NHS pensions are bleeding the taxpayer dry

BobQ

uk1 wrote: »

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

yes it would be much fairer if the private insurance funded the use of private hospitals and stopped using the public funded infrastructure of the NHS. Even fairer if the NHS trained staff were not available for the privately funded operations.

Then maybe we could treat the patients in the NHS more quickly.

uk1

BobQ wrote: »

yes it would be much fairer if the private insurance funded the use of private hospitals and stopped using the public funded infrastructure of the NHS. Even fairer if the NHS trained staff were not available for the privately funded operations.

Then maybe we could treat the patients in the NHS more quickly.

Quite right.



Jeff

BobQ

uk1 wrote: »

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

My post would have been shorter if I did not have to quote so much nonsense to give it context.

Averages are meaningless in a diverse population except to state an average. If I said that the average pay in McDonalds was 25K and the average pay in Deloittes was £90K what does that tell you about which organisation pays its accountants better. Very little.

uk1

BobQ wrote: »

My post would have been shorter if I did not have to quote so much nonsense to give it context.

Averages are meaningless in a diverse population except to state an average. If I said that the average pay in McDonalds was 25K and the average pay in Deloittes was £90K what does that tell you about which organisation pays its accountants better. Very little.

Bob, I owned and ran a research company. I understand averages.

For example, research shows that the average number of legs per UK citizen is 1.9999999. However, if you lived for a thousand years you would be most unlikely to ever meet that "average" person.

Research has shown that 30% of all serious road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. This proves that it is significantly more dangerous to drive whilst sober.

All statistics can be presented in a way to win an argument.



Jeff

BobQ

uk1 wrote: »

Bob, I owned and ran a research company. I understand averages.

For example, research shows that the average number of legs per UK citizen is 1.9999999. However, if you lived for a thousand years you would be most unlikely to ever meet that "average" person.

Research has shown that 30% of all serious road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. This proves that it is significantly more dangerous to drive whilst sober.

All statistics can be presented in a way to win an argument.



Jeff

Running a research company does not mean you understand statistics: although even a 10 year old knows what an average is (well I did when I was 10).

But you prove my point. You will never meet this average NHS employee "in a thousand years".

If you are not willing to answer the question I asked you, I have to assume you are a troll.

uk1

BobQ wrote: »

Running a research company does not mean you understand statistics: although even a 10 year old knows what an average is (well I did when I was 10).

But you prove my point. You will never meet this average NHS employee "in a thousand years".

If you are not willing to answer the question I asked you, I have to assume you are a troll.

I have proved both your point and my point. I said that averages were simply averages and no more and no less.

With respect to your other rather silly remark, you really do not have to make such an assumption - it proves that you are no Einstien.

A reasonable alternative explanation or assumption is simply realising that I wish to ignore what has been taken to be fairly obvious trolling.

Jeff

justme111

BobQ wrote: »

Even fairer if the NHS trained staff were not available for the privately funded operations.

Then maybe we could treat the patients in the NHS more quickly.

Staff are not "NHS trained".
In your frustration you barking at the wrong tree. If there was not private operations done at NHS hospitals it would not made waiting lists shorter.
It is not emigration of doctors that causes waiting lists. Both emigration and waiting lists are consequences of NHS being non viable as it is.

System

Jeff

.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.

Never said otherwise

May i ask the motivation of the thread?:)

bigadaj

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Bigadaj - I think pay is the reason why they emigrate, you could use penalties but in the long term people may simply choose to train in something different, ultimately the pay has to be competitive

Jeff - indeed but the article and thread title is written in such a way to generate anger from the private sector towards the public, this especially rings true with the ideology of many times readers who view the state as bloated - it is but cut in the correct places, like all the red tape. The article would leave many to assume that NHS workers are overgenerously remunerated and focus cuts that way.

The NHS is big and its really a question of how much health service we want to budget for and actually need and are willing to pay for, and of course streamline the processes within.

Demographics might settle over time as the baby boomers pass through so the need for an NHS might change. Also remember that as long as public money doesn't leave the UK, it'll recirculate and come back as vat and inheritance tax

I'm not really bothered about the article but about the general principles being discussed.

People do emigrate for money, but the added value that has created the money has largely been generated by the training that they have received from the uk rather than anything inherent in their abilities.

Doctors have to achieve high academic standards but there is nothing inherently unique or selective about those standards, numbers are not controlled by achieving a particular level, they are controlled by budgets.

Historically of course medicine in particular was seen as avocation, whereas now it is far more about a career and the financial rewards. We want good doctors, and at the end of the day there are good and bad as there are in any area of life, but the argument being put forward looks suspiciously like that used in banking which I'm not sure too many medics would be keen on.

I may not be representative but I do have huge problems with the fact that you can't seem to criticise any part of the nhs without being seen to try and destroy it. It's generally a good system, but is nowhere near what it was decades ago in comparison with other countries, and it frequently ranks near the bottom in terms of results and certainly cost effectiveness when compared with most developed countries, the us being the only example that is consistently worse.

Benefits in the uk are well above most of Europe which is why we have so many European staff, and the total cost of the NHS is an ongoing problem, when your frequently quoted comparators are Indian railways, Walmart and teh Chinese army then you know that issues with management and staffing are challenging.

Andy_L

I'm curious as to how the get the current NHS pension offer being worth 43% of salary