Massive Job Losses expected in Public Sector

The_White_Horse

i think the nhs should charge patients and fund itself from the fees. that is the only way it will become efficient.

the fees will be set by govt, and if the nhs runs out of cash, tough luck.

the patients will be reimbursed the fee by the govt.

moreover, if say, an operation is charged at 500gbp by the nhs, then the patient should be allowed to take that 500 and top it up to go private should they wish.

this will bring down waiting lists and not cost the govt anymore.

sorted

robredz

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think the nhs should charge patients and fund itself from the fees. that is the only way it will become efficient.

the fees will be set by govt, and if the nhs runs out of cash, tough luck.

the patients will be reimbursed the fee by the govt.

moreover, if say, an operation is charged at 500gbp by the nhs, then the patient should be allowed to take that 500 and top it up to go private should they wish.

this will bring down waiting lists and not cost the govt anymore.

sorted

So the NHS element of National Insurance could be abolished then, or more likely shovelled into public sector pensions.
Presumably then we would pay for health insurance a la USA?
and the poor , the long term sick and disabled who would not be able to insure themselves on cost or pre existing condition grounds will have to go without healthcare? Is the motto "Bring Back the Thrifty Thirties" austerity for all with a soup kitchen on every corner

mbga9pgf

and the poor , the long term sick and disabled who would not be able to insure themselves on cost or pre existing condition grounds will have to go without healthcare?

No, they would have basic healthcare. Not cutting edge cancer drugs costing a fortune to pay for illness caused by the 'habits' of the poor. Namely, smoking, drinking and drug taking.

The other option is state bankrupcy and uncompetitiveness on the global stage. Who pays for the NHS once that happens? Who ever said unlimited free helath care was going to be a right forevermore?

robredz

mbga9pgf wrote: »

No, they would have basic healthcare. Not cutting edge cancer drugs costing a fortune to pay for illness caused by the 'habits' of the poor. Namely, smoking, drinking and drug taking.

The other option is state bankrupcy and uncompetitiveness on the global stage. Who pays for the NHS once that happens? Who ever said unlimited free helath care was going to be a right forevermore?

Smoking and drinking especially drinking is a habit of the rich as well.. a nice single malt anyone? bankers swilling an ocean of champagne down their gullets paid for out of their nice bonuses. What exactly is basic? Doctor only if at deaths door? tie string to a tooth and door then close the door? DIY dentistry is a reality today. The NHS needs serious reform, and restriction in some areas, BUT the basic premise is sound.

mbga9pgf

The NHS needs serious reform, and restriction in some areas, BUT the basic premise is sound.

I agree. But we need to move away from being shocked every time NICE turn round to some 80 year old geriatric and try and explain to them why they are not worth £80,000 worth of anti cancer drugs when they wont last another 10 years in all probability anyway.

The premise for the NHS was free basic healthcare, palliative if necessary. It should not be expected to pay the salaries of all at GSK and all its shareholders.

People dont like the fact that they get sick and may die early. We simply do not have the state resources to save everyone, nor should we try. The NHS is drastically overbudgeted, if they cut the NHS budget by 25%, yes, there would be a cut in front line NHS capability, but so what? At least the well would be able to enjoy a reasonable existence without being taxed to death!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

robredz wrote: »

Answer: sack the managers, put a matron in charge, employ some more medical staff, and still save some money. Problem?
there would be no penpushers to tick the government target form boxes, as matron would be too busy making sure patients were seen and given appropriate care. That would never do, as ticking the box is more important than saving a life to some of our meddlesome politicians.

You touch on an important point.

There are apparently 1.5 million NHS employees in the UK. As an employer, the NHS is the 4th largest in the world, and is numerically behind only the Peoples Liberation Army of China, Walmart and the Indian National Railway.

Now, how many of those 1.5 million employees are directly associated with patient care? ie, Doctors, Nurses, Lab Techs, etc..... I'd be very surprised if it was more than 50%, but for the sake of argument lets assume it's more like 65%. So surely you could slash at least half of the rest, the middle managers, etc, and have no adverse impact on care standards.

GP's are apparently not included as they are technically self-employed, but there are only 36,000 GP's in Britain.

If we can treat all of Britain with less than 40,000 GP's, !!!!!! do the other 1.5 million do?

The NHS, like most things in the public sector, are simply unsustainable in their present form.

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

I agree. But we need to move away from being shocked every time NICE turn round to some 80 year old geriatric and try and explain to them why they are not worth £80,000 worth of anti cancer drugs when they wont last another 10 years in all probability anyway.
!

Perhaps the drug companies shouldn’t be charging £80k for the drugs. Also why not stop IVF.

kriss_boy

bendix wrote: »

I'm afraid the public sector workers have it coming to them, and - because of their arrogant attitude of the last eighteen months - noone in the private sector will feel any sympathy for them now.

The private sector has been decimated; there have been no sacred cows for us. When the private sector dared to question the better pay, better pensions and general unaccountability of the public sector by comparison, the public sector brigage in here got all defensive and talked about their rights.

Well, it's your turn now, pals. And I for one think it's about time.

Meanwhile, i will be hiring two new staff in the New Year. I shall be discarding all those I see with public sector experience on their cvs. I don't want any anorak-wearing timeservers in my team.

Lets ignore for one minute that you've made ridiculous generalisations about public sector workers and answer me one thing.

Considering how historically safe public sector jobs have been has it not occured to you that it shows a lot of nous to weather the economic storm from the safety of the public sector? Ever considered that this recession was on the cards for many years and a lot of university leavers of recent years sought refuge in the public sector?

I take posts like yours with a pinch of salt as more often that not the intension is simply to get a rise out of others to make your evening a bit more exciting.

robredz

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You touch on an important point.

There are apparently 1.5 million NHS employees in the UK. As an employer, the NHS is the 4th largest in the world, and is numerically behind only the Peoples Liberation Army of China, Walmart and the Indian National Railway.

Now, how many of those 1.5 million employees are directly associated with patient care? ie, Doctors, Nurses, Lab Techs, etc..... I'd be very surprised if it was more than 50%, but for the sake of argument lets assume it's more like 65%. So surely you could slash at least half of the rest, the middle managers, etc, and have no adverse impact on care standards.

The NHS, like most things in the public sector, are simply unsustainable in their present form.

Cutting back on over management is sensible, out of those 1.5 million employees, most of them will need registering with the new ISA to protect vulnerable groups @ potentially 1+ million employees x £64, so although sacking managers may save £££s BIG GOVERNMENT will bring in legislation and more tick boxes and pointless targets that will cost millions for no gain except a deterioration in patient care and ever more rationing of drugs and treatments.

Old_Slaphead

kriss_boy wrote: »

Ever considered that this recession was on the cards for many years and a lot of university leavers of recent years sought refuge in the public sector?

I don't think that it's particularly prescient of them. The public sector is the only place that jobs have been created in any great numbers for the past decade.

Lets face it the default option for many university students who don't get a good enough degree grade to pursue their chosen career is to go into either teaching or the civil service.