Hmm, going back I distinctly remember reading an article that said EU employment rules were a major problem in recruiting for the NHS, that was EU nationals has to come first.
now, however, reading around it appears that Tier 2 visas (which most nurses are employed under) are being refused due to quotas being breached. So, it would appear that the Home Office is one of the problems in getting staff in to the NHS.
But that’s the point, it is being done by stealth.
Don’t get me wrong, even with privatisation I believe the NHS will always be free at the point of delivery, but what the Tories are doing is wanting the private sector to use its knowledge and potential efficiencies to drive down the cost. They ultimately believe that the NHS would be cheaper to run if done by the Private Sector.
This raises two main points for me.
Would the private sector really be more efficient if farmed out bit by bit? My guess is no - synergy between those firms, as well as potentially different working practices/systems/processes would be difficult to manage. There is only one way of doing it, and that would be for 1 company to take over the whole lot - that is unrealistic IMHO and they would probably end up suffering from the same inefficiencies that the current NHS does.
Safety of patients - the compatibility and potential gaps if not working with one centralised body could/would create massive issues with patient diagnoses and safety.
Basically every hospital in the Philippines is a training hospital they have nursing colleges in every town the filipina’s and filipino’s who train as nurse’s doctors do it to better themselves and their families lifes by getting an overseas job. And as a Philippine overseas worker you get certain benifits from the Government for bringing in foriegn capital to the country.
Aye, that’s the problem. Why go into the NHS and it’s (perceived) poor rates of pay and working conditions when you can either go private or bank?
But even if you train in house how do you retain them after they’ve qualified? I can’t see a “you have to work here for 5 years” stipulation in their training contract being enforceable!!
Maybe if the NHS got rid of the top level executives and dribbled the money down to the lower levels that might get more people interested.
I did see a strange comment that remarked that one of the problems with staffing the NHS was the feminisation of the workforce!! I guess this means that they all get pregnant and leave but it did seem an odd thing to say!!
And it’s different in the finance sector in that you get a large pay packet at the end of the day. The NHS pay, as we all know, isn’t even comparable.
Why would you go in to a job knowing that if you want to leave in 3 years time (for whatever reason) you’re going to have to pay a huge %age of your wage. That would lead to people staying in a role they want to leave…
And the Human Rights, OMG can you imagine the Human RIghts??
You don’t have to leave due to pregnancy though - you take maternity and then make a decision - and if it’s too expensive you go back to work. What’s the point in doing years of training if you’re planning to get pregnant and leave the profession that quickly?
I wouldn’t set it at 5 years BTW, I would set it at 3.
And comparing it to Finance, I know that at my last company a fully-qualified CIMA Finance Analyst was on £28k when qualified, in central London. They had a 4 year diminishing fine starting at £12k.
I don’t know what nurses earn, but it can’t be that far off that.
Because maintenance costs money so is very difficult to make a profit from. Which is why it never got sold off.
My job is maintenance of an oil platform but to do that correctly i need to spend money on spares and equipment to maintain the life of the platform. The accountants inevitably go for three quotes and buy the cheapest part closest to what I had requested it normally does not fit, is not suitable to be installed, or is just plain wrong. Wasted money and eventually they buy the part I originally asked for 6 months late shipping it by airfreight because it has now become urgent to get offshore more wasted money.
Can a mod just cut and paste this in the annoyance thread
I’ll just add a couple of points to this. Not sure if it advances the Discourse.
I source a lot of private medical cover for clients through traditional insurers like your Bupa’s of this world, setting up private healthcare trusts and self-funding.
Key is that it doesn’t cover acute cases as the NHS is best for emergencies. Cancer, cardiac and brain stuff is also better or perhaps more reliably treated on NHS (though private cancer treatment is available as it allows access to certain drugs not funded by NHS). Private cover won’t touch chronic conditions either.
A lot of NHS consultants also do private care, even treating a lot of cases in private wing in NHS hospitals (as well as private hospitals)
What you are effectively left with is private healthcare allowing people to jump NHS waiting lists and getting a nicer room away from the rabble and maybe free tea & coffee and maybe some fresh flowers in your room…those that can’t afford it suffer for longer before being most likely treated by the same consultant on the NHS.
I think what I’m trying to say is that private healthcare only want to offer the treatments that will make the most money with the least likelihood of complications and potential litigation if things go wrong (I’m not speaking for those that provide the actual care). Unless the Govt make it possible to extract profit providing all healthcare risk free in the UK then private companies will stick to only what they are good at…
Edit: sorry, meant to add, under private medical insurance you often have limits to treatment e.g. a set level of funding, maximum number of days for certain types of treatment or number of sessions (e.g. counselling or physio). After that if treatment is still needed you can maybe self-fund or transition back to the NHS, which is arguably where you could have started if the health system hadn’t been fucked up…