[
Quote:
|
QUOTE=Hugh;35436271]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...).
|
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.
Quote:
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?
|
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:
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....
|
[/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.