We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
charities to be significantly worse off
Comments
-
They paid consultants more so they had to work less hours to maintain the same lifestyle. THis hurt health service performance. For any business (which the NHS is - its just a public sector business) to be effective, it needs to control its staff costs. Just giving out massive pay rises makes no sense. Its an awful decision.
The NHS is a shambles.
That isn't the fault of the consultants, clinicians and some managers.
It is the politicians of all persuasions not just the "I'm not for turning (again) brigade" shambles we have just now.
Just look at the US where I understand the state funds more as a proportion per person, than the NHS costs us, just to "top up" their system. bet their consultants are lowly paid too.:rotfl:"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
There are too many charities, all duplicating what the others are doing. All confusing, nobody knows what charities there are as there are so many. There's probably several other layers of charities too, that collectively oversee other charities... and a bigger Charity that looks after charities in various regions. And another one that looks after them all.0
-
What sort of question is this? I would pay them as little as possible. I would do this by freezing their wages untill I could no longer fill all the posts I needed to. This probably wouldnt be the case for about 20 years.
So you would happy if this results in worse quality consultants, which might mean if you're diagnosed with a serious disease you have a lower chance of surviving it?0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »That isn't the fault of the consultants, clinicians and some managers.
It is the politicians of all persuasions not just the "I'm not for turning (again) brigade" shambles we have just now.
Just look at the US where I understand the state funds more as a proportion per person, than the NHS costs us, just to "top up" their system. bet their consultants are lowly paid too.:rotfl:
At least they have people who actually survive cancer and other diseases. We have terrible survival rates for almost all the major killers. ALl due to the nhs being terribly run.
Google cancer survival rates and google health care expenidture. We spend a fortune and cant help anyone.
Yet you think thats a good thing. Fine, I dont care. I am going to try to have enough money never to need the nhs if I can.I am not a financial expert, and the post above is merely my opinion.:j0 -
leveller2911 wrote: »Having said that I think we can all help out more either giving up some free
Hit the nail on the head.
We cannot expect everything to paid for. When its us the taxpayer that its funding it. There isn't the resource to do so.
In a way its saying its not our problem.
But if everybody gave 50 hours a year of time to something or somebody. Then it would benefit it us all as a society.0 -
So you would happy if this results in worse quality consultants, which might mean if you're diagnosed with a serious disease you have a lower chance of surviving it?
Outcomes got worse as we paid these people more. SO your hypothesis has been disproven. Those are the facts.I am not a financial expert, and the post above is merely my opinion.:j0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Hit the nail on the head.
We cannot expect everything to paid for. When its us the taxpayer that its funding it. There isn't the resource to do so.
In a way its saying its not our problem.
But if everybody gave 50 hours a year of time to something or somebody. Then it would benefit it us all as a society.
Absolutly correct. People in the Uk never give to charity. Most the people in this forum who moan about cuts probably hardly give anything to charity. Hypocrites basically.
Having said that, we do need to cut charity funding slower so that they can move from reliance on public funding to realiance on other funding. The government have been reckless in this regard.I am not a financial expert, and the post above is merely my opinion.:j0 -
Outcomes got worse as we paid these people more. SO your hypothesis has been disproven. Those are the facts.
I didn't say that increasing salaries would make the quality of treatment better, I said paying consultants as little as possible would probably make it worse than it is now.0 -
What sort of question is this? I would pay them as little as possible.
It's a really, really simple question. For a fourth time, what would you pay a fully qualified hospital consultant? Your original post, which stemmed my original question, was going on about how you felt it was awful how much doctors got paid and that you would pay them less. So I wondered how much you'd pay them? "As little as possible" isn't an answer. The government can get away with paying whatever they want for doctors, but then the live with the consequences of that. So, for example, the government could arrange tomorrow for doctors to be paid £30k a year. But I imagine the results would be mayhem.
So, if B Blank was Health Secretary, what would you set as their pay?I would do this by freezing their wages untill I could no longer fill all the posts I needed to.
Many hospitals struggle to fill consultant posts now, and that's at the current pay rate. I'm not saying they should be paid more by the way, I'm just pointing out that Trusts struggle to fill consultant posts.0 -
It's a really, really simple question. For a fourth time, what would you pay a fully qualified hospital consultant? Your original post, which stemmed my original question, was going on about how you felt it was awful how much doctors got paid and that you would pay them less. So I wondered how much you'd pay them? "As little as possible" isn't an answer. The government can get away with paying whatever they want for doctors, but then the live with the consequences of that. So, for example, the government could arrange tomorrow for doctors to be paid £30k a year. But I imagine the results would be mayhem.
So, if B Blank was Health Secretary, what would you set as their pay?
Many hospitals struggle to fill consultant posts now, and that's at the current pay rate. I'm not saying they should be paid more by the way, I'm just pointing out that Trusts struggle to fill consultant posts.
If true then I would work to encourage universities to take people into medical degree's, would work with schools to encourage ppl to do these degree's and would ban all these ppl going to uni to do some nonesense degree.
In the meantime I would recruit doctors from overseas.I am not a financial expert, and the post above is merely my opinion.:j0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards