NHS pensions are bleeding the taxpayer dry

uk1

RickyB2000 wrote: »

Don't doctors earn more per hour in the private sector than the public? I always thought the argument was the highly paid public sector earned a lot less than their private sector counterparts. So head of the civil service vs FTSE 100 CEO. These are the guys getting the obscene pensions.

Not comparing one min wage person with another.

The problem is that a sizeable chunk of doctors referred to as in the private sector are in fact NHS doctors. This is particularly true of surgeons. This is a whole different scandal about the use of NHS facilities and surgeons working in NHS hours on private patients .....

Jeff

System

Jeff - they don't outsource to save money, but to outsource responsibility, its not cheaper to outsource as the private company is milking it even if they pay min wage, as I say its not unusual for the managing company to make more £ per hour per worker than what they pay. Companies wouldn't bid for the contract if there wasn't money in it.

You could stop newly trained from emigrating, but that's all stick and no carrot, people may not choose to then train in the first place (I suppose just as well if they were going to emigrate). Maybe make them pay for their education at least.

The locum thing - zero hours can be good IF you have a skill. Its good for doctors and nurses, not so much if you're in an unskilled job with plenty of labour supply. Zero hours will suit retirees too and the primary childcare perhaps, but not always the breadwinner or the person who needs a mortgage or tenancy agreement

System

Jeff - its true too that private health tends to use the same doctors and equipment lol, so no real point in private health!

Those "private" doctors are of course exploiting an opportunity they've seen, with 2 jobs quite possibly

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff - they don't outsource to save money, but to outsource responsibility, its not cheaper to outsource as the private company is milking it even if they pay min wage, as I say its not unusual for the managing company to make more £ per hour per worker than what they pay. Companies wouldn't bid for the contract if there wasn't money in it.

You could stop newly trained from emigrating, but that's all stick and no carrot, people may not choose to then train in the first place (I suppose just as well if they were going to emigrate). Maybe make them pay for their education at least.

The locum thing - zero hours can be good IF you have a skill. Its good for doctors and nurses, not so much if you're in an unskilled job with plenty of labour supply. Zero hours will suit retirees too and the primary childcare perhaps, but not always the breadwinner or the person who needs a mortgage or tenancy agreement

You see ..... you're at it now!

When outsourcing proves that the NHS staff are overpaid ( ) the rationale is changed to be one of convenience. So the NHS in your view is wilfully wasting cash on outsourcing. :eek:

On the other stick and carrot point, this I am afraid is so obviously clearly untrue, and I don't think you have thought it through.

Firstly if a student is considering entering medical school with the view of emigrating once qualified, then I am fine with them being dissuaded from being given a place. If however that is not their plan, then I don't think a minimum serve contract dissuades them because they at that stage are simply anxious to be one of the few to be offered a place. It is extraordinarily competitive for places in medical school. The number of suitable graduates would not be compromised therefore by having such a commitment.



Jeff

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff - its true too that private health tends to use the same doctors and equipment lol, so no real point in private health!

Those "private" doctors are of course exploiting an opportunity they've seen, with 2 jobs quite possibly

You haven't thought this through.

Your surgeon will give you an appointment in three months under the NHS and next Tuesday in the same hospital if you are private.



Jeff

RickyB2000

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I would say economic. With 40 years service in the Civil Service someone can accrue a pension of 75% of salary. Where in the private sector could someone match that doing an average job even using their own savings.

Sorry, I meant addressing this issue. As in if it doesn't make sense economically then it must be politically an issue to try and resolve it.

MPD

uk1 wrote: »

When outsourcing proves that the NHS staff are overpaid ( ) the rationale is changed to be one of convenience. So the NHS in your view is wilfully wasting cash on outsourcing. :eek:

In a previous public sector job we were banned from employing our own cleaners, so we had to subcontract. The cleaners had to be security vetted and could still only work when the office was staffed.

Anyway the small East Mids dive that we worked in such staff attracted a large premium as there was effectively only one supplier. We had no choice but to waste public money. I have no doubt many other public sector bodies are forced to outsource functions that could be done more cheaply in house for political reasons.

System

Jeff -
Oh yes definitely wasting cash on convenience, these low jobs are small money to these people in charge, they won't think twice about introducing new higher standards and rules that require more labour just to satisfy the cqc - I.e. the job of 'clinical orderly' didn't exist last year and was covered by other people, but they created it at extra cost all over the place just to free up nurses time, because doing that looks good on paper

The NHS has wasteful procurement rules too where they insist on only buying from certain brands which then of course exploit them, especially around medical equipment (my dad used to work in the TV trade where he said parts were much cheaper privately) - if the NHS really wanted to save money it could, but if they did then their next years budget would get reduced, so they're punished if they don't spend everything they're given, and from the chief executives point of view its better to be in trouble for finances than it is to be in trouble for standards and deaths

If people want to aim for the NHS then they can but making it harder to emigrate means there's less earning potential and so you might get less of those (admittedly) users studying.

Question is whether the NHS will be able to recruit enough doctors here without raising wages, if it can't then locums could end up more expensive for it

And I suppose yes, private would at least be quicker, depends on the urgency I suppose

System

Mpd - exactly, these companies exploit a monopoly from the archaic public sector rules even if they pay min wage to their staff

If the public sector really wanted to it'd loosen its red tape and incentivise budget saving

atush

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff - its true too that private health tends to use the same doctors and equipment lol, so no real point in private health!

Those "private" doctors are of course exploiting an opportunity they've seen, with 2 jobs quite possibly

I dont know about your local trust, but when i last took a child for an insurance paid for op (ie private- last year) the insurance paid for the doctor's time incl consultations (and there were 2 more than needed I have to say) and the operation. I also received bills from the local NHS hospital for the room, equipment used, consumables used etc. For both the operation, and for EVERY consultation as well.

So yeah, same doctors and same place. But I paid for it (or in fact my insurance did which we pay for) so nothing was on the NHS. They all made money off my son's op?