Doctors vote in favour of industrial action

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

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

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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?

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' salaries - the Guardian disagrees with you....

UK specialist doctors are similarly paid an amount close to the OECD average, although in this case there are far fewer differences between countries. While a UK specialist doctor receives about 4.3 times the average national salary, a specialist in France gets around 4.4 times more and in Germany 4.1 times.

But GPs are another matter. Pearson indicates that, relative to average wages, the UK pays its general practitioners more highly than any other OECD country – and nearly twice as much as France

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.....

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Re Doctors' salaries - the Guardian disagrees with you....

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

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.....

[/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".

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Traduk

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.

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

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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

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.

Originally Posted by Traduk

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

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".

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Traduk

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.

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....

[Traduk]

[

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.

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 ----------

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.

[Mushroom Man]

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................

Point of forum etiquette - for copyright/fair use reasons, if quoting from a media article, it is appropriate to provide a link to the source.

[Mushroom Man]

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

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Traduk

...Just so that you know exactly where my thoughts are coming from I abhor straight line projections.....

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

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

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

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.

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

[Traduk]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

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.