Junior doctors

[DodgyAgent]

I'm surprised any contractor is against the NHS because it's funded from NI contributions, so if they did get rid of it, they would cut NI and everyone would have to take out private insurance.

That would mean contractors would be out of pocket.

Why does it have to be a question of "for" or "against" the NHS?

[MicrosoftBob]

Why does it have to be a question of "for" or "against" the NHS?

Also NI isn't ring fenced for the NHS it just goes into a general pot to enable the government to bribe the electorate with their own money

[darmstadt]

Bring it on

We have a great medicentre round the corner of our office. It is not expensive but it costs enough to keep poor people and time wasters out

Whats it going to be then:



or:

[Lost It]

May be because of my past history with Cons.

What I'm seeing here is the typical Tory attack on every Trade Union that has some kind of ability to prevent them selling the whole country off to their sponsors and friends.

I was a member of the NUM during the strike. They took on the strongest union, we lost, the rest were easy meat. It was all planned out as we are getting to discover now.

The last few are being attacked now. So they are doing just what they wanted to do, taking this country back to Victorian times. Workhouses next?

And I can't help thinking that a lot of the posters on the thread are completely missing the point when they start saying Junior Doctors are paid well enough.

I always thought they got paid for what they know, not what they do. Same as IT Contractors if you like.

They spend a lot of time gaining basic knowledge, they never stop learning and if they get something wrong now we have the gentish ambulance chasers suing them into oblivion. They also acrue, thanks to the Tories a rather large debt whilst at Univercity which they have to pay back. Then they are expected to work 12 hour shifts, in an industry that is being strangled by the Cons, being told what to do by Office types who have no idea what medicine is about.

You ever wondered why they call it "Practicing Medicine"? It's because they never get the same thing twice. Quite a lot of the time they have to think on their feet. The ones they have been stood on for 12-13 hours. Safe? No. Does the Con government give a flying tulip? Nope. they are out to destroy what Bevin brought to the Uk, in a time when the country, in fact the whole Commonwealth was skint after financing a world war, at a time when Austerity meant getting a few eggs a week if you were lucky.

Think about this one for a minute. None of what the Government says about the costs of running the NHS is true.

If it was who would want to buy it? I can't think of any company whose shareholders would think it was a great idea to buy something they can't make money out of, the only one that tried pulled out after 6 months.

The Cons are selling the NHS by the pound. They couldn't care less about the British Public. I hope, I really do, that all the junior Doctors who are forced to take this imposition find other work in other countries. Then lets see how the Cons fare at the next election.

Do I have a vested interset? Yes. It's called cancer.

[BlasterBates]

Also NI isn't ring fenced for the NHS it just goes into a general pot to enable the government to bribe the electorate with their own money

Yes it does go into the pot and it isn't ring fenced but people link it to the benefits, so to sell a privatisation of the NHS to the electorate you would offer a reduction in NI, otherwise people would complain that they're getting less for their NI contributions.

[unixman]

I'm not against the NHS. It was the right answer for the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. And its USP, care free at the point of delivery, is the essence of the whole thing. The best way to deliver that is probably no longer the soviet-style structure of the NHS, however.

Debate is difficult. It is almost impossible to critisize the NHS without being denounced as a Daily Mail troglodyte, even if you have personally witnessed unspeakable things in hospitals, as I have. I have seen good things too, but it's the inconsistency which is deadly. In my view, what campaigners should be campaigning for is the continuance of care free at the point of delivery, not the preservation of the North Korean business model.

[DaveB]

I'm not against the NHS. It was the right answer for the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. And its USP, care free at the point of delivery, is the essence of the whole thing. The best way to deliver that is probably no longer the soviet-style structure of the NHS, however.

Debate is difficult. It is almost impossible to critisize the NHS without being denounced as a Daily Mail troglodyte, even if you have personally witnessed unspeakable things in hospitals, as I have. I have seen good things too, but it's the inconsistency which is deadly. In my view, what campaigners should be campaigning for is the continuance of care free at the point of delivery, not the preservation of the North Korean business model.

That would be the North Korean free market model where every hospital and GP practice operates as a stand alone business spending it's own money as it see fit and in competition with other hospitals to procure and supply services?

It's not been a monolithic centrally run service since Thatcher's time. The conservatives brought in the concept of a competitive market for health care in the NHS in the late '80's and it's been that way in one form or another ever since. One huge merry go round of cash.

[DodgyAgent]

I'm not against the NHS. It was the right answer for the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. And its USP, care free at the point of delivery, is the essence of the whole thing. The best way to deliver that is probably no longer the soviet-style structure of the NHS, however.

Debate is difficult. It is almost impossible to critisize the NHS without being denounced as a Daily Mail troglodyte, even if you have personally witnessed unspeakable things in hospitals, as I have. I have seen good things too, but it's the inconsistency which is deadly. In my view, what campaigners should be campaigning for is the continuance of care free at the point of delivery, not the preservation of the North Korean business model.

it is not a question of being for against the NHS Defining how we deal with NHS as a question of being for or against it is in effect acting as a lazy way to kill debate and protect the vested interests of the status quo. This renders the NHS as unchangeable leaving the only solution to maintaining the service to be just to pour more money into it. Those who pay the taxes to suppport this terrible behemoth of Stalinist bureaucracy will tire of this and take their money elsewhere. This of course will leave all the wailers with no other choice but to either reform it themselves or dip into their own pockets rather than everyone else's to support it. They will soon change their tune if that happened.

[Lost It]

As soon as the GUP started letting the Government treat it as a business it was doomed.

[DodgyAgent]

That would be the North Korean free market model where every hospital and GP practice operates as a stand alone business spending it's own money as it see fit and in competition with other hospitals to procure and supply services?

It's not been a monolithic centrally run service since Thatcher's time. The conservatives brought in the concept of a competitive market for health care in the NHS in the late '80's and it's been that way in one form or another ever since. One huge merry go round of cash.

As a classic wailing leftie what do you suggest is done?