INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

The future of the NHS (if any)

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1321 Post by Alan H » August 11th, 2015, 1:09 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Nick wrote:
Altfish wrote:
Nick wrote:Complete bollox, of course. Ever heard of crying wolf?

How do you envisage it happening Nick? What are the benefits that I, a 60-year old male who for the previous 59-years has hardly bothered the NHS, can look forward to as my health inevitably starts to decline? Will I get credited for my previous years?
You can look forward to the NHS providing exactly the sort of service that a 60 year old male would require. For UK citizens such as yourself, NHS provision has nothing to do with previous contributions, and it is pure political lies to say otherwise. As I said: complete bollox.
Just don't ever be in need of a hip replacement, a knee replacement, need cataracts removed or have varicose veins...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1322 Post by Alan H » August 15th, 2015, 2:02 pm

Paramedics to be trained as GPs
Controversial proposals will see already overstretched paramedics given four months training to become GPs.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1323 Post by Alan H » August 17th, 2015, 12:34 pm

Labelling price of medicines won’t solve the real problem
People know the price of food yet millions of tonnes of it are wasted each year. Why should medicines be any different?
Such a solution doesn’t solve the real problem: why are we prescribing medicines to people who aren’t taking them? This can only be solved much further upstream in the prescribing process and this is where efforts need to be devoted. This is now even less likely to happen because valuable time and resources will be wasted on implementing and delivering this unwieldy and probably ineffective solution.
That pre-supposes that was what Hunt's wizzo wheeze was trying to do.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1324 Post by Alan H » August 23rd, 2015, 10:34 pm

NHS competition could waste millions says Labour, after Care UK complains
Labour has warned that the NHS could be forced to spend millions on competition lawyers after the UK’s biggest private healthcare provider demanded an immediate investigation into a decision to award an elective care contract to a local health trust.

Care UK has been branded a bad loser after lodging a complaint with the NHS watchdog Monitor over the management of a contract by commissioners in north London.

Monitor has now begun an investigation into the decision by four GP-led clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to award a contract to the Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. The trust said it was extremely disappointed by the investigation and warned that it would delay the opening of a care centre.

Andrew Gwynne, the shadow health minister, said the new competition rules could force the NHS to waste millions on competition lawyers.
What? Wasting money that could have been spent on front line care?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1325 Post by Altfish » August 24th, 2015, 6:24 am

The problem with tenders for health care; it is not like tendering for a box of pencils.
There have to be clear award criteria that are rigorously followed, I suspect that it wasn't the case here.
Remember Virgin Trains appeal against the West Coast award, Virgin won in because the DfT had messed up (on purpose because they didn't like Virgin??) the assessment process.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1326 Post by Alan H » August 24th, 2015, 9:27 am

Altfish wrote:The problem with tenders for health care; it is not like tendering for a box of pencils.
There have to be clear award criteria that are rigorously followed, I suspect that it wasn't the case here.
Remember Virgin Trains appeal against the West Coast award, Virgin won in because the DfT had messed up (on purpose because they didn't like Virgin??) the assessment process.
That's the problem now: it's all about how well the contract was written and negotiated and how good your lawyers are. That cannot be the way to run a health service if you're in the slightest bit concerned for patients care.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1327 Post by Alan H » August 28th, 2015, 6:14 pm

Oh dear. Policies not based on any evidence? Cameron had no formal correspondence with Keogh before promising a seven day NHS
No formal correspondence took place between Prime Minister David Cameron and the medical director of NHS England on the definition of seven day services before Cameron announced his plan to create “a truly seven day NHS,” an investigation by BMJ Careers has found.

The BMA said that the lack of any formal correspondence on a definition of seven day services was “astounding.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1328 Post by Dave B » August 28th, 2015, 6:44 pm

I think "astounding" is a very mild term.

But, what can we expect given their previous form?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1329 Post by Alan H » August 30th, 2015, 11:32 pm

The BMA's challenge to David 'call me Dave' Cameron: Seven-day NHS: BMA challenges David Cameron to answer seven questions over seven days – asking, what's your plan for seven-day NHS services?
(issued Sunday 30 Aug 2015)

Seven-day NHS: BMA challenges David Cameron to answer seven questions over seven days – asking, what’s your plan for seven-day NHS services?

The BMA has today published the first in a series of questions in national newspapers, calling on David Cameron to set out the detail of his plans for more seven-day NHS services.

Since announcing his plans in the Spring1 to introduce what he described as the world’s first ‘truly seven-day NHS’, the prime minister has so far failed to give any detail or outline how he plans to fund or deliver on his ambition.

Instead, doctors have had their professionalism and dedication to patients repeatedly called into question at a time when NHS staff, as highlighted by the recent social media campaign, are already providing a first-class service, every day of the week.

The BMA has clear that it supports more seven-day hospital services and that patients should receive the same high standard of care across the week. However, we have rightly and repeatedly raised legitimate concerns over how the government expects the NHS to fund and staff it, and what impact it could have on mid-week services.

In his speech on seven-day services in May, David Cameron used the word “plan” 18 times2 but has so far signally failed to produce one. So the BMA, starting today3, is publicly asking David Cameron seven key questions over seven days, starting with: ‘When will the prime minister define what he means by a ‘truly seven-day NHS’?

Commenting, Dr Mark Porter, BMA council chair, said:

“The BMA has been quite clear that it supports more seven-day hospital services and that patients should receive the same high standard of care across the week4, but we have also raised repeated concerns about the lack of detail and the apparent absence of any plan as to how the government intends to deliver this.

“David Cameron promised a ‘truly seven-day NHS’ before and after the general election, even going as far as to use the word ‘plan’ 18 times in one speech, but has so far signally failed produce one. There has been no detail to define what he means, how the NHS can fund and staff it, and its impact on weekday services.

“Instead, showing more regard for headline-grabbing soundbites than plans, the government has gone out of its way to deliberately misrepresent the excellent care NHS staff already provide every day of the week.

“We already know that nine in 10 consultants work evenings and weekends for the NHS5, that over 60 per cent of GPs regularly work outside of their normal hours6 and that junior doctors continue to work around the clock providing care for their patients, including in some cases examples of doctors’ working days on end or 90-hour weeks.

“It is not just doctors wanting answers. A recent public survey showed that two thirds of respondents do not believe the NHS can currently afford seven-day services in hospitals, while three quarters do not want to see a reduction in mid-week services7.

“Given the current funding squeeze on NHS Trusts, the only way for many hospitals to increase the number of doctors over the weekend would be to reduce the number of doctors providing elective care during the week. If that is what David Cameron means by a ‘truly seven-day NHS’, than he should say so.

“And with the latest figures showing a rise in the number of graduates turning their back on general practice8 the prime minister needs to be honest with the public. The government’s pre-election pledge to recruit 5,000 GPs to open all surgeries over seven days – rowed back on after the election9 – has been shown to be mere rhetoric and completely undeliverable on the ground.

“So far the government has refused to say what it defines as seven-day services – despite publically admitting there is a ‘general public interest in making this information available for the sake of greater transparency and openness’10. This is why we have taken the extraordinary step of publishing our questions.

“The lack of detail or any outline plan for a seven-day health service shows a complete disregard for people already concerned at the mounting pressures on the NHS. At the very least, we all deserve answers to the legitimate questions which the BMA is asking this week.”

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1http://press.conservatives.com/post/114835215960/david-cameron-speech-to-the-conservative-spring

2https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-on-plans-for-a-seven-day-nhs

3Today’s advertisement has been published in the Independent on Sunday

4For more on the BMA’s position on seven-day services please click here

5For more information on the BMA’s research into consultants’ on-call work please click here.

6The latest figures from the BMA’s quarterly tracker survey found that 61.1 per cent of GPs reported that they ‘always’ work outside of their regular hours, with 30.2 per cent reporting that they ‘sometimes’ do this. More information can be found here

7A survey of 2,041 adults in England was conducted by Britain Thinks between 22nd and 25th June 2015. Respondents were asked to say how far they agreed or disagreed with the below statements.

At present, the NHS cannot afford to deliver seven-day services in its hospitals
Agree (net) – 68 per cent (1,388)
Disagree (net) – 9 per cent (182)
Neither agree nor disagree – 16 per cent (329)
Don’t know – 7 per cent (142)

Providing more hospital services at the weekend should not mean that fewer services are available during the week
Agree (net) – 84 per cent (1,718)
Disagree (net) – 4 per cent (89)
Neither agree nor disagree – 9 per cent (184)
Don’t know – 2 per cent (50)

For more information on the survey please click here

8The latest figures are available from the GP National Recruitment Office here

9Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP): The Secretary of State mentions recruiting 5,000 extra GPs, but I note in a recent speech that that was downgraded from a guarantee to a maximum. With 10% of trainee posts unfilled and the BMA’s recent survey suggesting that a third of GPs will leave in the next five years, is that not going to be difficult? Has the Secretary of State had any consultation with the BMA and the royal college to ask why they are leaving?

Mr Hunt: It will be difficult. The commitment has never been downgraded: we always said that we needed about 10,000 more primary care staff, about half of whom we expected to be GPs. We have had extensive discussions about the issues surrounding general practice, such as burn-out, the contractual conditions and bureaucracy. We are looking at all of those things. The commitment is to increase the number of GPs by about 5,000 during the course of the Parliament, and that is a very important part of our plan to renew NHS care arrangements.
(Hansard, July 7 2015)

10In June 2015 the BMJ (British Medical Journal) issued a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Health asking for its definition of a ‘truly seven-day NHS’. The Department of Health responded by saying that it held the information but would not release it. Click here for more information

The British Medical Association (BMA) is the voice of doctors and medical students in the UK. It is an apolitical professional organisation and independent trade union, representing doctors and medical students from all branches of medicine across the UK and supporting them to deliver the highest standards of care.

For further information please contact:
British Medical Association


Demand answers about seven-day services
Dear prime minister,

In May, you announced your intention to extend health services for the world’s first ‘truly seven-day NHS’, stating that there is a plan to deliver this. Doctors who care for patients day in and day out and understand their needs have been clear in their support for more seven-day hospital services.

Having repeatedly called for the detail of how a ‘truly seven-day NHS’ would be delivered, we are now asking you to define what you mean by this and to show us your plan to deliver it.

Patients become ill and need high-quality urgent healthcare over a seven-day week – this has never been in dispute. Doctors and other healthcare staff agree and are already working all across the country to deliver this, and of course they want to do more for the patients for whom they care.

The government’s pledge to address the funding crisis in the NHS is based on delivering services at current levels: broadly, routine and non-urgent care across five days and urgent and emergency care over seven. How does your plan propose to find the money to pay for the additional services that you have set out in your vision?

The NHS is already understaffed, and some medical specialties, especially emergency medicine have significant difficulties in recruitment. Doctors have already been trying to deliver improvements in weekend and nighttime care so know that a ‘truly seven-day NHS’ will need a full team of healthcare staff to deliver it, not just doctors but nurses, managers, healthcare support workers and scientific, therapeutic and technical staff, for example. What’s your plan to find, train and fund these in order to deliver a truly seven-day NHS?

Those working in the NHS have highlighted the increasing strain that health services are under, due to more patients presenting with more complex needs than ever before. How does your plan ensure that a ‘truly seven-day NHS’ will involve no reductions in existing weekday services and that no existing services will have to close?

The NHS is something for all of us to be proud of, led by a workforce dedicated to delivering free healthcare for all, wherever and whenever patients need it. Without knowing how you intend to deliver a seven-day NHS, we are increasingly concerned that it is simply an empty political promise which risks damaging the existing NHS services on which we all rely.

So, on behalf of doctors and patients across the country, we’re asking: Will you show us your plan?

Yours sincerely

Dr Mark Porter
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1330 Post by Alan H » September 1st, 2015, 10:00 am

The Tory wizzo wheeze that are Personal Health Budgets: Revealed: NHS funding splashed on holidays, games consoles and summer house
Exclusive Millions of pounds of NHS funding have been spent on luxury goods such as summer houses, holidays and pedalo boats, under a scheme to give patients ‘personal health budgets’.

A Pulse investigation found that the scheme to give ‘patients more control over their care’ has been used to buy many unevidenced treatments at the expense of long-established services, which have been defunded.

Information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act shows that CCGs in England predict spend of over £120m this year for 4,800 patients on the personal health budgets scheme.
Pulse has learnt that personal health budgets are beginning to destabilise existing services, with one mental health service having to close its doors due to its funding being ploughed into the scheme.

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chair of the GPC, says personal health budgets can have a ‘very big impact on existing services’.

He said: ‘Quite often they are working within limited margins and so loss of even a small amount of their income can jeopardise a whole service – so this can have serious implications for large numbers of people just based on the whims of a small number.’

Professor Nick Watson, professor of health and wellbeing at the University of Glasgow, said the scheme was ‘consumerist’.

He said: ‘I think that we are going forward on poor evidence and there is a clear ideological drive behind it.’
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1331 Post by Altfish » September 1st, 2015, 1:34 pm

There was an item on this on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning. To be fair the bloke who was defending it did a damn good job.
His argument was basically...
1. Personal Health Budgets are not common so we are talking about a very, very small proportion of the NHS budget and if they were spent on hospital care and drugs what would be the point of them.
2. A fortnight's holiday or improvements at home are a lot cheaper than having to pay for residential care.
3. They are all agreed with/approved by GPs or other doctors.

I'm far from sure about this but I feel there is some pressure group releasing this story. Perhaps the care homes as they seem to be the ones losing out.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1332 Post by Alan H » September 1st, 2015, 1:54 pm

Altfish wrote:There was an item on this on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning. To be fair the bloke who was defending it did a damn good job.
His argument was basically...
1. Personal Health Budgets are not common so we are talking about a very, very small proportion of the NHS budget and if they were spent on hospital care and drugs what would be the point of them.
2. A fortnight's holiday or improvements at home are a lot cheaper than having to pay for residential care.
3. They are all agreed with/approved by GPs or other doctors.

I'm far from sure about this but I feel there is some pressure group releasing this story. Perhaps the care homes as they seem to be the ones losing out.
PHBs are still being piloted in some areas and only started less than a year ago, so not much time to build up into significant costs.

I have no doubt that some of these may be beneficial but what matters is whether they are more cost-effective that other treatments that have similar outcomes. And there may well be pressure on CCGs to allow these if it gets rid of annoying patients! I'm just not sure the evidence is in, nor the necessary controls in place.

What I'm also not clear about is where Independent Funding Requests fit into all this.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1333 Post by Alan H » September 2nd, 2015, 11:55 am

Did someone expect Hunt not to lie? He opened his mouth, didn't he? Jeremy Hunt's 7-day NHS 'deceit' exposed: Just 1 in 1,000 doctors are choosing not to work weekends
Jeremy Hunt's 7-day NHS vows lie in tatters tonight as we reveal just 1 in 1,000 doctors are using a weekend 'opt-out' he wants to scrap.

Just 27 consultants out of 26,000 have excused themselves from non-emergency weekend working, figures compiled by Mirror Online reveal - 0.1% of all those in the country.

The tiny total blasts a hole in the Health Secretary's claim that medics need to 'get real' and commit to working every day of the week.

He is railroading through 7-day NHS plans despite doctors' opposition, and banning the weekend opt-out for consultants is top of the list.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1334 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2015, 12:34 am

NHS weekend: 7-day service 'not top priority'
A health think tank has challenged the government's plan for a full seven-day service in England's NHS.

In a Scrubbing Up column for the BBC News, Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust says the hundreds of millions of pounds it will cost could be better spent elsewhere.

He said other areas for investment include improving out-of-hospital services and tackling sepsis.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1335 Post by Dave B » September 5th, 2015, 9:50 am

Alan H wrote:NHS weekend: 7-day service 'not top priority'
A health think tank has challenged the government's plan for a full seven-day service in England's NHS.

In a Scrubbing Up column for the BBC News, Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust says the hundreds of millions of pounds it will cost could be better spent elsewhere.

He said other areas for investment include improving out-of-hospital services and tackling sepsis.
I have to agree with the last sentence. Improved follow-up and "aftercare" could very much reduce GPs' loads and re-admissions in my experince.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1336 Post by Alan H » September 5th, 2015, 11:13 am

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1337 Post by Alan H » September 8th, 2015, 8:19 pm

Tory GP says seven-day general practice pledge ‘completely unrealistic’
Conservative MP and former GP Dr Sarah Wollaston has publicly confronted the Government on its pledge for routine seven-day general practice by 2020, calling it ‘completely unrealistic’.

Dr Wollaston, who chairs the House of Commons health committeee, said the focus of introducing a seven-day NHS had to be to reduce avoidable deaths rather than the ‘convenience’ of patients. She said this was not a realistic priority with the size of the current GP workforce.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1338 Post by Alan H » September 18th, 2015, 10:29 am

Because what we all really want is doctors who are even more tired and even more demoralised treating us: I don't blame doctors for walking out of pay negotiations with the Government
Despite a broad statement from Government that the plans for junior doctors are “cost neutral” and will include an increase in basic pay for doctors, NHS Employers still can’t say exactly what everyone’s pay will be. That can't be right.

Given that the contract also includes a novel reinterpretation of the working week – the “standard time” to which basic pay, rather than out-of-hours premiums, applies now runs from 7am to 7pm, Monday to Friday, and 7am to 10pm Monday to Saturday – many doctors fear their pay will indeed take a hit.

The new contract would also remove a financial disincentive for hospitals to work junior doctors to excess, which has led to concerns about burnout and patient safety.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1339 Post by Alan H » September 19th, 2015, 2:56 pm

This is an excellent discussion/dissection/demolition of the Tory nonsense/misdirection/misinformation/lies in the debate in Parliament last week on the 'no confidence in Jeremy Hunt' petition: The Government Trolls Itself: an analysis of the e-petition debate September 14th

It't lengthy, but well worth reading.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1340 Post by Alan H » September 19th, 2015, 10:56 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24037
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: The future of the NHS (if any)

#1341 Post by Alan H » September 20th, 2015, 11:33 am

Why are NHS doctors furious about their new contracts?
The most dangerous and demoralising aspect of the contract isn’t actually the pay cut, but the changes to our working conditions. Incredibly, Saturday no longer counts as the weekend, and will from next August be paid only at basic rate. This paves the way for hospitals to force us to work as many Saturdays as they please, now any financial disincentive not to do so has been removed. Even before these changes, I already work every other Saturday. According to the government we also no longer deserve higher rate antisocial hours pay for working evenings, unless we stay later than 10pm. Breaks will be cut to just 20 minutes every 6 hours.

Most disturbingly of all, hospitals will no longer be penalised for forcing doctors to stay well beyond their contracted hours, working for longer than what was previously considered fair or safe. Doctors working overtime will lose any right to be paid for it. I can’t imagine any logical reason for bringing in this change other than to force us to work dangerous extra hours for free, sacrificing patient safety and staff wellbeing in the interests of cost saving.

The Government are referring to this contract as being for “junior” doctors. To most members of the public this implies a carefree 24 year old just out of med school, but in fact junior by this definition includes all doctors at any stage of their training who have not yet made it all the way to consultant or GP. It usually takes at least 10 years to become a hospital consultant, sometimes a great deal longer. In reality, our time on this harsh “junior” contract takes us through all of our 20s and much of our 30s. The earliest I could possibly hope to escape is by age 34, and that’s if I dutifully jump through the many hoops, pass all postgraduate exams in time, give up my dream of taking time out to do humanitarian work and most importantly, don’t have kids.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply