Doctors taking the piss

[mjdgreg]

Doctors on salaries of £120,000 a year are today striking over their final salary pension deal. What has brought this on? They are unhappy that they are only going to get £68,000 a year. Unbelievable.

Anyone on £120,000 a year doesn't need a pension. If they only saved a small fraction of their earnings they'd still be able to retire in luxury. Clearly we are not all in it together. 

[The L J Monk]

Firstly, they're not striking. They're taking industrial action. A subtle difference that may have escaped you. Poor knowledge Mick.

Secondly, not all doctors earn £120,000 or more. Poor generalisation Mick.

Thirdly, less than a quarter of GP surgeries are taking action. So it's not all doctors. Keep up Mick.

Fourthly, I understand the reason for the industrial action is that an agreement that was reached just 4 years ago has now been torn up by the Government with a minimum of consultation. How would you feel Mick?

Finally, doctors don't tend to be particularly militant, and will resort to industrial action as a very last resort. Their last industrial action was in 1975. I trust their motives more than those of the present government.

[mjdgreg]

Firstly, they're not striking. They're taking industrial action. A subtle difference that may have escaped you. Poor knowledge Mick.

Secondly, not all doctors earn £120,000 or more. Poor generalisation mjdgreg.

Thirdly, less than a quarter of GP surgeries are taking action. So it's not all doctors. Keep up Mick.

Fourthly, I understand the reason for the industrial action is that an agreement that was reached just 4 years ago has now been torn up by the Government with a minimum of consultation. How would you feel Mick?

Finally, doctors don't tend to be particularly militant, and will resort to industrial action as a very last resort. Their last industrial action was in 1975. I trust their motives more than those of the present government.

'They're not striking they're taking industrial action.' Have you ever been described as a pedant?

'Not all doctors earn £120,000 or more. Poor generalisation mjdgreg.' Where did I say all doctors earn £120,000? Some doctors earn less, some earn more, pretty obvious I would have thought. The figures I used were given on Newsnight last night to paint a general picture of the situation.

'Less than a quarter of GP surgeries are taking action. So it's not all doctors. Keep up mjdgreg.' Where did I say it was all doctors? I thought you would know that when there is an industrial dispute not everyone takes action. It is only usually the leftie militants.

'I understand the reason for the industrial action is that an agreement that was reached just 4 years ago has now been torn up by the Government with a minimum of consultation. How would you feel mjdgreg? The previous agreement was drawn up by the incompetent Labour government who do what the unions tell them. Since then the country has been bankrupted by the aforesaid Labour government meaning that we can no longer afford to pay doctors the brilliant pensions that were previously promised. Even now, the pension deal on offer is unbelievable compared to what workers in the private sector are going to get.

I thought doctors were supposed to be intelligent. Don't they realise that what politicians promise is always likely to change over a period of time depending on the prevailing economic circumstances? Have they forgotten the reduced hours and big pay rise they were given by Labour in 2004?

Do they seriously think that the current deal won't change in the future? Of course it will. Do they think they've done themselves any favours by highlighting how ungrateful they are for such a good deal at taxpayers expense? I'm beginning to think doctors aren't intelligent at all.

How would I feel? I would be over the moon with such a deal as I'm sure the rest of the private sector would be. How anyone other than a doctor can defend the indefensible is beyond me.

[The L J Monk]

In my opinion British doctors earn every penny.

They train for a minimum of nine years to become a GP or twelve years to become a consultant. They can work ridiculously long and unsociable hours, have an unbelievably difficult job to do but continue to deliver a standard of care that is among the best on the world. Comparisons to private sector workers are difficult to make.

Following extensive consultation in 2008 they reached an agreement on their pensions that saw them take a significant hit. Within 4 years they are now being asked to take another hit, despite their pension being in surplus for at least the next 5 years. This decision has been taken with a minimum of consultation as they are seen by an opportunistic government as a soft touch.

N.B. There is a significant difference between a strike and industrial action. Doctors are continuing to go into their workplaces today and to provide care where it is needed. These are not the actions of striking workers. Poor show Mick.

[mjdgreg]

According to the Health Secretary pension contributions for doctors have cost the taxpayer £67billion. That works out at over £1000 for every man woman and child living in the country. Doctors have only paid £17billion towards their retirement. The tax payer funds 80%  of doctors’ pensions. The total cost of providing a pension for all working and retired doctors is a massive £83billion. So it is most definitely not fully funded.

When was the last time you tried to see your GP? They are only available when we're all at work. Not really unsociable hours is it? They do get well paid while their training you know.

If you check the rest of the world our healthcare service is not very good at all. Another myth exposed. It is run to suit doctors not patients.

Here's a link to an article written towards the end of the last Labour government after they had increased spending on the NHS by 85% in real terms.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234276/Britain-sick-man-Europe-Heart-cancer-survival-rates-worst-developed-world.html

[The L J Monk]

Mick, I've spotted two terminal flaws in your argument.

1. As of 12 May 2010, starting any statement with the words "according to the Health Secretary..."  unfortunately means that whatever follows is completely lacking in credibility.

2. You have attempted to support your argument by linking to a story from the Daily Mail that is the best part of 3 years old.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg, I've spotted two terminal flaws in your argument.

1. As of 12 May 2010, starting any statement with the words "according to the Health Secretary..."  unfortunately means that whatever follows is completely lacking in credibility.

2. You have attempted to support your argument by linking to a story from the Daily Mail that is the best part of 3 years old.

Point 1. As Health secretary do you really believe he would be so stupid as to make the figures up? How long do you think it would take Labour or the rest of the media to refute them (if they could)? I'll tell you, a nano-second. Please provide this rebuttal (if you can). I'm not holding my breath.

Point 2. You don't like the facts and figures provided in this article so you try to shoot the messenger. I purposely picked an article near the end of the calamitous Labour government to make my point even more strongly so you can't blame the current administration.

What have you got to say about the doctors' negotiating team in 2004 coming out of the meeting with Labour laughing their socks off at the  massively improved deal they'd just done? Not a lot I suspect.

[The L J Monk]

Point 1. He'd never make stuff up would he Mick. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/14/andrew-lansley-called-liar-nurses-rcn

Point 2. Finding an article to suit your agenda isn't difficult. Here's one for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8877412/NHS-among-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world.html

You seem to be focusing purely on GPs Mick. Are you aware that not all doctors are GPs? I guess not.

[mjdgreg]

Point 1. He'd never make stuff up would he mjdgreg. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/14/andrew-lansley-called-liar-nurses-rcn

Point 2. Finding an article to suit your agenda isn't difficult. Here's one for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8877412/NHS-among-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world.html

You seem to be focusing purely on GPs mjdgreg. Are you aware that not all doctors are GPs? I guess not.

Point 1. Everyone lies. So he may have lied in this instance. You assume therefore everything he says is a lie. How silly. Show some proof he has lied about this issue. Shouldn't be too hard as he said it yesterday so there has been plenty of time to prove he's been lying. I'm not holding my breath.

Point 2. You refer to a survey of only 11 countries based on answers from 18,000 people with chronic and serious illnesses. Very narrow in my book, unlike the evidence I provided. If you believe we have a great health service then you refuse to believe the overwhelming evidence to the contrary from many independent sources.

I'm not just on about GP's although that's what the ordinary man in the street would think of if you said the word 'doctor' to them. I just made the point that they don't work unsociable hours as you would have us all believe. Try working shifts in a factory if you want to know about unsociable hours on low pay and crap pension provision.

Also do me the favour of answering the points I raise instead of ignoring them. I answer every one of your points (and shoot you down in flames every time).

[The L J Monk]

Point 1: Answers to be found courtesy of the BMA. http://ht.ly/bJdAQ

Point 2: Anyone who believes that a single report, published 3 years ago, is "overwhelming evidence" of present day flaws needs to reconsider their viewpoint.

GPs do not make up the vast bulk of doctors. Just under one quarter of registered medical practioners are on the GP register.

I've worked shifts in a factory. It was shit. But it was easier than going through years and years of training and racking up tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt, and then spending years working 18 hours a day seven days a week and having to make life or death decision everyday.

Keep trying Mick. I reckon if you keep making random points you'll get one right eventually.

[mjdgreg]

Point 1: Answers to be found courtesy of the BMA. http://ht.ly/bJdAQ

Point 2: Anyone who believes that a single report, published 3 years ago, is "overwhelming evidence" of present day flaws needs to reconsider their viewpoint.

GPs do not make up the vast bulk of doctors. Just under one quarter of registered medical practioners are on the GP register.

I've worked shifts in a factory. It was shit. But it was easier than going through years and years of training and racking up tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt, and then spending years working 18 hours a day seven days a week and having to make life or death decision everyday.

Keep trying Mick. I reckon if you keep making random points you'll get one right eventually.

Point 1. Is that the best you can do. You can only quote propaganda from the BMA trade union. Hardly unbiased and independent.

Point 2. I said many independent sources. You need to check what I say more carefully.

Show me one doctor that works 18 hours a day for 7 days a week and I'll show you a flying pig.

[The L J Monk]

Point 1. A right-wing politician, whose underlying agenda to make the NHS more attractive to the private sector and who is assisted no end by a reduction in the cost of the workforce's pension costs, comes out and states that the current pension is unaffordable. Is Mr Lansley unbiased and independent?

Point 2. Your report remains almost three years old, it isn't getting any newer.

Oink Oink http://www.southcheshirehealth.org.uk/News/news/2012/5/28/work-harder-young-doctor

Are you retracting your claim that "GPs also make up the vast bulk of doctors"? Given that it's wrong, you probably should.

[mjdgreg]

Point 1. A right-wing politician, whose underlying agenda to make the NHS more attractive to the private sector and who is assisted no end by a reduction in the cost of the workforce's pension costs, comes out and states that the current pension is unaffordable. Is Mr Lansley unbiased and independent?

Point 2. Your report remains almost three years old, it isn't getting any newer.

Oink Oink

Point 1. So it should be easy to disprove what he says from an independent source and not rely on the leftie BMA. So I'm still waiting.

Point 2. Have you read my previous post? I haven't based all my arguments on just this one piece of evidence. There are plenty more sources out there.

Oink Oink.  The link you give proves that what you say is totally wrong. I quote the first sentence 'A recent report once again suggested that junior doctor training is currently inadequate largely due to the imposition of the European working time directive.' This means they can't work 18 hours a day even if they wanted to. The report makes clear that they currently don't either. Why you've posted this link is a real mystery to me as it totally disproves your argument. You've really shot yourself in the foot this time.

[The L J Monk]

Point 1. Keep waiting. The BMA's response is good enough for me. I'd be interested if you could clear something up for me though. Lansley has quoted this 83 billion figure for the doctors' pension scheme. However there is no such thing as the doctors' pension scheme. It's an NHS scheme, with more members than just doctors. As you and I are just talking about doctors could you tell me how much the tax payer is paying to support just the doctors' element of the pensions?

Point 2. What is interesting is that the latest OECD report on the NHS describes it as "one of the world's best health systems". Kind of undermines your 3 year old Daily Mail article. Unlucky Mick.

Oh dear Mick. You've fallen for that one. The European Working Time Directive only applies to junior doctors, who incidentally can opt out. So I'm not sure why you've posted that response. Very poor research on your part.

How you getting on with that claim that "GPs also make up the vast bulk of doctors"? Come on, man up and admit you made that one up.

[mjdgreg]

Point 1. Keep waiting. The BMA's response is good enough for me.

OK, I accept that a left wing trade union's propaganda is good enough for you as that's all that you can come up with. I'd have thought though that if he was lying, that the media would have been all over it just as they were with the nurses conference 'lie'. Ah well you obviously have a much lower 'proof' level than the majority of the population.

[mjdgreg]

I'd be interested if you could clear something up for me though. Lansley has quoted this 83 billion figure for the doctors' pension scheme. However there is no such thing as the doctors' pension scheme. It's an NHS scheme, with more members than just doctors. As you and I are just talking about doctors could you tell me how much the tax payer is paying to support just the doctors' element of the pensions?

I've already answered this in a previous post. You must pay more attention when reading.

[mjdgreg]

More damming evidence from a report at the end of the Labour government. The first paragraph sums it up nicely.

'Britons would be far healthier if the NHS paid its doctors less but employed more of them, a shock international report has concluded.
UK health spending is on a par with other prosperous countries - but its people are less healthy because too much of the money goes towards GPs' and consultants' pay packets and pensions.
At the same time, Britain has fewer doctors per head of population than most countries in the Western World - and owns far less hi-tech equipment such as cancer scanners because it cannot afford them.'

Read the rest of the report and you will see that the monk's ramblings are nothing but leftie propaganda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1334163/Overpaid-NHS-doctors-practitioners-blamed-Britons-poor-health.html

[mjdgreg]

Oh dear mjdgreg. You've fallen for that one. The European Working Time Directive only applies to junior doctors, who incidentally can opt out. So I'm not sure why you've posted that response. Very poor research on your part.

This was your evidence proving that some doctors work 18 hours a day 7 days a week. Your own link conclusively proves just the opposite. Amazing.

[The L J Monk]

Point 1. Keep waiting. The BMA's response is good enough for me.

OK, I accept that

Good, I'm glad you've admitted defeat on Point 1.

[The L J Monk]

I'd be interested if you could clear something up for me though. Lansley has quoted this 83 billion figure for the doctors' pension scheme. However there is no such thing as the doctors' pension scheme. It's an NHS scheme, with more members than just doctors. As you and I are just talking about doctors could you tell me how much the tax payer is paying to support just the doctors' element of the pensions?

I've already answered this in a previous post. You must pay more attention when reading.

Unfortunately Mick you haven't. You've told me how much employees as a whole contribute to the NHS Pension Scheme (17 billion). I wan you to find some figures for doctors alone. Then we can discuss in more detail how much the tax payer is subsidising doctors alone by. You really do need to read these posts more carefully Mick.

[The L J Monk]

Oh dear mjdgreg. You've fallen for that one. The European Working Time Directive only applies to junior doctors, who incidentally can opt out. So I'm not sure why you've posted that response. Very poor research on your part.

This was your evidence proving that some doctors work 18 hours a day 7 days a week. Your own link conclusively proves just the opposite. Amazing.

Yes, they can opt out, and so some are doing 120 hours plus. Come on now Mick, are you getting tired? You're really slipping.

[The L J Monk]

More damming evidence from a report at the end of the Labour government. The first paragraph sums it up nicely.

'Britons would be far healthier if the NHS paid its doctors less but employed more of them, a shock international report has concluded.
UK health spending is on a par with other prosperous countries - but its people are less healthy because too much of the money goes towards GPs' and consultants' pay packets and pensions.
At the same time, Britain has fewer doctors per head of population than most countries in the Western World - and owns far less hi-tech equipment such as cancer scanners because it cannot afford them.'

Read the rest of the report and you will see that the monk's ramblings are nothing but leftie propaganda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1334163/Overpaid-NHS-doctors-practitioners-blamed-Britons-poor-health.html

We're talking about pensions. Not pay. I would have thought you'd realise the difference between the two. I guess not. Poor show Mick.

[mjdgreg]

We're talking about pensions. Not pay. I would have thought you'd realise the difference between the two. I guess not. Poor show mjdgreg.

I would have thought that you'd have realised that the size of pension is linked to the size of pay packet. So the two are inextricably linked. The fact that our GPs are the best paid in the OECD is an extremely relevant point.

[mjdgreg]

Yes, they can opt out, and so some are doing 120 hours plus. Come on now mick, are you getting tired? You're really slipping.

I'm getting tired of you going on about a link that proves the complete opposite of what you're saying. Totally laughable. Anyway here is more proof that what you're trying to convince us of is a load of baloney.

From 01/08/09, the target for trainee doctors of 48 hour weeks was introduced. Any contract wanting trainee doctors to work more than those hours from this date were made illegal.

You are right that individual doctors can opt out on a voluntary basis. However they can't opt out of taking 11 hours continuous rest out of 24, or out of ensuring they have 24 hours continuous rest out of each seven days.

Do the maths and you can see that your 120 hour weeks are an impossibility. If you don't agree that you have been bludgeoned into defeat then I don't know what else I can say to convince you.

[mjdgreg]

You've told me how much employees as a whole contribute to the NHS Pension Scheme (17 billion). I wan you to find some figures for doctors alone.

No I haven't. The figures the Health Secretary quoted were just for doctors. Please read my posts more carefully to save me having to constantly correct you.

[mjdgreg]

How you getting on with that claim that "GPs also make up the vast bulk of doctors"? Come on, man up and admit you made that one up.

Where have I ever said that? You're the one making things up.

[The L J Monk]

And with that "edit" at "9.10:53pm - almost 7 hours after your original post - you have admitted defeat Mick. If you are unable to debate a matter without going back and editing your previous posts than you are unable to act like a real man. Poor show Mick.

As the victor I am more than happy to offer you, the loser, some advice. Stick with copying and pasting as you have been taught a valuable lesson today.

[Filo]

And with that "edit" at "9.10:53pm - almost 7 hours after your original post - you have admitted defeat Mick. If you are unable to debate a matter without going back and editing your previous posts than you are unable to act like a real man. Poor show Mick.

As the victor I am more than happy to offer you, the loser, some advice. Stick with copying and pasting as you have been taught a valuable lesson today.

Top show Mr L J Monk, out thought and out manoeuvred the copy and paste man, pissed on his bonfire and mad the man look foolish!

[mjdgreg]

I've answered every point you've raised and totally demolished your argument. You've hardly answered any of mine and the ones that you have you have been very evasive.

No need for me to claim victory as any non leftie viewer of this thread knows whose made the best argument and it isn't you. Learn from your defeat just like Billy and the others have done. They now know better than to take me on. Know that you can never beat me. Your reputation on this forum has been severely diminished whilst mine has been further enhanced.

A leftie will always lose against me because they let their hearts rule their head and so only use 10% of the brainpower they have been given. I on the other hand use 100% of my brain so it is not a fair match. Be warned any of the rest of you out there who think you have what it takes. You don't.

[mjdgreg]

Top show Mr L J Monk, out thought and out manoeuvred the copy and paste man, pissed on his bonfire and mad the man look foolish!

Another leftie from a parallel universe. pmsl. Only one supporter for the monk. Pretty poor show. Given my pugnacious debating style that is so disliked by nearly all of you I'd call that a moral victory.