Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18254499
I'm wondering just what this means for those of us on waiting lists for non urgent treatment..:( Selfish of me I know but still worrying.

---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

21 June is the day for industrial action.Non urgent cases will not be dealt with..

Sigh! I guess I'd better find out if I am on the list for that day..and if not how it affects the order of operations..:(

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

And here is why they are doing it (from the link above). I think that the top-paid Civil Servants should be treated the same.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Amen to that. But they'll need to be on PAYE first.... :mad:

I admire our medical professionals hugely but I'm sorry I don't have a great deal of sympathy in this area. Many people are suffering far more than they are and are far less able to afford it.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

That was actually a (mostly) made-up story - most of the so-called Civil Servants on non-PAYE deals were interim or contract staff, and they were following normal practice for interim/contractors....

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Well I was only referring to those representative of the non made-up bit.. ;)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17927792

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

He was on a two year contract, not a full-time long-serving Civil Servant...;)

Indy

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I for one am going to support doctors in this, l have some good friends who are doctors, and they go through very hard training to become a doctor.

Its always easy for people to say that doctors earn too much money, but for what they do, they have earn't it.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

What doctors, Arthur - the GPs, the A&E, the Consultants - or all of them?

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I think the key issue here is Doctors already agreed to reform in 2008 which led to increased contributions. It's one thing to reform a system which is decades old and the deal people signed up with will have to change, it's another to go back on a deal from only 4 years ago.

If you make a deal you expect it to be honoured. If the Doctors agreed to the latest reforms what's to stop the Government further reforming it again in 4/5 years time? Where does it stop?

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I sympathise but we are all in this financial mess together and some/a lot of us will feel the pain :(

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Didn't think that deal had anything to do with pensions, more about the minimum income practice guarantee and other bits and bobs.

Update - it did include the retirement age of 65, but that was before the deep doo-doo hit the fan.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

We are in this financial mess due to the shoddy behaviour of this coalition government, they have come in and made severe cutbacks, made changes to the pension schemes, all to save money.

They suggest we go to the private sector for everything going, only to make money for people that are in the governments pockets.

I am 60 now and had a hard working life, and would love to take things easy, l can't as we are no longer capable of having the luxuries.

The pension saga has been started by this government, and doctors etc have the same rights as us and that is to strike.

It was noted that the police would love to strike.

Doctors etc work long hours and l for one would not like to be one.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

From the link in the very first post...

(my bold)

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Fixed that for you, Arthur. ;)

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

above average related to whom?

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

The situation will always fluctuate however, could Doctors expect their contributions to lower when the economy recovers?

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

But won't their salaries improve over time if and when the economy improves..so they can keep paying at the higher rate.:erm:

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

So? They are above average in terms of education and qualification and they get compensated accordingly. Comparisons to a mean are meaningless.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I am happy that my taxes go to Doctors (amongst others). I would say fair share is debatable, I do know they agreed to pension reform in 2008 and that rugged is being pulled from under them just four years later.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I'm linking to an article in the Guardian......I need a lie down......Striking as a doctor can never be justified

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

The deal they got in 2008 was unbelievably good. Liebour rolled over and gave them a fistful of good things, including removing the obligation to provide out-of-hours cover. It was a costly deal won at the height of the credit bubble that preceded the massive crash we are now all living through and was never sustainable. Doctors are intelligent people and the majority of them acknowledge this - which is why most doctors did not support this ludicrous 'strike that isn't', either by not voting at all, or by voting against.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I would advise that you do not lie down if you were surprised\shocked by a purported insiders comments, but rather stand up and scream at the absolute audacity of the blatant propaganda nonsense spouted by the author.

Take another look and look at the author. He is Dr. Dan Poulter who is Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and is a member of the health select committee. His bio is linked from his name at the top of the article.

It truly makes me wonder just how low this government can go to score propaganda points and try to hoodwink the public with remarks from stooges who do not declare a vested interest. It also makes one wonder why the press are so compliant with an obvious propaganda ploy.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Ok, how about the editor of the Lancet?
link

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

To be fair, those 4 years later have been quite remarkable years haven't they - if there'd been more 'boom' and less 'bust' during that time and the years leading up to it, this wouldn't have happened. We're staring at financial meltdown here. I think we all, doctors included, have to accept that the pace of change (economic and social) has never been greater, the 'rule book' is having to be rewritten and will probably need reviewing far more often than ever used to be the case. If it turns out that things improve well then there'll be time and a case for pensions etc. to be reviewed again and ehancements made according to the financial conditions of the time. No it isn't fair and I have every resepct for doctors but I that's where we're at sadly and medics aren't going to be the only ones whose plans for their future are scuppered.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I am sure that it is easy to trawl around and find many arguments both for and against but my response was due to reading the article that was in your link.

The article was articulate, very persuasive, logical and ticked all the right emotive boxes. However it struck me as being just too much like a party political broadcast and once I took the trouble to find who and what the author actually was, a party political broadcast it was but without an inquisitive mind one would never have known.

There is a massive information gap between what the public are told and the reality of any given situation. I am reliably informed by an insider that morale within hospital practitioners is falling rapidly especially with younger medics as their older counterparts look to negotiate deals to leave via the exit door into early retirement.

GP's are a separate entity but within hospitals cost and efficiency measures are in many cases driving practitioners to to a level of increasing despair not only for what is expected of them but whether they can safely pursue their duty of care within time constraints.

Many of the professional grade practitioners within the hospital sector of the NHS are subject to the old civil service type incremental ladder form of pay enhancement upon promotion. It is not unusual that many years can pass within a grade to move up the incremental ladder during which time the same responsibilities were accepted on day one as sometimes a decade later when pay has increased by many thousands due to nothing more than the passage of time. That form of averaging plays havoc with any pension deal which is not final pay orientated.

On the basis of international standards our doctors\consultants are not overly well paid but the package they had with ultra good pensions went a long way towards ameliorating a not so brilliant working lifetime income. Interference with the package will almost certainly see some going abroad and others looking towards the private sector as many GP's do already.

I see that many people state that along the lines of we are all in this together that cuts should be accepted for what we cannot afford. I wonder if what we cannot afford, we cannot afford to be without because I honestly think that before too many years have passed what we knew as the NHS will be a shadow of what it was.

I was not that long ago that people fed up with the agony of waiting two years for a hip replaced paid from their own resources. I wonder how long it will be before that situation returns and if it does will it be the thin end of the wedge. The decline of NHS dentistry did not happen overnight but it's path of decline was hastened with changes of remuneration to practitioners.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

It really makes me laugh when people have a moan at why people go on strike over principles.

Doctors and Nurses have a right to strike, but we all know that MPs will pull at the heart strings and say 'patient care'. Its ok for government ministers to break the law, fiddle expenses and do everything against what is right and get away with it earn thousands of pounds for sitting on the backside for doing nothing, have three months holidays.

And yet when people fight for there rights, the public gang up on them.

When agreements are made, The Tories come along and tear it up, saying ' we must do this'

When Doctors and Nurses train to the full capacity, quite rightly they go into private practice, as this is where the money is - is that right oer wrong, no they are doing what is right for themself and looking after themself, what is wrong in that.

I will always support people that are striking for what is right - this is our right, if this coalition had there way, we would be a third rate country living on hand outs on the corner - anything to save this coalition money.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

what's wrong with saving money ?.It's ridiculous that people say the coalition are only doing something to save money ,of course they are it's their job to manage our money, especially money we have borrowed

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

There are ways of saving money, but this coalition are doing everything overnight, they will be in power for five years.

They have been in power now some 18 months, and so far they have crippled the country already, and people are fighting for there rights - which they are entitled to do.

The coalition are bringing out silly taxes to make us pay more money into the treasury, and now they are going red faced due to the backlash.

The coalition will pay the ultimate price if they do anything else to hit the country.

What will happen if the nurses go on strike in support of the Doctors.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Marty I prescribe one of these:

:banghead:

twice a day or as and when Arthur pops up spouting his usual tripe... :D

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

The coalition's declared intent was to bring the fiscal deficit into balance within it's five year (s)elected duration. They have failed so far to make any headway and have projected the duration of fiscal balance by the two years they have been in office, which IMO is as much pie in the sky as the initial projection. Give them another three years and with further delays\setbacks I suspect the request will be for another chance to correct what was not previously corrected.

Of course it is ridiculous to criticise a coalition formed to save money for actually doing the job but IMO it is equally ridiculous to think that the objective will be achieved by reducing a 30 year old doctor's pension and raising his\her retirement age to 68 when the amount in extra contributions is minimal and the pay back to the taxpayer is 38 years into the future.

Under the guise of the failed premise of fiscal discipline there is a massive social engineering campaign under way.

The has always been a fact of life which was ignored when the good times rolled and was perpetuated by labour's stupidity. This country lived beyond its means for decades and spent every bit of good fortune available to enhance living standards for the masses. We will have to revert back to a realistic base level and with the Conservatives that means a reversion to the if you can afford it, pay and if you cannot, go without.

Social engineering is achieved with lots of small steps, many of which are by stealth and under the media radar. I watch trends and and I do not like the way the trends are going. If I was half my age I would be looking to move abroad because I sincerely believe that in time anybody who is not very rich will become poor and I have been there and done that and have the scars to prove it.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

You missed the bit out about the currently 30 year old doctor living (on average) until they are about 90 (having retired at 68), with a one in five chance of living until they are 100 (according to the Guardian) - how should this be funded?

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Maybe civil service pensions should be limited to those at the lower end of the pay scale ,those at the top end should fund their own retirement

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Pay them an international salary, dispose of any connection to the welfare state and let them self fund their own pensions with no governmental interference.

Only one problem with that though as was outlined by a specialist surgeon who left these shores for sunnier climes. He was earning just under £100K in London and had the choice of the USA, Middle East or Australia at 300, 350 and 250K sterling equivalent respectively. He moved to Australia where of course he will self fund.

My point is that it is the package, including pensions which makes up the shortfall in what the NHS pay. Dilute out the end part of the package and the entire deal is not very good at all.

I am persistently bemused by your age projections. Straight line graph predictions so beloved by those with a point to make (like politicians) are no better than crystal balls. The reality of health and life expectancy guestimates surround us every time we are out in public.

We, as a nation, have a weight problem bordering on epidemic which as sure as night follows day will lead hundreds of thousands into diabetes type 2 clinics.

I personally was looking borderline (risk diabetes 2) but rapidly pulled back to a healthy BMI and averted the bullet. We all may think we are healthy as we get older but reality can meet hope with a large dose of nasty surprises when time has taken its toll. The irony is that most never have a clue that anything may be going wrong and given the fact that I am not in a healthy BMI by much, I guess many either do not know about BMI or couldn't care.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Re Doctors' salaries - the Guardian disagrees with you.... btw, the age projections aren't from politicians, they are from statisticians and actuaries for the pension funds, who will have to pay out the monies.....

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

The Guardian.... The font of all knowledge with unbiased comments by a doctor who just happens to be a Conservative MP.

[/QUOTE]I said "beloved" by politicians amongst others who wish to make a point. Of course they are not created by politicians. The only things politicians appear to do on the creative front is to make a bigger mess than that in existence.

I have looked at many of the statistics available and from what I have seen there appears to be a lot of rather clever use of all age statistics which invariably push up the upper range. A friend of mine worked for a period of time as an actuary before going back into accountancy and as he used to "cherry pick to prove your point, put the onus on others to disprove".

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

So I posted a link to another medic that you have ignored.....;)

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

There was a reason for not commenting.

Google his bio and perhaps you can find out why.

GP's do not fit the typical career profile of a purely NHS doctor but they are not alone.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Erm, the Guardian article was written by a journalist, so nice try at moving the goalposts by remarking on one of the comments (btw, I couldn't find any comments on that page by a Conservative MP) thus avoiding entirely the point (have to say it's the first time I have heard the Guardian being regarded as anti-NHS/Doctors...).

Re actuaries, thank you for the anecdote - however, you appear to be confusing political statistics and actuarial statistics - do you honestly believe that all the life insurance and pension companies are lying about their projections, because that is what you appear to be implying?

---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------

Wow!

Well, I'll guess we'll never know your reason for not commenting, then, because I have 'googled his bio' and can't see any reason....

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

[The first linked article was not anti NHS\doctors, it was IMO a view along the lines of a party political broadcast under-pinning the coalition's point and written by a Conservative MP who also happens to be a doctor.

The theme of newspaper article reporting is set by and and overseen by editorial control. In this discussion over doctor's remuneration or more appropriately their package there is a bias towards the coalition's point of view which by default is against the interests of doctors affected by change. It doesn't matter who writes the articles as the theme is set and anything not fitting the theme will not see print as it will not get past the editor.

I am not confusing anything and if there is any confusion I guess it stems from tour earlier comments regarding statistics and with the source I suspect lies the confusion.

I do not recall having seen where the government gets their projections but suspect it is the ONS.

What I find somewhat bemusing is that whatever projections you use are throughout the posts stated as a given. There are factors that skew the projections for each individual and amongst them are regional variations, income both whilst at work and during retirement. There are many other factors with the biggest and probably an unknown off into the future which is the cohort effect. In an earlier post I mentioned a health potential problem which has IMO every possibility of being a strongly negative cohort effect.

Just so that you know exactly where my thoughts are coming from I abhor straight line projections. Life and wealth is a dynamic governed by boom and bust in the latter case and subjected to cycles. We are in a bust phase at the moment and long term decisions made now will be no more correct than those made at the height of the boom. My concern is that under the supposed guise of not stealing our children;'s future that is exactly what is being done and it is happening in real time under the failed premise balancing the fiscal books.

A cheap shot on the actuarial lying comment but not unusual:(

Pension companies assess risk on a forward look against funds incoming, available and projected requirement. From the annual reports I receive I note that they always appear paranoid about long term commitments. Both groups have an interest in whether for profitability or viability in risk aversion by using worst case scenarios.

i am not sure about life insurance companies but logic would dictate that if they subscribe to the super longevity school then life insurance in the absence of other factors then life premiums should cost almost nothing but I bet they do not.

It is my understanding and belief that actuaries use what best suits their needs in assessing risk. No they are not lying, distorting or anything else but using selectivity.


---------- Post added at 09:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 ----------


[/QUOTE]

I would have hoped for a bit of lateral thinking. My bad, I overestimated.

The first link was to a company man who could not be further away from the typical hospital doctor. Does the second link lead to a typical hospital doctor?. I think not but you may think that the individual's rather illustrious career path and current positions are typical.

In a dispute involving large numbers within an organisation there are many who are torn three ways. Dependent on potential career paths many end up in the pro, against or on the fence camps. I know the view of a small number of "foot soldier" doctors and consultants (family contact) but have not yet seen their view in print but have seen some of the management view as accepted by doctors. The lack of balance bothers me but balance may well be a luxury of yesteryear.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Doctors are among the best paid public sector employees - and as such they also have the most lucrative pensions.

The average hospital consultant retiring today will enjoy a pension of £48,000 a year and a lump sum of over £140,000.

Among public sector pensions being paid out, doctors account for two thirds of the top 1% of pay outs.

As a result, this government - and the Labour one that preceded it and reformed pensions in 2008 - has taken the judgement that it wants the best paid to subsidise the pensions of the lowest.

Contributions will rise the greatest for the highest earners. Those earning over £110,000 a year will end up contributing 14.5% of their salary.

Many may understand that approach, but doctors believe they are being unfairly targeted.

They point out that the top-paid civil servants will not be hit in the same way - and that perceived injustice has put the profession at loggerheads with the government.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------May I point out that most of the government who they are targetting will be in private medical schemes unaffordable by the majority of the PBI, so for me, they can all go sit on a sharp pointy object, no sympathy here............. I would love the doctors salary, but as a mere private sector peasant, thats never going to happen. Have been paying into a private pension for 17 years, currently worth about £150 a month, so would not keep a GP in 4 x 4's, let alone food. So much for the 'caring' profession................

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Sincere apologies, slap on wrist accepted, quote was from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18254499
hope this is acceptable as a credible source.
Kind regards, MM

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

So, which projections do you recommend? A link would be nice. Preferably one related to this thread.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...p_AZ1g&cad=rja

The above link is to an American based pdf document outlining my personal belief that human life is self limiting on the basis organic deterioration and breakdown which I firmly believe is tied to the ageing process whereby each cycle of body part regeneration and rebuilding sees the inefficiency of using DNA strings in the process which are invariably slightly corrupted models of the one from which were previously copied.

The damage done to DNA is a lifelong process which occurs via free radical damage plus disease loads and such accumulated damage leads to faulty ongoing regeneration and eventually precipitates failure.

I also believe that the highly praiseworthy efforts to date have IMO lifted humans out of premature demise via environmental, health and nutritional factors but that factor is governed by the availability of a general distribution of wealth to increase living standards.

There is a strong school of opinion which believes that that the impact of wealth has had a strong effect in not only improving general health\longevity but the large sums allocated to sustaining life at any cost for those afflicted with life curtailing problems is dependent on ongoing possibly unsustainable funds being indefinitely available.

It is my argument that the era of unlimited money growth may well be over and if as appears the longevity benefits were seen dramatically during that period then less money and declining living standards may see that straight line projections for longevity have biological limitations as well as financial factors.

Many of the factors that saw poverty and disease related life limitations in the pre-war era will almost certainly never return. The eradicated killer diseases will not return. However the stresses of lifestyle constraints from economic factors where "heat or eat" is raising its head plus as I saw recently financial factors within the hospital service are posing questions of sustainability of specialist wards at the cost of tens of thousands per day per person, often for very long stay treatment.

Other factors involving finance include a long known fact which is the scourge of the USA and that is that generally it is accepted that the last five years of life incur 95% of a lifetimes health care costs. For many that causes bankruptcy which is not a problem in the UK unless the government decides to be cost effective.

The cohort responsible for the extension of the upper age group were constrained in eating habits by war and post war rationing followed with a long period of social requirement to maintain a healthy (thin) body. The freedom exercised for eating indulgence by the upcoming generation is virtually certain to reverse that trend. Without radical change in the abuse of alcohol, overweight\obese\morbidly obese and the uptake of sports I feel sure that the straight line longevity predictions will display a cyclical move downwards just like every other chart worthy of examination.

These rubbish projections are no better than the infamous Brown's "we have abolished boom and bust" which was dis-proven in short order when cycles took over. These current projections will be disproved after I have become a statistic but I strongly suspect that once people have been coerced into working into their 70's and getting a pension just large enough to feed a hamster, this type of discussion will be history as the mission will be complete.

If you want more contrarian links I am sure that I or Google can find hundreds but if you are truly interested you can find them yourself.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

I fail utterly to see what that last post has to do with doctors going on a work to rule..:confused:

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Sorry, but if the answer was off topic, it was pertinent to the question.

One of the arguments being levelled at doctors is funding based on their contributions with reference to amounts received and the duration of amounts paid out based on longevity.

The minister responsible used reference to annuities cost to supply the same amount of pension and within that context as with almost all government arguments longevity figures large. I would go so far as to state the longevity has become a must have inclusion within government remarks on pension liabilities.

I believe that doctors have a very strong case, as do many other public employees. To my way of thinking a debate encompasses exploration of all factors pertinent to both sides of the argument without which we all might as well restrict replies to agree or disagree without giving reasons.

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

Re: Doctors vote in favour of industrial action
 

OK. An interesting idea.

So, people who have money tend to spend some of it trying to live longer and better. And...?

Even a few more days is worth paying for, if you don't believe me ask people with terminal illness.

Have you heard about antibiotic resistance?

Are you suggesting a rationing of health services?

Obesity is a major risk factor for health, but it is not the only one.

So we should all go on a diet, stop drinking, and take up tennis? How likely is that?

Er, is there a link missing between this paragraph and the one immediately preceeding?

Thanks for that advice.

So you seem to be suggesting that doctors should be paid more provided they alter their lifestyle with a view to retaining their health beyond retirement. Perhaps a plan for implementation would be a law based on the sentiment "when you retire, we will give you £nn,nnn per day/month/year to spend on hospital bills; you can keep whatever you don't use".