NHS pensions are bleeding the taxpayer dry

System

Atush - yes, some NHS departments sell their services to the private hospital too, so the NHS itself does make money out of the deal, its a moneymaker for those departments

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Atush - yes, some NHS departments sell their services to the private hospital too, so the NHS itself does make money out of the deal, its a moneymaker for those departments

But the problem is that the reason why in this type of situation that private health insurance is required is because people are unable to get their treatment quickly. But then the very same treatment they require but isn't available with the same doctors and facilities are magically available if they are paid for.

Jeff

atush

So those consultants who do private work in the same place are not the sorry spongers spoken about above.

Both they and the NHS make money on these joint ventures. So it is better for the NHS if the are there, rather than a private hospital.

which in turn, pays for more NHS operations

System

Dual speed NHS effectively, and another way for doctors to make money in the UK outside conventional contracts, which maybe need to be paid well enough and staffed enough to discourage locums

But a problem still remains with the "must spend all our budget to avoid a cut next year" disincentive

RickyB2000

I am not sure I am following the argument though. The sorts of doctors we are talking about here on the massive pensions are probably the equivalent of senior managers/directors of sizeable companies. I am sure these guys are taking home much more than the doctor when you consider bonus, share packages, company expense accounts etc. They often have more genourous pensions than the rank and file as well. Is that fair? Who in the private sector are we comparing the highly paid doctors with if not other doctors in the private sector?

Are we saying because doctors work in the public sector they should be saints and limit their total package to say £40k a year? It is sounding more like the argument is anyone who works in the public sector should not have any money drive and be doing it only for the love of it. That is not realistic in this materialistic world we live in.

For me, the debate is more around whether there is a free market setting the packages or if they are being set by cartels. Judging by doctors leaving, one could argue the cartel is currently working in everyone's favour.......

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Dual speed NHS effectively, and another way for doctors to make money in the UK outside conventional contracts, which maybe need to be paid well enough and staffed enough to discourage locums

But a problem still remains with the "must spend all our budget to avoid a cut next year" disincentive

Once again I am unable to agree with your characterisation ... sorry! It is plainly both illogical and untrue.

You imply they have to do this to make up their pay being underpaid in the NHS.

GPs do not refer private patients to to the relatively inexperienced and underpaid junior surgeons. They normally refer them to highly paid senior surgeons who have a very healthy private practice. That is one of the reasons why private health insurance exists.

Jeff

Teaandscones

I would like to know who funds the Taxpayers Alliance?

Who knows whether they are really British taxpayers or residents of Monaco?

uk1

Teaandscones wrote: »

I would like to know who funds the Taxpayers Alliance?

Who knows whether they are really British taxpayers or residents of Monaco?

Take us through your reasoning for suggesting that the residents of Monaco are interested in reducing taxes for the British taxpayers.

Jeff

BobQ

uk1 wrote: »

What is never explained is if public sector pay is lower than private sector pay, how can the public sector justify outsourcing to the private sector, which should logically not just be higher because of the higher wages, but it is inflated for the profit element. What makes it doubly puzzling is that we are told it is the junior tasks in the public sector where the largest differentials exist.

This is a circular argument that seems difficult to resolve logically. There is always it seems some contortations to justify puzzling conundrums.

Jeff

This is the problem with using averages.

What matters is what a Band X nurse is paid compared with a private sector nurse with the same capabilities. Most professional jobs have lower pay in the public sector. But when the NHS employed low skilled staff they generally paid them better than the market

So the issue you seek to resolve is that the public sector is generally a better employer. If it employs a low skilled person to say clean wards it pays them quite well particularly with the pension. That was costly which is why so many low skilled jobs have been outsourced. Outsourcing enables the cleaners or the cleaning jobs to be done more cheaply. They might TUPE staff to the private sector but over time the private sector ensures lower pay and a legal minimum pension.

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.

How does does 40/60ths equate to 75% of a FS?

How does a CARE scheme deliver 75% of a FS? Perhaps if someone is employed for 40 years in the same job, but over a normal career with promotions?

uk1 wrote: »

It therefore very clearly proves the point that the cost of employing someone in the NHS once salary and pension and other benefits are calculated is so high that it is cheaper to outsource because that total cost even when inflating for the profit element is less. The argument that their total package is less than the private sector has therefore been disproved.

Clearly a distortion of the facts that proves nothing of the kind. What job are you talking about?

The places for medical school are highly competed for. I have always felt that there should never have been an option for graduates to immediately go abroad.

I agree. But that is the attraction of employing foreign doctors where we do not have to pay for the training.

The odd thing about the locum and agency nurse situation is that it disproves another myth, and that all zero hour contracts are exploitative.

Who suggests that all ZHC are exploitative? Some are of course. It is very easy to exploit low skilled workers, more difficult to do so with scarce professionals.

uk1

BobQ wrote: »

This is the problem with using averages.

What matters is what a Band X nurse is paid compared with a private sector nurse with the same capabilities. Most professional jobs have lower pay in the public sector. But when the NHS employed low skilled staff they generally paid them better than the market

So the issue you seek to resolve is that the public sector is generally a better employer. If it employs a low skilled person to say clean wards it pays them quite well particularly with the pension. That was costly which is why so many low skilled jobs have been outsourced. Outsourcing enables the cleaners or the cleaning jobs to be done more cheaply. They might TUPE staff to the private sector but over time the private sector ensures lower pay and a legal minimum pension.



How does does 40/60ths equate to 75% of a FS?

How does a CARE scheme deliver 75% of a FS? Perhaps if someone is employed for 40 years in the same job, but over a normal career with promotions?



Clearly a distortion of the facts that proves nothing of the kind. What job are you talking about?



I agree. But that is the attraction of employing foreign doctors where we do not have to pay for the training.



Who suggests that all ZHC are exploitative? Some are of course. It is very easy to exploit low skilled workers, more difficult to do so with scarce professionals.

Bob,

You complained in another thread about the length of another posters posts .......;)

The only correct method of comparing average earnings in the public sector with the average earnings in the private sector ..... both large populations.... is to calculate the average.:p

When people disagree with that method it tends to be because they do not like the result which contradicts their argument. They therefore seek a plausible excuse to choose a different method which coincidentally better supports them

Averages are simply averages, no more and no less.

Jeff