Junior doctors strike

[20-250]

Should the state really be funding expensive medical procedures for pensioners?

Should someone who’s 80 years old, be having a hip replacement, then they’re expected to die in the next few years?

My father is 80. He takes no medication, has never smoked or drank alcohol. He still works having started to do so when he left school at 15. He has claimed nothing but state pension, which he didn't take until he was in his 70's. He is the sole carer for my severely autistic brother.
Should he need something from the NHS, I would say he's earned it.
You really are an extra special, short sighted and uncaring pillock.

 

[Lloyd90]

My father is 80. He takes no medication, has never smoked or drank alcohol. He still works having started to do so when he left school at 15. He has claimed nothing but state pension, which he didn't take until he was in his 70's. He is the sole carer for my severely autistic brother.
Should he need something from the NHS, I would say he's earned it.
You really are an extra special, short sighted and uncaring pillock.

And this is a classic example of why we can’t have a conversation about the NHS.

Your dad is 80.

By the AVERAGES… not him as an individual, not the fact he’s your father, nothing to do with the fact he cares for your brother… just based entirely on the averages, he would live to 82.

As we know with averages, some people will go well beyond.

Some people will die well before.

My good friend, a fireman, died of a massive stroke at age 31 whilst driving the fire engine, leaving 2 kids and a mrs all alone.

By average he would have had another 50 years but that’s not the way it goes.


It’s near impossible to make huge plans that impact millions and millions of people, they work things off averages etc.

Your inability to have a conversation without getting emotional and throwing personal insults is part of the reason the NHS is going down the pan.

Anyone with any sense can see that if a person who’s life expectancy is 82 needs a new hip at the age of 80+, it’s not reasonable for a crumbling, underfunded and hugely stretched health service to spend tens of thousands of pounds to pay for that new hip.

Similarly the NHS shouldn’t be paying for people who abuse their health to have transplants, people to have cosmetic surgeries and kids to be having gender altering hormones.


If you want to argue those points fair enough but try to come back without personal insults eh?

 

[20-250]

And this is a classic example of why we can’t have a conversation about the NHS.

Your dad is 80.

By the AVERAGES… not him as an individual, not the fact he’s your father, nothing to do with the fact he cares for your brother… just based entirely on the averages, he would live to 82.

As we know with averages, some people will go well beyond.

Some people will die well before.

My good friend, a fireman, died of a massive stroke at age 31 whilst driving the fire engine, leaving 2 kids and a mrs all alone.

By average he would have had another 50 years but that’s not the way it goes.


It’s near impossible to make huge plans that impact millions and millions of people, they work things off averages etc.

Your inability to have a conversation without getting emotional and throwing personal insults is part of the reason the NHS is going down the pan.

Anyone with any sense can see that if a person who’s life expectancy is 82 needs a new hip at the age of 80+, it’s not reasonable for a crumbling, underfunded and hugely stretched health service to spend tens of thousands of pounds to pay for that new hip.

Similarly the NHS shouldn’t be paying for people who abuse their health to have transplants, people to have cosmetic surgeries and kids to be having gender altering hormones.


If you want to argue those points fair enough but try to come back without personal insults eh?

I would not for a moment try to argue those who want cosmetic surgery or gender reassignment should automatically get what they want. I wouldn’t argue that those who have drunk themselves almost to death should get an NHS funded new liver.
The law of averages cannot be the basis of who gets what.
As to how that should be decided- well, that’s out of my hands. And I thank God that it’s out of yours, too.

 

[big ears]

A bigger issue is rather than the 80yr old getting a new hip and making them mobile and out if pain the other end if the spectrum.
Young people with a bit of hip pain who play tennis getting a hip resurfacing done rather than changing their sport.
Do a hip in your 40s or 50s then you are stacking up at least one but probably two hip replacements in the future.
Wait until it’s really bad you only maybe need one in your life.

It’s the same argument as stopping those who are old getting treatment. Let’s stop the younger ones as well so they don’t need repeat procedures,

What we are talking about is rationing of health care. Not a nice topic.

 

[Scotty99]

Whilst this is a nice proposal the flaw us your belief it will lower taxes significantly. That is I’m afraid cloud cuckoo land.

What you haven’t factored in is social care. You are still only thinking about waiting lists and operations.

It is so much more and complex.

It is more complex than that, which is why no one has dared to tackle it yet. Social care is a big problem and getting bigger as people live longer but this needs to be factored into the solution as does Acute services, ambulance and paramedic services. To get these provided by private organisations with their revenue funded by insurance policies for them that can afford them either individually or through their employer or for those that can’t funded by the tax payer through tax credits provided by the government.

As for lower taxes, it will and significantly. Below are the tax bands for 2022 for the US. A tax rate starting at10% after the standard deduction (personal allowance) of $25,000 per married couple, on which no tax is paid. Also where we pay 20% VAT on purchases, in the US they pay around 6%. Where pay about 60% fuel duty on petrol and diesel, they pay virtually nothing in tax hence gas is about $3.50 a gallon.

The overall tax burden in the US is significantly lower than over here or other European countries that have a high level of welfare supplied by the state.

Rate	Taxable Income (Single)	Taxable Income (Married Filing Jointly)
10%	Up to $10,275	Up to $20,550
12%	$10,276 to $41,775	$20,551 to $83,550
22%	$41,776 to $89,075	$83,551 to $178,150
24%	$89,076 to $170,050	$178,151 to $340,100
32%	$170,051 to $215,950	$340,101 to $431,900
35%	$215,951 to $539,900	$431,901 to $647,850
37%	Over $539,900	Over $647,850

 

[Rasputin]

A bigger issue is rather than the 80yr old getting a new hip and making them mobile and out if pain the other end if the spectrum.
Young people with a bit of hip pain who play tennis getting a hip resurfacing done rather than changing their sport.
Do a hip in your 40s or 50s then you are stacking up at least one but probably two hip replacements in the future.
Wait until it’s really bad you only maybe need one in your life.

It’s the same argument as stopping those who are old getting treatment. Let’s stop the younger ones as well so they don’t need repeat procedures,

What we are talking about is rationing of health care. Not a nice topic.

The only young people who play tennis are posh they will have bupa .

Healthcare should be rationed and it should be supported by promoting people to make better lifestyle choices particularly when it comes to pre-emptive care. Everyone would benefit from regularly stretching and lifting weights plus some form of cardio yet barely anyone has that type of structure in their life and it’s compounded by eating ****, drinking and sitting at desks or cars.

 

[Bavarianbrit]

Now we are getting to the root of this debate. The NHS model of the majority of healthcare for the general population being provide “free at the point of delivery” does not work, unless we as tax payers are prepared to double or triple the amount of cash we pour into it, and then only maybe.

We need to have a model like Ireland and the US where a significant number of people have private health insurance either through their employer or if they can afford it privately. The NHS should provide healthcare for those that can’t afford it, similar to the Medicare and Medicaid programs in the US.

There's an idea. When your income rises to lets say +£40,000 pa you will have to contract out into a private Bupa type health insurance scheme, except you would still be covered for A&E care at any hospital in the land that would be covered by a reduced amount of NI contribution that you still had to pay into the the communal health coffer.
Just trying to be constructive.

 

[Eddie P]

Content shown as "Unavailable right now", which is ironic - much like a junior Doctor then..


.View attachment 303985

If you go into A&E at night you'll get a Jr Doc, if you call an air ambo, you'll likely get a Jr Doc. They are everyone below consultant.

 

[JH83]

I’m not on about quality of life.

I’m asking this question, and I fully understand it’s controversial.

Considering the average / mean age of death of a man is a slither over 82 and a woman 85 in the U.K., should we (the tax payer / the nation) be paying for expensive surgery and aftercare for someone in their 80’s and 90’s?

Should we treat people who have cancer in the 80’s and 90’s?

Should there be an age cap on these sorts of things?

I understand that there is a huge difference between humans and animals, but when my 11 year old lab who was coming towards the end of her time got cancer, and the vet wanted to take her whole leg off, I declined and had her PTS. I didn’t see the point in a huge surgery and prolonged recovery for an animal that was coming towards the end of her natural life anyway.

I saw a thread on a different forum recently where the man, despite many saying not to, had his labs leg off around that age. The lab recovered then died of something else about 5-6 months later.

Before anyone gets hysterical, the above isn’t me suggesting we have the elderly “put to sleep” … but you do have to question the idea of giving someone who’s expected to die in the next year or two (ON AVERAGE) a huge surgery like that.




The quality of life argument would apply much more to the question: Should the NHS pay for 50+ pills a day for someone to be basically kept artificially alive who is in a care home with awful physical / mental health?

I think there’s an easier cut off point that this. Having had to sit in A & E multiple times through my job in the last decade it’s the time wasters that attend that are overwhelming. There should be a mandatory triage fee to be treated from the get go! This equally applies to most emergency services, they are abused most often by those who contribute nothing to the system. The stories I could tell you would infuriate.

My wife is a nurse practitioner in respiratory, and was very much on the coal face during the last few years mayhem so has insight into the problems, and I was mortified when I found out how junior doctors are treated. They really are thrown in at the deep end (she has found them crying hidden in cupboards in the past, utterly broken) and can be relocated at the drop of a hat to the other end of the country, for peanuts, whilst faced with brutal debt. They deserve to be at least financially comfortable. Of all the strikers of late this is the group I have the most sympathy with.

Having just had our first child that didn’t go exactly according to plan I was astounded by the service we received from the NHS, absolutely top class. But talking to the staff they are at breaking point, as are most public services (trust me I know). In a private system god knows what bill would be dropping through the letter box right now! I honestly don’t know what I’d do with the NHS, possibly privatise some elements (physio etc) to strengthen others, but crushing junior doctors with awful wages just isn’t cricket.

 

[Eddie P]

There's an idea. When your income rises to lets say +£40,000 pa you will have to contract out into a private Bupa type health insurance scheme, except you would still be covered for A&E care at any hospital in the land that would be covered by a reduced amount of NI contribution that you still had to pay into the the communal health coffer.
Just trying to be constructive.

That's perverse, you're saying that the people who pay tax don't get to benefit, while those who contribute minimally or not at all get free care?

 

[Eddie P]

It certainly a difficult one. Whilst I'm all for the pay restoration, I do feel like the people in this situation knew the job description and pay involved with it when they chose their career. I.E. they know they will be rota'd for nights and weekends.

I know it is a slight deviation; however, my wife works in the hospitality industry and always has to go in to work on the bank holidays she is rota'd for and also wont get extra pay, or time of in lieu for doing so. Is she happy about the fact that i have a 4 day weekend? Not in the slightest! Is she happy about the fact i get to go and set up my new rifle without her today? You can bet she isnt. Does she whinge and moan to me about it? By god yes she does. Would she strike over it? Not in the slightest. There is always another person willing to do the job for the same terms you are complaining about.

Staff are too disposable nowadays I guess it what I'm going for!

As you say they knew the pay when they started, not expecting for continual pay erosion, therefore a pay cut.

 

[Island]

That's perverse, you're saying that the people who pay tax don't get to benefit, while those who contribute minimally or not at all get free care?

Not quite what @Bavarianbrit stated, his point was that emergency care would still be available to all...

It is pretty much the basis for any social contract involving a "welfare state"; those who can afford to pay contribute a proportionally higher price to assist those that cannot afford to.

If I recall correctly it was the original vision of the NHS / Welfare State following the Great War was it not?

 

[Eddie P]

Not quite what @Bavarianbrit stated, his point was that emergency care would still be available to all...

It is pretty much the basis for any social contract involving a "welfare state"; those who can afford to pay contribute a proportionally higher price to assist those that cannot afford to.

If I recall correctly it was the original vision of the NHS / Welfare State following the Great War was it not?

Our current tax system has higher earners paying more anyway, it would be grossly unfair to remove them from NHS care (even if emergency care was maintained)

 

[gixer1]

I get it.

It’s only certain facts you’re interested in, just not the ones that don’t fit your particular narrative.

He’s a bitter little man that hates the U.K…you’re wasting your time trying to discuss anything on this topic with him as he’s so blinkered by hate.

 

[big ears]

It is more complex than that, which is why no one has dared to tackle it yet. Social care is a big problem and getting bigger as people live longer but this needs to be factored into the solution as does Acute services, ambulance and paramedic services. To get these provided by private organisations with their revenue funded by insurance policies for them that can afford them either individually or through their employer or for those that can’t funded by the tax payer through tax credits provided by the government.

As for lower taxes, it will and significantly. Below are the tax bands for 2022 for the US. A tax rate starting at10% after the standard deduction (personal allowance) of $25,000 per married couple, on which no tax is paid. Also where we pay 20% VAT on purchases, in the US they pay around 6%. Where pay about 60% fuel duty on petrol and diesel, they pay virtually nothing in tax hence gas is about $3.50 a gallon.

The overall tax burden in the US is significantly lower than over here or other European countries that have a high level of welfare supplied by the state.

Rate	Taxable Income (Single)	Taxable Income (Married Filing Jointly)
10%	Up to $10,275	Up to $20,550
12%	$10,276 to $41,775	$20,551 to $83,550
22%	$41,776 to $89,075	$83,551 to $178,150
24%	$89,076 to $170,050	$178,151 to $340,100
32%	$170,051 to $215,950	$340,101 to $431,900
35%	$215,951 to $539,900	$431,901 to $647,850
37%	Over $539,900	Over $647,850

Americas economy is very different to ours in so many ways that it is Apples and pears to draw good comparisons.

I do also refer you to my previous narrative about the level of health care received in the US with regards to long term conditions.

It depends which society you chose you want for yourself, your children and your grandchildren.

Higher taxation and a better level of care for long term conditions gets my vote but each to their own.

 

[Scotty99]

There's an idea. When your income rises to lets say +£40,000 pa you will have to contract out into a private Bupa type health insurance scheme, except you would still be covered for A&E care at any hospital in the land that would be covered by a reduced amount of NI contribution that you still had to pay into the the communal health coffer.
Just trying to be constructive.

Something along those lines or similar would probably work, but something needs to change the current situation is not sustainable.

 

[Scotty99]

Americas economy is very different to ours in so many ways that it is Apples and pears to draw good comparisons.

I do also refer you to my previous narrative about the level of health care received in the US with regards to long term conditions.

It depends which society you chose you want for yourself, your children and your grandchildren.

Higher taxation and a better level of care for long term conditions gets my vote but each to their own.

You are right the two economies are very different so is the attitude to work and self sufficiency and small versus large government. If we as a nation are going to continue down the route of high taxation and free healthcare then we all need to recognise we are going to have to pay significantly higher taxes than we do now in order to get the healthcare everyone needs or we continue to ration and increase the rationing of healthcare by increased waiting lists and further things not covered by the health service, like dental and vision are now. Also in amongst all of this the current NHS must be made to be more efficient and better value for tax payers money.

 

[Apthorpe]

Americas economy is very different to ours in so many ways that it is Apples and pears to draw good comparisons.

I do also refer you to my previous narrative about the level of health care received in the US with regards to long term conditions.

It depends which society you chose you want for yourself, your children and your grandchildren.

Higher taxation and a better level of care for long term conditions gets my vote but each to their own.

We've already chosen to pay higher tax but the problem is that the NHS, and now, apparently, its staff won't produce better care. Most people don't object too much to paying more in order to get more of something. The problem is that we keep paying more and getting less from the NHS in particular.

One can leave the politics out of it, but it still leaves the question of why doctors elected explicitly radical political activists to represent them. That leaves claims that this is only about pay and conditions for junior doctors severely lacking in credibility.

The bald fact of the matter is that even at £14/hour, junior doctors are better paid than most of the population.

 

[Apthorpe]

There's an idea. When your income rises to lets say +£40,000 pa you will have to contract out into a private Bupa type health insurance scheme, except you would still be covered for A&E care at any hospital in the land that would be covered by a reduced amount of NI contribution that you still had to pay into the the communal health coffer.
Just trying to be constructive.

Then why not have a simple system where everyone has private health insurance paid out of tax via a voucher scheme? It still leaves intact the two apparently key requirements of "universal healthcare, free at the point of use".

The biggest obstacle to any change of this type is that it is completely politically unacceptable to the healthcare staff. This opens the question of why some people prefer to work for a monopoly where staff satisfaction is low and working conditions alleged to be poor bordering criminal in many cases, to working for a private firm where staff satisfaction is high and objections to working conditions are very significantly lower. The groups of people who would not benefit from such a situation are the unions and those members of staff of such a low quality as to unable to hold down a job in the private sector.

 

[RM100]

It is more complex than that, which is why no one has dared to tackle it yet. Social care is a big problem and getting bigger as people live longer but this needs to be factored into the solution as does Acute services, ambulance and paramedic services. To get these provided by private organisations with their revenue funded by insurance policies for them that can afford them either individually or through their employer or for those that can’t funded by the tax payer through tax credits provided by the government.

As for lower taxes, it will and significantly. Below are the tax bands for 2022 for the US. A tax rate starting at10% after the standard deduction (personal allowance) of $25,000 per married couple, on which no tax is paid. Also where we pay 20% VAT on purchases, in the US they pay around 6%. Where pay about 60% fuel duty on petrol and diesel, they pay virtually nothing in tax hence gas is about $3.50 a gallon.

The overall tax burden in the US is significantly lower than over here or other European countries that have a high level of welfare supplied by the state.

Rate	Taxable Income (Single)	Taxable Income (Married Filing Jointly)
10%	Up to $10,275	Up to $20,550
12%	$10,276 to $41,775	$20,551 to $83,550
22%	$41,776 to $89,075	$83,551 to $178,150
24%	$89,076 to $170,050	$178,151 to $340,100
32%	$170,051 to $215,950	$340,101 to $431,900
35%	$215,951 to $539,900	$431,901 to $647,850
37%	Over $539,900	Over $647,850

Trying adding your medical insurance costs to these wonderful figures ( 22,000 for a family , on average in 2021). Also add statutory paid annual leave entitlement of 0 days, now add 0 days sick leave entitlement, zero mandatory pensions…..etc etc.

Your list of freedoms (to spend) in the US will continue to grow.

Sometimes naked figures only tell half the story.