charities to be significantly worse off

Kohoutek

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

Doctors are usually quite intelligent...not many people would incur the enormous effort and expense of going through medical school if they knew that their contribution to society wouldn't be properly recognised once they qualified as a doctor.

B_Blank

Kohoutek wrote: »

Doctors are usually quite intelligent...not many people would incur the enormous effort and expense of going through medical school if they knew that their contribution to society wouldn't be properly recognised once they qualified as a doctor.

True if all you care about is money. Which seems to be the case. Some of us recognise that some jobs are vocations.

But there is also a difference between paying doctors what they deserve and what you need to pay them, and just giving them huge pay rises for no reason as we did under new labour

Cleaver

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

We recruit a massive amount of doctors from overseas as it is.

In terms of your first point, the shortage isn't due to a lack of people going to medical school. There are more people graduating from medical school than there are training grade jobs for. The shortage for consultant positions is due to certain medical specialities and Deaneries not sorting out the progression of medics through the various training grades and in to consultant posts. In other words, the pipeline doesn't work effectively.

Just out of interest, how much would you pay a fully qualified consultant?

Cleaver

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

How would having enough money mean that you wouldn't need the NHS?

Kohoutek

B_Blank wrote: »

True if all you care about is money. Which seems to be the case. Some of us recognise that some jobs are vocations.

There's a difference between only caring about money and being faced with the prospect of being hugely underpaid (as you're suggesting) considering your skill set and training for your entire career.

An intelligent person can have a vocation for more than one thing. If someone has the potential to be a lawyer or doctor, which have similar skill sets, then paying doctors a pittance is going to materially affect their decision to pursue either profession.

B_Blank wrote: »

But there is also a difference between paying doctors what they deserve and what you need to pay them, and just giving them huge pay rises for no reason as we did under new labour

How do you determine what you "need to pay them"?

I think doctors should be highly paid because of the high level of education, skill and responsibility required and importance of the services to society doctors provide. It shouldn't make a difference that in our country, almost all doctors are employed directly or indirectly by the state. In a country like the United States, where the market determines doctors' salaries they are very highly paid too.

Kohoutek

Cleaver wrote: »

How would having enough money mean that you wouldn't need the NHS?

B Blank obviously doesn't realise that doctors in private hospitals work for the NHS for the other 4 days a week and are trained by the NHS.

B_Blank

Kohoutek wrote: »

There's a difference between only caring about money and being faced with the prospect of being hugely underpaid (as you're suggesting) considering your skill set and training for your entire career.

An intelligent person can have a vocation for more than one thing. If someone has the potential to be a lawyer or doctor, which have similar skill sets, then paying doctors a pittance is going to materially affect their decision to pursue either profession.



How do you determine what you "need to pay them"?

I think doctors should be highly paid because of the high level of education, skill and responsibility required and importance of the services to society doctors provide. It shouldn't make a difference that in our country, almost all doctors are employed directly or indirectly by the state. In a country like the United States, where the market determines doctors' salaries they are very highly paid too.

Ok you make fair points. Lets not continue this discussion though because this thread was made about charities not the nhs

Sapphire

B_Blank wrote: »

Yup, this is espicially true of socialists. They dont give any money or time to charity. They just want everyone to pay more taxes so their 40k a year teachers job is protected. They dress this up as "progressive" and "helping the poorest". nahhh, nothing about labour paying 40k to teachers and 120k to doctors is about helping the poorest. Its about buying votes. So whose fault are these charity cuts? Labour and their voters, and public sector workers who dont give a penny to charities because they want to live like a king.

Shambles

Moreover, why does the press so often use the term 'government money', when it is actually 'taxpayers' money' that is being used for benefits, aid to charities, and so on? As a taxpayer for many years, I resent my money being used on the many things labour have squandered it on.

I had to go for an MRI scan at an NHS hospital the other day and was astonished at the luxury decor of the place, which looked like some plush hotel. This was presumably paid for by the taxpayer. Why? How could this have been permitted? What we need as a priority is the very best doctors, nurses, equipment and drugs possible, which are clearly lacking in some places, not plush surroundings, statues by well-known 'artists' and places full of plants. I don't mind paying for the former, but certainly do mind, as a taxpayer, paying for luxury surroundings in a hospital.

grizzly1911

B_Blank wrote: »

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.

Good luck because you will never have enough when it matters.

Once you get something difficult the private sector don't really want to know.

The NHS has its faults, that is not the fault of the clinicians in it. All privatisation would do is replace inefficiencies with profit. A lot of the costs to the NHS aren't it's fault either, it is down to poverty and the ageing population, many long term shouldn't be there they should be in proper care homes catered for through the Social Services .

Hope you never need A&E because the private sector don't cover that.

Interesting you want to stop the debate that you started.:wall:

B_Blank

Sapphire wrote: »

Moreover, why does the press so often use the term 'government money', when it is actually 'taxpayers' money' that is being used for benefits, aid to charities, and so on? As a taxpayer for many years, I resent my money being used on the many things labour have squandered it on.

I had to go for an MRI scan at an NHS hospital the other day and was astonished at the luxury decor of the place, which looked like some plush hotel. This was presumably paid for by the taxpayer. Why? How could this have been permitted? What we need as a priority is the very best doctors, nurses, equipment and drugs possible, which are clearly lacking in some places, not plush surroundings, statues by well-known 'artists' and places full of plants. I don't mind paying for the former, but certainly do mind, as a taxpayer, paying for luxury surroundings in a hospital.

I would reduce tax to 30% from 40% but compel people to pick charities to donate the remaining 10% to. Government shouldnt fund charities, but it should do more to make sure people are more generous in their giving.