Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

The Tories and the NHS - yet again

40 posts in this topic

Even the Daily Mail is critical of this...

 

So... let me get this right:  A hospital, trust or CCG can be saddled with unfair levels of debt caused by government maladminstration, e.g. PFI debts or just seriously idiotic budget allocations, OR a hospital is given a random fine or budget cut and then the government minister responsible can unilaterally decide to close hospital wards, or even entire hospitals, to cut costs?

 

I'd like to see the Labour Party start a list of laws they'd repeal immediately if elected... this one would get on there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Labour saddled the NHS with huge PFI debts and introduced the private sector into so many areas of the NHS, they  are hardly in a position to object. Nor do they have the power, authority. capability or intellect to do anything about it. 

 

Strange also, to trust or believe anything the Mail reports...not something you normally come across on the TRL Daily Herald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Labour saddled the NHS with huge PFI debts and introduced the private sector into so many areas of the NHS, they  are hardly in a position to object. Nor do they have the power, authority. capability or intellect to do anything about it. 

 

Strange also, to trust or believe anything the Mail reports...not something you normally come across on the TRL Daily Herald.

The last Labour government's love for PFI has saddled the NHS and other public bodies with massive debts for the next few decades.  I'm in no way defending them.  What I am grumbling about is that the government is bringing in powers to penalise those very same hospitals if they find they've been given too little money to run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bag of a fag packet estimate of the proportion of the NHS budget taken up by PFI schemes is about 3%. The NHS simply isn't been driven into the ground by PFI schemes.

When you consider that includes the capital expenditure to build a bunch of new hospitals, the cost of that capital over 25 or 30 years and, crucially and almost always forgotten, the maintenance of those buildings (which is actually the bulk of the cost) then PFIs aren't actually that bad a deal. It might be possible to do the same things cheaper by structuring the finance in different ways, but the saving won't be anywhere near what people think.

There are valid criticisms of PFI schemes, but they are rarely aired and are actually more to do with poor management on the buyer side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bag of a fag packet estimate of the proportion of the NHS budget taken up by PFI schemes is about 3%. The NHS simply isn't been driven into the ground by PFI schemes.

When you consider that includes the capital expenditure to build a bunch of new hospitals, the cost of that capital over 25 or 30 years and, crucially and almost always forgotten, the maintenance of those buildings (which is actually the bulk of the cost) then PFIs aren't actually that bad a deal. It might be possible to do the same things cheaper by structuring the finance in different ways, but the saving won't be anywhere near what people think.

There are valid criticisms of PFI schemes, but they are rarely aired and are actually more to do with poor management on the buyer side.

Normally I'd agree with you but I saw one example of two CCGs where each was allocated their budget but one had a PFI debt to repay meaning their effective budget was lower.  Also, that 3% could mean the difference between a hospital meeting its commitments and being forced to cut service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally I'd agree with you but I saw one example of two CCGs where each was allocated their budget but one had a PFI debt to repay meaning their effective budget was lower. Also, that 3% could mean the difference between a hospital meeting its commitments and being forced to cut service.

It's certainly true that individual Trusts may have higher outlays of course.

But it seems fine to me that a CCG that has to service a commitment to a PFI should just get on with it. If it didn't have the PFI it would, presumably, have similar scale commitments to FM/building maintenance and debt financing for the capital invested. It just wouldn't have the dirty words "PFI" attached so no one would care.

I have a mortgage I'm committed to for the next twenty years. Is that an outrageous commitment to have made? I could have chosen not to have a mortgage I suppose, but then I'd have been paying rent all my life. My expenditure on a house wouldn't have gone away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How to close a hospital
put its services out to tender
quietly sell the profitable ones
claim it is inefficient
show the figures to prove your point
show sympathy
have a review
close it
show regret
get a well paid job in private health
smile, discreetly of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since Labour saddled the NHS with huge PFI debts and introduced the private sector into so many areas of the NHS, they  are hardly in a position to object. Nor do they have the power, authority. capability or intellect to do anything about it. 

 

Strange also, to trust or believe anything the Mail reports...not something you normally come across on the TRL Daily Herald.

If the PFI deals are as bad as you say and Osborne said, why are this government continuing to use them to finance public projects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current pay offer of course is provocative, with an election looming what better than to provoke a strike in the NHS?  An offer of 1% - a pay cut, or nothing if you've received an increment for improving your skills level is an insult. Cameron says it's so the NHS can continue to employ more nurses. Surely this offer will lead to more nurses joining agencies and then being re-employed in the NHS at a higher rate. Never mind they won't show up on the unemployment figures and that's what it's all about, isn't it? Machiavelli should take lessons from Cameron.  I daren't post my opinion of him,l I'd get banned "sine die" as the RFL have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Cameron is a berk!

 

I think you're being "squishy soft" on him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're being "squishy soft" on him

You're correct, he's a complete berk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever imagine a time when it might be possible for people to appreciate that pay rises cost money?  In the private sector that is a concept easily grasped but it would appear that some people think there is a bottomless pit of public money to spend on the NHS when there just isn't and nor should there be.  The pit does actually have a bottom and if people are demanding over and above what is in their contract (which apparently amounts to a 3% pay rise, although over what period I don't know) then they have to know that in meeting that demand, there is inevitably going to be loss elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever imagine a time when it might be possible for people to appreciate that pay rises cost money? In the private sector that is a concept easily grasped but it would appear that some people think there is a bottomless pit of public money to spend on the NHS when there just isn't and nor should there be. The pit does actually have a bottom and if people are demanding over and above what is in their contract (which apparently amounts to a 3% pay rise, although over what period I don't know) then they have to know that in meeting that demand, there is inevitably going to be loss elsewhere.

How very gracious of you, you obviously turn up to work for no pay since wages cost money and have to be paid for somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How very gracious of you, you obviously turn up to work for no pay since wages cost money and have to be paid for somehow.

 

 

Actually she still works for the pay and conditions of Victorian times because she wouldn't want anything to do with benefits which were won by those horrible unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and only last week the Tories were talking about tax cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone ever imagine a time when it might be possible for people to appreciate that pay rises cost money? In the private sector that is a concept easily grasped but it would appear that some people think there is a bottomless pit of public money to spend on the NHS when there just isn't and nor should there be. The pit does actually have a bottom and if people are demanding over and above what is in their contract (which apparently amounts to a 3% pay rise, although over what period I don't know) then they have to know that in meeting that demand, there is inevitably going to be loss elsewhere.

Tell you what, when the bankers, bosses and other assorted exploitative capitalists limit their theft of the fruits of worker's labour then opinions like yours might gain some consideration. In the meantime, the "bottomless pit" remains the empty compassionless souls of the lot of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How very gracious of you, you obviously turn up to work for no pay since wages cost money and have to be paid for somehow.

I'm unemployed.

 

When I have been employed it has generally been in the public sector, mostly for local councils.  I know about wastage in the public sector, I've seen it, and the NHS is no different (yes, I've worked for them, but in the past).  No good coming at me with suggestions that I lack grace or compassion or any of that bull.  I've seen too much to be anything other than realistic about the NHS rather than sentimental.

 

Nurses work hard and I'd pay the good ones (ie the ones who actually care as well as really work hard) more than soft sod footballers, for example (who strangely enough are never used as examples of obscene grasping wealth, only bankers seem to get that levelled at them and yet there are a lot of low paid employees in the banking industry).  However, the country can't afford that kind of generosity.  That's simply a fact, regardless of who is in power.

 

And if memory serves, the last Labour government didn't give nurses massive pay rises either.  However, they did give already very well paid GPs a humungous 50% pay rise AND they took away the requirement to provide out of hours care and stuff like home visits.  Yet the Tories get blasted for actually acting in a responsible fiscal fashion towards what is a massive financial black hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even taking into consideration the nice benefits that the NHS staff get, they're paid substantially less than a private sector equivalent. Even contractors get far less. For example I get way less than half of what I did in the private sector now that I'm doing NHS work. Luckily I can afford it relatively easily. In fact, at my last place I had an admin assistant working for me earning more than I am now. I now have field engineers working for me earning daily rates that I thought must have been mistakes as who in their right mind would work for that little for such a responsible job.

Anyone in it for the money wouldn't go near the NHS with a barge pole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even those doctors you're talking about earn far more in the private sector. I know the charging rates quite well of those doctors as I've had to pay them for the last few years for my wife. £200 for a 15 minute appointment isn't unheard of, and some charge even more than that, despite being out in Suffolk rather than expensive London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone in it for the money wouldn't go near the NHS with a barge pole.

Absolutely.  And that's how it should be. 

 

A general nurse (ie not a specialist) is paid at a basic rate of just over £21,000, which is the same as a new teacher or a social worker.  Seems reasonable to me.  Incremental rises (which private sector workers do not get) take them to £27,000, which again is similar to teaching and social work.  I don't know about the police as I've never worked in that area of the public sector.  But I do know from job adverts that support staff in the police force are generally more poorly paid than those in the NHS, yet I never hear of anyone protesting about pay in the police force!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unemployed.

When I have been employed it has generally been in the public sector, mostly for local councils. I know about wastage in the public sector, I've seen it, and the NHS is no different (yes, I've worked for them, but in the past). No good coming at me with suggestions that I lack grace or compassion or any of that bull. I've seen too much to be anything other than realistic about the NHS rather than sentimental.

Nurses work hard and I'd pay the good ones (ie the ones who actually care as well as really work hard) more than soft sod footballers, for example (who strangely enough are never used as examples of obscene grasping wealth, only bankers seem to get that levelled at them and yet there are a lot of low paid employees in the banking industry). However, the country can't afford that kind of generosity. That's simply a fact, regardless of who is in power.

And if memory serves, the last Labour government didn't give nurses massive pay rises either. However, they did give already very well paid GPs a humungous 50% pay rise AND they took away the requirement to provide out of hours care and stuff like home visits. Yet the Tories get blasted for actually acting in a responsible fiscal fashion towards what is a massive financial black hole.

Well stop sponging off my tax money and get a job. There are plenty out there if you look, most will pay minimum wage and be zero hours but hey what's wrong with that the companies need to be as 'efficient' as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well stop sponging off my tax money and get a job. There are plenty out there if you look, most will pay minimum wage and be zero hours but hey what's wrong with that the companies need to be as 'efficient' as possible.

You need to wait a few months really before you try that tack.  I'm still living off my last month's salary (plus rather large tax rebate, thanks to paying too much of the stuff in the previous year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to wait a few months really before you try that tack.  I'm still living off my last month's salary (plus rather large tax rebate, thanks to paying too much of the stuff in the previous year).

 

 

so you intend to be unemployed for a few months?

 

You leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you intend to be unemployed for a few months?

 

You leech

Yeah.  I think I will on this occasion.  Getting a bit wearisome being employed for a year then unemployed for a couple of weeks.  May as well make the most of my tax investment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017