Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 19:34:43 GMT
news.sky.com/
Sod the patients who's operations and appointments will have to be cancelled Whatever happened to the oath they took |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 31, 2016 20:25:05 GMT
They're trying to make sure the patients of the future will even have appointments.
And James rhyming slang, pretending to have any interest in what happens to patients - opportunist bastard. In any case, why blame the doctors? Why not blame Hunt?
(I have an appointment during that period.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2016 20:57:09 GMT
They're trying to make sure the patients of the future will even have appointments. And James rhyming slang, pretending to have any interest in what happens to patients - opportunist bastard. In any case, why blame the doctors? Why not blame Hunt? (I have an appointment during that period.) All Jeremy Hunt is trying to do is ensure that hospitals work a seven day week, statistics show that if a patient is admitted at the weekend they are more likely to die because there are not enough doctors covering The doctors are being bloody minded, and political. Just the same happened when the NHS was formed, doctors were very difficult then and they have been pandered to ever since When Patricia Hewitt was the Health Sec she had an agreement that they would work longer hours, open surgeries evenings and weekends, in return for a huge pay increase. Sadly it was just an agreement, not legally binding, and the doctors took the money and carried on just the same as before I hope tough action is taken against these militants, nobody ever achieved anything by strike action and this action will fail
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 1, 2016 7:20:21 GMT
If you are admitted at the weekend it will be an emergency; that is why there may be more chance of dying (if there is, which itself is not certain: Hunt's figures on that were criticised for a lack of impartiality: I once saw a thing saying the admittance on Wednesday is the most dangerous). Nothing to do with doctors.
The NHS is already a 7 day a week service - I've often been seen by doctors at the weekend. I have been given appointments the weekend (though I have had appointments, on Saturdays at least): for that to happen you would also need to employ clerical staff over the weekend - hospitals can't run without them.
Of course strikes - and the threat of strikes - have achieved things: if nothing else, then a return to negotiation (which is what is hoped for here).
But why not blame Jeremy Hunt? An argument needs at least two sides: why is the blame all on one side? Why not blame Hunt for unilaterally changing doctors' contracts, and also privatising huge chunks of the NHS, and making massive cuts (as will be announced in the autumn)?
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Sept 1, 2016 7:55:25 GMT
Totally agree with Aubrey here.
In fact, I was dismayed when May chose her cabinet and kept Hunt... thus continuing this ludicrous idea of a seven day NHS and his imposition of contracts.
I am with the doctors in this strike.
Emergency care is already there 24/7 and we are privileged to have it - I just don't think we need routine appointments seven days a week, nor is there currently staff to implement it.
Don't forget, as A mentioned, such a service would require not just junior doctors but nurses, and admin staff as well. Tell all those desk people, 'sorry, Saturday and Sunday from now on...'
Recruitment/training of doctors and nurses requires a serious review...this is far more pressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 1, 2016 8:19:41 GMT
Gus, I know strikes are really annoying - I live in London, and have often had to walk from Lambeth to Notting Hill and back because of tube and bus strikes, and all the rest of it (I feared I might not get to see Kyary PamyuPamyu in July because of industrial action on Southern Rail, and I don't know whether my appointment at Guy's on the 16th will ever take place), but I'd much rather live in a country where strikes and all their inconveniences are allowed than one where they're outlawed - with all that that would imply. The kind of country where that happens is not the kind of country where most of us would like to live.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 9:08:45 GMT
If you are admitted at the weekend it will be an emergency; that is why there may be more chance of dying (if there is, which itself is not certain: Hunt's figures on that were criticised for a lack of impartiality: I once saw a thing saying the admittance on Wednesday is the most dangerous). Nothing to do with doctors. The NHS is already a 7 day a week service - I've often been seen by doctors at the weekend. I have been given appointments the weekend (though I have had appointments, on Saturdays at least): for that to happen you would also need to employ clerical staff over the weekend - hospitals can't run without them. Of course strikes - and the threat of strikes - have achieved things: if nothing else, then a return to negotiation (which is what is hoped for here). But why not blame Jeremy Hunt? An argument needs at least two sides: why is the blame all on one side? Why not blame Hunt for unilaterally changing doctors' contracts, and also privatising huge chunks of the NHS, and making massive cuts (as will be announced in the autumn)? Any admission to hospital should be "an emergency", and patients should expect the highest standard of care whether it be a eekday or weekend. Most workers now work a seven day week, why should the NHS be any different Not all the junior doctors voted for strike action, of the total number just 40% voted to strike, the government should reward the 60% who stayed loyal to their patients and who were not solely interested in their own interests. Their union has been infiltrated by Trots/militants, if they don't like the new contracts they should go to this Shangri-La they believe will suit them better after of course reimbursing us, the tax payers for the cost of their training and qualification
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 10:16:43 GMT
Seems very odd that the BMA are backing a strike when it was the BMA who negotiated and agreed the deal with the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldelox on Sept 1, 2016 10:19:23 GMT
Seems very odd that the BMA are backing a strike when it was the BMA who negotiated and agreed the deal with the government. Think -is that the truth or a press story. Save |
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Sept 1, 2016 10:23:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 1, 2016 15:57:26 GMT
I've been admitted to hospital as an emergency and for things like tests (a biopsy, ongoing treatment etc): for the emergencies it was important that I be admitted on the day, for immediate treatment; for the others that wasn't so important - a couple of weeks or more either way wouldn't have made any difference. People who are admitted as an emergency obviously have more chance of dying: the level of care doesn't come into it.
Hospitals already operate 7 days a week: if you want the weekends to be just the same as the week days you are going to have to employ a lot more people, not just doctors: when "most workers" work a seven day week, it doesn't mean that they actually work all those days; they work 5 days out of seven, rather than 5 days out of 5. At the very least you will have to employ people to cover those two extra days. Hunt seems to think it can be done without that.
It seems odd that so many Trots have become doctors in the past few years; maybe it's more that they're trying to stop Hunt privatising chunks of the NHS, and cutting other bits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2016 17:34:25 GMT
I've been admitted to hospital as an emergency and for things like tests (a biopsy, ongoing treatment etc): for the emergencies it was important that I be admitted on the day, for immediate treatment; for the others that wasn't so important - a couple of weeks or more either way wouldn't have made any difference. People who are admitted as an emergency obviously have more chance of dying: the level of care doesn't come into it. Hospitals already operate 7 days a week: if you want the weekends to be just the same as the week days you are going to have to employ a lot more people, not just doctors: when "most workers" work a seven day week, it doesn't mean that they actually work all those days; they work 5 days out of seven, rather than 5 days out of 5. At the very least you will have to employ people to cover those two extra days. Hunt seems to think it can be done without that. It seems odd that so many Trots have become doctors in the past few years; maybe it's more that they're trying to stop Hunt privatising chunks of the NHS, and cutting other bits. This "Hunt privatising the NHS" has become the mantra of the left, and is as meaningful as the lies told by Brexiters during the recent referendum NHS net expenditure (resource plus capital, minus depreciation) has increased from £64.173 billion in 2003/04 (Labour) to £113.300bn in 2014/15 (Tory). Planned expenditure for 2015/16 is £116.574bn. Virtually doubled under this government Bits and pieces of the NHS have been privatised under various governments, those who can afford it now pay for dentistry, prescriptions, podiatry, opticians. No doubt there are other areas that could be included, I would support a charge for seeing the GP for example The Prime Minister has now entered the field, accusing the BMA of playing politics whilst the government is putting patient care first. The doctors have now announced that there will be five day strikes per month up to Christmas. Presumably their pay will be docked (if it's not, it should be), if they can afford to do that they must be getting paid too much as it is
|
|
|
|
Post by marispiper on Sept 2, 2016 8:03:02 GMT
Just listening to BMA spokesman for the junior doctors...wriggling like anything on the issue of the BMA accepting and commending the deal to members, who then rejected it, by a very narrow margin.
I have a feeling this is going to lead to decreased support and five days will prove to be risky for the patients. I was supportive, but I am changing my mind as this is not about 7day NHS (which I am still opposed to)
Also, on present form, I don't think May/Hunt won't be swayed this time.
I still believe the dire shortage in recruitment of doctors and nurses is the no 1 issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 2, 2016 8:39:48 GMT
I've been admitted to hospital as an emergency and for things like tests (a biopsy, ongoing treatment etc): for the emergencies it was important that I be admitted on the day, for immediate treatment; for the others that wasn't so important - a couple of weeks or more either way wouldn't have made any difference. People who are admitted as an emergency obviously have more chance of dying: the level of care doesn't come into it. Hospitals already operate 7 days a week: if you want the weekends to be just the same as the week days you are going to have to employ a lot more people, not just doctors: when "most workers" work a seven day week, it doesn't mean that they actually work all those days; they work 5 days out of seven, rather than 5 days out of 5. At the very least you will have to employ people to cover those two extra days. Hunt seems to think it can be done without that. It seems odd that so many Trots have become doctors in the past few years; maybe it's more that they're trying to stop Hunt privatising chunks of the NHS, and cutting other bits. This "Hunt privatising the NHS" has become the mantra of the left, and is as meaningful as the lies told by Brexiters during the recent referendum NHS net expenditure (resource plus capital, minus depreciation) has increased from £64.173 billion in 2003/04 (Labour) to £113.300bn in 2014/15 (Tory). Planned expenditure for 2015/16 is £116.574bn. Virtually doubled under this government Bits and pieces of the NHS have been privatised under various governments, those who can afford it now pay for dentistry, prescriptions, podiatry, opticians. No doubt there are other areas that could be included, I would support a charge for seeing the GP for example The Prime Minister has now entered the field, accusing the BMA of playing politics whilst the government is putting patient care first. The doctors have now announced that there will be five day strikes per month up to Christmas. Presumably their pay will be docked (if it's not, it should be), if they can afford to do that they must be getting paid too much as it is
It's not "playing politics". Even the bloke condemning the strike this morning said that the situation was exacerbated by existing staff shortages, that had nothing to do with the strike (and everything to do with Hunt's mismanagement). NHS privatisation means private companies providing care and being paid by the NHS, and making a profit from that. They can provide the care more cheaply because they pay staff less, because they use older equipment, and because they are contracted only to provide that particular care; if the patient needs other types of care, or if something goes wrong, that is done by the NHS. The companies bid for the care it can make a profit from; the rest is left the NHS to provide. I used to get regular treatment in a private hospital, paid for by the NHS. The care was ok, though the equipment was older, and the ward we were in was cramped; quite often the nurses were the same ones ones that treated me at Guy's. There were two main differences: the sandwiches and biscuits we got were better, which was ok; but if for any reason I was unable to leave after the treatment I would have to be taken to the A&E at St Thomas's (not at Guy's, which was a 5 minute walk away) and left there: the private hospital was not contracted to do anything more than call a (NHS funded) ambulance. That nearly happened a couple of times, but I was eventually able to leave: when it did happen at Guy's one time I was taken to a bed upstairs and stayed the night there, which was a hell of a lot better than hanging about in A&E for several hours. That time more treatment was needed, and that was done by the NHS. If the same thing had happened at the private hospital the extra treatment arising from it would also have been done the NHS. That's what privatisation means; the NHS gets to do the work no company can make a profit from, and also has to clear up any non-profitable problems left over by the private care providers. This is not to do with charging patients: but in any case, charging to see the GP would mean that a lot of people who need to go won't (which will be more expensive in the end), just as now a lot of people do not collect drugs prescribed for them prescriptions because they can't afford to pay the £8+ a time it costs; people don't go to the dentist for the same reason. |
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Sept 2, 2016 8:45:20 GMT
|
|
