that they have a good thing in national pay bandings because the alternative would be unaffordable, unsafe for the areas that couldn’t afford to compete and unfair on the taxpayers.
I think you may have my posts mixed up with someone else's or misunderstood something I've said. Or maybe I'm misreading your words. Either way there seems little point in continuing. Have a good afternoon.
Can i drive an ambulance?
I only do 24 hrs of work a week so, at ths time of year would love to wang around with the sirens on..
Obviously we will have to have somebody qualified to treat people in the back.
The last lady i tried to help with cpr had a less than optimal outcome.
Can i drive an ambulance?
nope.
Spoilsport
There should be some sort of voluntary, non picket line breaking, group who could help a little.
And not selling well thumbed paperback books in tbe foyer
Spoilsport
There should be some sort of voluntary, non picket line breaking, group who could help a little.
And not selling well thumbed paperback books in tbe foyer
You'd be amazed (and worried in equal measure) if you knew what roles mission-creep had led WRVS volunteers (many in their 80s) into fulfilling, especially in community hospitals away from the big city ones.
My evidence this is a good idea is that everyone in the UK agrees the NHS is a disaster (and could be fixed with a tiny top up which never comes) and everyone abroad chooses a different mechanism to us.
At first I thought you were trolling... I have since gone back through your posts, you definitely aren't. Which is more concerning!
I don't know whether you're just genuinely lucky, have never suffered a debilitating illness to yourself or loved ones or any kind of financial hardship, but your overall tone is off the scale "I'm alright Jack, **** you" to the point if there is any governmental monitoring of this forum at all, they'll be recruiting you for a job soon...
YES... We understand the economics of the situation... We aren't stupid! What is patently clear is that is the only part of the equation that you and the incumbent government understand, that there is a complete lack of conscience on both parts, and as such it's very easy to rationalise a scenario where those who can afford it just pay to top up their service as required every year... Anyone who can't afford it? Well screw them! EXACTLY the same approach as Kamikwazi's recent tax cuts for the rich budget that was so offensive even to many people it would have significantly benefitted, that it had to be thrown out sharpish!
Nothing but solidarity from me
There should be some sort of voluntary, non picket line breaking, group who could help a little.
Contact your local branch of St John's....
.
I’ve taken part in a strike at a “car insurance company” (was a long time ago). Most of the strikes this year have been in the private sector, they just aren’t as newsworthy, partly because they’ve been resolved by negotiation on wages.
EDIT: this was in reply to the deleted post above.
Not sure if this has been said but:
If, as one of the richest countries in the world we can't find the money so that NURSES can't get paid enough to live with dignity then we've messed up enormously. It's just basic, functioning society stuff. Nurses. NURSES.
The money exists. It just does. As a society we cannot accept that there isn't enough to pay people properly, and any government that says so has failed and needs to **** all the way off forever.
Right. Glad I got that off my chest.
My evidence this is a good idea is that everyone in the UK agrees the NHS is a disaster
The NHS is not a disaster, the top-level funding, however, is.
top-level funding, however, is.
So change the system to one that gives individuals control over that. It's not difficult, other countries do it.
You hand over your decisions to someone else and guess what, they don't always do exactly what you want. In this case there's an easy solution to that problem.
No, you're handing the system to those with money. If you don't have the money to top up then guess what, you don't get what you want. You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that the addition admin is a cost in of itself so more money is needed to provide the same level of service.
My control is vested within my elected representative, I'd just prefer that they manage it properly. Fund it the way it should be, sounds even easier than your suggestion.
'Freedom of choice' (for those that can afford it like Rishi. The rest can go hang).
No, you’re handing the system to those with money. If you don’t have the money to top up then guess what, you don’t get what you want. You’re also conveniently ignoring the fact that the addition admin is a cost in of itself so more money is needed to provide the same level of service.
The majority say they want to pay higher tax for healthcare. So a majority *do* have more money and *will* pay it. The others can't or won't but there's no point in all of us having reduced healthcare to please that minority.
All of us underspending 20pc on our health care because a minority can't or won't is terrible as we are seeing.
My control is vested within my elected representative, I’d just prefer that they manage it properly. Fund it the way it should be, sounds even easier than your suggestion.
Great so you're happy, but other people think there's a massive underspend.
Do politicians get private healthcare?
Ps - fully supportive of NHS staff and their fight against the government on both pay and conditions .
I despair that this country values celebrities over public service professionals, both financially and in status.
‘Freedom of choice’ (for those that can afford it like Rishi. The rest can go hang).
Everyone hang themselves because some people are hanging.
...and it's academic becaise if you trust the government to fund healthcare properly then nobody hangs at all.
So the argument is: We need an NHS because that keeps us all down at the same (20pc too low) level of healthcare, but also the government will fund healthcare adequately and therefore the NHS will work fine and nobody will need to top up to a better level. Both can't be true.
I support the NHS strikes by all the staff involved (I read somewhere on the Guardian that junior Doctors are about to ballot on strike action). There are too many reasons why I support for me to type here and many have been covered by others. Too much damage has been done by the Tory government to the NHS and other public services, that a stand against them needs to be taken.
I was chatting to a bloke in Florida earlier in the week and he clocked I was British - and he asked "What's going on over there?"
I just simply said "Where do I start - but mostly we're taking all the worst bits of the USA."
So what's the end game on this?
I can't see how the government can lose the longer it goes on.
Public will eventually crack like the puppies we are.
Few horror stories over Xmas. Etc.
Would be nice if Starmer perhaps did a bit of Father Christmas sentiment. How hard is it to talk something up better than the Tories?
Maybe the Labour party are on strike too?
Maybe the Labour party are on strike too?
...and the SNP, they absolutely stiffed the Nurses - 8.5pc IIRC.
It’s not difficult, other countries do it.
In this case there’s an easy solution to that problem.
Which begs the question - if scrapping the existing is so simple, and replacing it with a better system would be so effective, why, for crying out loud, aren't the Tories proposing it?
At every single general election, and throughout the total periods between them, the Tory Party publicly declares its complete commitment to the NHS and the founding principles behind it.
And yet according to you it is a failed system which could easily and simply be replaced with a much better and more effective healthcare system.
So why don't the Tories publicise this wonderfully good news instead of publicly declaring their total commitment to the NHS?
Which begs the question – if scrapping the existing is so simple, and replacing it with a better system would be so effective, why, for crying out loud, aren’t the Tories proposing it?
The NHS is a national religion. You could never win an election in the UK suggesting changing to (say) a French or German or Scandinavian solution.
The Tories would not replace the NHS with a French, German or Scandinavian model. A European model would horrify the ERG. They would replace it with an American one. And we would all be screwed.
500,000 people in the US go bankrupt every year over medical bills. Middle aged couples are divorcing to avoid legacies of medical bills. The big winners in the US system are not the public but the insurance companies.
'Roughly 30 million Americans of all ages had no health insurance in 2021. That's roughly 9.2% of the population.'
The Tories would not replace the NHS with a French, German or Scandinavian model. A European model would horrify the ERG. They would replace it with an American one.
They are well down the road to doing so.
500,000 people in the US go bankrupt every year over medical bills. Middle aged couples are divorcing to avoid legacies of medical bills. The big winners in the US system are not the public but the insurance companies.
So very much, this!
Give all public workers a 15% pay rise now, and triple lock their pay until they are payed commensurate with their skill and value.
The NHS is a national religion
You mean that it is massively supported by the British people, despite your claim that it is a disaster that could easily and simply replaced by a much better and more effective system.
You could never win an election in the UK suggesting changing
In other words the British people are no more likely to be ever convinced by your argument than the majority on this thread appear to be?
You could never win an election in the UK suggesting changing to (say) a French or German or Scandinavian solution.
The Various scandic healthcare system are all within about 0.01% of the UK system.
In Sweden the difference is that there is a (very) small fee for each appointment (£7-15 a pop, maximum of £180 per year) and prescriptions get cheaper the more of them you have. (People on certain types of benefit or low incomes don't pay anything). I'd actually like the NHS to be run more along these lines.
Both my kids have had long term medication, first time you buy it's massively subsidised, but not a flat rate like in the UK, so you might pay a nominal 30 quid for several hundred quids worth of medicine. Once you've had two or three prescriptions for it (or anything else), you'll be into the 40% discount band, so now it's only 18 quid a pop, after 3 of these you'll be into 75%, another couple and it'll be free. (Not sure what the bands and discounts are, it's been 5 or 6 years since i've had to deal with it.
Other than that, it's the NHS, but in Swedish.
The others can’t [s]or won’t[/s] but there’s no point in all of us having reduced healthcare to please that minority.
Wow.
Tell me you're a tory without telling me you're a tory.
That's a truly disgusting attitude to take.
Anything else you want to deprive the untermensch of?
Great so you’re happy, but other people think there’s a massive underspend.
Where did I say I was happy? What part of "fund it properly" did you fail to understand??
You mean that it is massively supported by the British people, despite your claim that it is a disaster that could easily and simply replaced by a much better and more effective system.
That wasn't intended to be a claim, I was paraphrasing what I read in this thread. I thought I'd already conceded but if I didn't then yes, you posted proof that UK healthcare is absolutely fine and nobody disputed it. So yes, I 100pc concede that point. As far as I recall I've only proposed the solution in response to people claiming there *is* a problem. I'm not an advocate of fixing non-existent problems!
In other words the British people are no more likely to be ever convinced by your argument than the majority on this thread appear to be?
Yup, I'd agree. Of course, you were very careful to qualify that with 'British' which suggests you're well aware it would be a very easy sell to the other 7 billion people in the world! 🙂
Where did I say I was happy? What part of “fund it properly” did you fail to understand??
We've all gone circular.
STWer : "The government are making choices on my health spending I don't like."
Me: "Change to a system where you can top up if you can/wish the way some other places do."
STWer: I can already choose and I'm happy with the mechanism with which I choose.
Me: "Ok, you're happy we can stop talking about it."
STWer : "But, I'm not happy, the government are making choices on my health spending I don't like."
Me: "Change to a system where you can top up if you can/wish the way some other places do."
STWer: I can already choose and I'm happy with the mechanism with which I choose.
Me: "Ok, you're happy we can stop talking about it."
...back to step 1...
BBC:
Does the average nurse earn £34,000 a year? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63587909
As if the argument that this is plenty is a good one. For what nurses do, for their knowledge, for the hours, for the stress, for the responsibility.
It’s really quite shocking, I’ve always been a BBC news fan but they need taking to account for their trotting out the govt lines/ lies.
This should be the greatest time in decades for political news reporting. They should be destroying the government every day.
The interviews should go down in history, govt ministers should be petrified of them, they literally have no answers.
The NHS is a national religion. You could never win an election in the UK suggesting changing to (say) a French or German or Scandinavian solution.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion of what the Scandinavian system actually is because from your other posts I think you've misunderstood it quite badly.
Yes, you do have to pay but it's capped (to around £200 a year and that includes anything you pay for prescriptions). Kids don't pay so there's no barrier to taking the kids in for the sniffles.
So yeah, the Scandi system is expensive if you have one appointment a year that you didn't really need to take, anyway. On the other hand, in years where you have to spend weeks in hospital it's actually very very cheap and very very good (most of the time).
Does the average nurse earn £34,000 a year? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/63587909
/blockquote>I'm also a fan of the BBC and that article is pure fact checking. There's nothing in there that comes close opinion or comment, it purely explaining where the numbers come from. I can't see what you could possibly object to?
I recall a few years back someone having a pop at More or Less - your criticism is up there with that!!!! (Unless I've missed something which is always possible!)
That wasn’t intended to be a claim, I was paraphrasing what I read in this thread.
No you weren't. Until you came along no one was suggesting that the NHS is a disaster.
This thread was discussing the issue of decent wages for healthcare workers.
The issue is a political one, not a structural one. The same goes for NHS funding.
Your solution is to remove politics by leaving the decisions to the market, a view widely supported by the looney far-right of the Tory Party. Most other people however appear to believe the solution is to change our political masters, rather than throw healthcare at the mercy of the markets
It’s really quite shocking, I’ve always been a BBC news fan but they need taking to account for their trotting out the govt lines/ lies.
I've read that report and I wouldn't accuse it of totting out govt lies. It looks at the claims from all sides and looked at figures to try and see if what the government said was correct.
While I don't like the way the Beeb is being played by tbe government, I find the Reality Check articles are always fair and reasoned, and often critical of government misinformation. It's a shame they don't get more prominence.
And while I support the nurses 100%, they are only one under resourced, under staffed and underpaid public sector group making potentially life changing decisions on less than the mean average wage, and often the median - social workers, asylum processors, benefits teams....
It’s a shame they don’t get more prominence.
Repeating lies on page one. Clarification bottom of page five. That's not balance.
Is that above the average salary?
That depends on which average you're talking about.
The mean UK full-time salary, which is what you get if you add up the amount all full-time employees are paid and divide by the number of full-time employees, is £39,966, according to the figures for April 2022 from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
But from the same report, the median, which is the amount that half of full time employees will be earning more than, and half will be earning less than, is £33,000.
So the average figure for nurses is higher than the median salary but lower than the mean.
Chart showing nurse pay across different gradesThe median is the figure often used for wages because it is not skewed by small numbers of very highly paid people.
The mean and median for nurses themselves tend to be very similar, because there are not many nurses who are very highly paid.
I think the bit in bold there is designed to throw in some unnecessary confusion. Or it's just extremely poorly written.
Why are they trying to push the median figure as being the 'correct' one. What possible reason could they have for saying that the median and mean wages for nurses tend to be quite similar? It's not a few billionaire nurses who are causing the median wages to be so far below the mean wages.
The take away from this article should be, yes, the nurses are getting screwed over. And yes, so is the rest of the country. Except for those billionaire nurses.
I did get a bit frothy there.
Re reading it I’d agree, except for the- how does it compare to the average wage, when it is far from the average job.
Edit- the measure as to whether it’s fair pay for the job is surely better measured against the supply and demand for nurses, and whether we have to asset strip other countries.
If it was so good, there wouldn’t be vacancies and we wouldn’t need to bring in overseas help. This could have been the balancing argument.
We’ve all gone circular.
STWer : “The government are making choices on my health spending I don’t like.”
Me: “Change to a system where you can top up if you can/wish the way some other places do.”
STWer: I can already choose and I’m happy with the mechanism with which I choose.
Me: “Ok, you’re happy we can stop talking about it.”
Except that's not what we're saying at all.
The NHS, as a concept, is perfectly fine. The reality is it's not being funded properly to make that concept a reality. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending this?
choices on my health spending
Except that’s not what we’re saying at all.
not being funded properly
Yup.
We elect people pledging XBn pa to the NHS.
They do something different (or don't get elected)
The NHS funding* gets cut and the service declines.
We aren't happy.
Why do you think the solution is to treat the symptom rather than the problem? To say nothing that your proposal is the absolute antithesis of what the NHS stands for.
*I include student awards and other feed in costs here)
Yup.
We elect people pledging XBn pa to the NHS.
They do something different (or don’t get elected)
The NHS funding* gets cut and the service declines.
We aren’t happy.
We elect people pledging £3600 pa to our health insurance.
They only give us £3300 (or don’t get elected).
We top up the £3300 to £3600 if we want and can.
Nobody worse off, plenty of people better off.
Cost of running the NHS is going up faster than they are increasing funding.
Clear enough?
Treatments are getting better and more effective, with better outcomes but they are more expensive in many cases and require more skilled staff to apply them properly, in many cases. So lots of things that could be done, don't get done.
Salaries of almost all medical staff are going up much slower than inflation, and in many cases going (rapidly) down compared to the actual experienced cost of living. (Which is different to inflation, or the RPI/CPI).
So you have a talent drain into the private sector/other industries. And we won't mention the impact of brexit.
Not to mention the whole PPP/PFI debacle which in many cases seems to be profiteering by another name for the private sector. Another funding hole.
Cost of running the NHS is going up faster than they are increasing funding.
Clear enough?Treatments are getting better and more effective, with better outcomes but they are more expensive in many cases and require more skilled staff to apply them properly, in many cases. So lots of things that could be done, don’t get done.
Salaries of almost all medical staff are going up much slower than inflation, and in many cases going (rapidly) down compared to the actual experienced cost of living. (Which is different to inflation, or the RPI/CPI).
So you have a talent drain into the private sector/other industries. And we won’t mention the impact of brexit.
All self evidently true. And since health care inflation is higher than 'normal' inflation soone or later to maintain the same service you will have to spend 100pc of your resource on health care which isn't going to happen, so the compromises required are going to get bigger not smaller. All of which makes me even keener to be making my own decisions.
Not quite sure why you aimed any of that at me, seems largely irrelevant, and it's not like all the other countries in the world are looking at those factors and saying "right, we need to nationalize healthcare".
We elect people pledging £3600 pa to our health insurance.
They only give us £3300 (or don’t get elected).
We top up the £3300 to £3600 if we want and can.
Nobody worse off, plenty of people better off.
Or put that 300 quid a year towards BUPA membership?
And since health care inflation is higher than ‘normal’ inflation soone or later to maintain the same service you will have to spend 100pc of your resource on health care which isn’t going to happen
Doesn't work like that. Well funded healthcare goes in hand with other well funded things, so the load on health service is reduced. Eventually.
Not quite sure why you aimed any of that at me
Because you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding.
and it’s not like all the other countries in the world are looking at those factors and saying “right, we need to nationalize healthcare”.
Well no, because many of them already have some form of nationalised healthcare, or nationalised system with private top ups.
nationalised system with private top ups.
Great pick one of those, sounds like everyone would be happy overnight, let's hear about it.
The others can’t or won’t but there’s no point in all of us having reduced healthcare to please that minority.
Nobody worse off, plenty of people better off.
Wow, I know I'm the one that pulled out the untermensch comment but you're really digging down on it aren't you?
Great pick one of those, sounds like everyone would be happy overnight, let’s hear about it.
Umm, no, you're the only one getting enthusiastic about it.
Actually, are you ****ing high? Holidays started early?
The more I think about it, the question the journalists should ask when the Minister is explaining they are paid enough:
Can you explain why there are 100k vacancies.
Please explain why we are importing our nurses.
Can you explain why the nurses are leaving at x rate.
If they come back and say:
Well there are vancancies in all sectors.
They replay could be:
Will people die if those vacancies are not filled.
Or
If there is a shortage of bricklayers, the rate goes up until it’s filled, this can’t happen in nursing.
Great pick one of those, sounds like everyone would be happy overnight, let’s hear about it.
It's called BUPA.
The UK has had it 50 odd years.
I've been in hospital since Sunday. All I can say is those that are saying these nurses, and all the other staff on the ward, don't deserve what they are asking for after 12 years of austerity need to give their heads a wobble.
The nurses are magnificent, the quality of care, their attitude, the 13hr shifts, their tireless work ethic - I haven't seen them stop working once. Even now, at nearly 2am, they are rushing around.
Then there's the support staff. The cleaners, one guy I saw cleaning the ward 8 times in a day. Going over everything, over and over to make sure if was clean.
Just give them what they want, they are incredible. We can afford it as a nation. We might retain a few nurses while we are at it and reduce the pressure on those that are already here.
We elect people pledging £3600 pa to our health insurance.
They only give us £3300 (or don’t get elected).
We top up the £3300 to £3600 if we want and can.
Nobody worse off, plenty of people better off.
this is incredibly simplistic thinking. That £300 is only going to fund the NHS properly if it’s multiplied by the number of taxpayers in the country. We all contribute, so that the relatively tiny amount of people compared to the total population per year who are unfortunate enough to need access to healthcare can benefit. It’s socialism 101, and it’s morally and ethically A GOOD THING. (And why Tories fundamentally despise it). If you wanted to top up that amount of care on a pay as you go basis, not helped out by the many, it’s gonna cost you 100x or more as a one off payment. Or if you insure for it, maybe 10-15x more yearly, depending on how big a pool of contributors that the insurance companies can gather. Because people that are unlikely to need or can’t afford the cover won’t be contributing, so the cost burden falls on a smaller pool of people, not to mention the fact that insurance companies, unlike sovereign states, like to turn a profit.
I want to hear about the broken banjo
That was years ago, the woman Dr told me to 'not be so enthusiastic'