Budget will cost 1.3m jobs - Treasury

[Guest alex]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

Correct, it's all NHS consultants and ex-NHS nurses etc.

Edited June 30, 2010 by alex

[Geordieracer 0]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Geordieracer

[Renton 22001]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

On a nationwide level, it's crazy to suggest that a privately run company like BUPA is run more efficiently than the NHS, the beaurocracy is much worse. And as you say, they have the benefits of creaming off NHS staff, and selecting the population they're willing to treat. If you look at the US, which obviously uses extensive third party insurance coverage, you can see it is not only massively inequitable, it's massively inefficient as well. I've posted it before but this graph says it all.

 

[Guest alex]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

Depends on the treatment though.

[Renton 22001]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Well it was 18 weeks until last week, now it's an indefinite wait. But yes, good for you if you can afford it, the Tories will be wanting as many people as possible to follow in your footsteps and screw those who can't afford to. (That's not meant as a dig at you btw).

[NJS 4411]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Despite being a preachy lefty, I know I'm a hypocrite at a personal level having spent my working life in two industries I generally abhor (Personal financial services and banking) but I do take a moral stance in not having signed up for the company BUPA scheme. Maybe if I did get something nasty or if I had a family I'd reconsider but it's a line I never want to cross.

[Geordieracer 0]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Despite being a preachy lefty, I know I'm a hypocrite at a personal level having spent my working life in two industries I generally abhor (Personal financial services and banking) but I do take a moral stance in not having signed up for the company BUPA scheme. Maybe if I did get something nasty or if I had a family I'd reconsider but it's a line I never want to cross.

 

Fair enough - a man of principles - I however have very few and take a pragmatic approach to these things. Why wait longer for something you can get done (at arguably a better standard) in the shorter term.

 

I also have a jaded view of the NHS due to a very bad family experience.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Geordieracer

[Geordieracer 0]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Well it was 18 weeks until last week, now it's an indefinite wait. But yes, good for you if you can afford it, the Tories will be wanting as many people as possible to follow in your footsteps and screw those who can't afford to. (That's not meant as a dig at you btw).

 

No worries - and i feel for those who have to rely solely on the NHS I don't however have enough empathy to forgo BUPA for NHS treatment.

[Renton 22001]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Despite being a preachy lefty, I know I'm a hypocrite at a personal level having spent my working life in two industries I generally abhor (Personal financial services and banking) but I do take a moral stance in not having signed up for the company BUPA scheme. Maybe if I did get something nasty or if I had a family I'd reconsider but it's a line I never want to cross.

 

Fair enough - a man of principles - I however have very few and take a pragmatic approach to these things. Why wait longer for something you can get done (at arguably a better standard) in the shorter term.

 

I also have a jaded view of the NHS due to a very bad family experience.

 

Whereas I have only had good experiences, and a lot, lot, more than one I might add. Anecdotes are pointless though, the facts should speak for themselves. BUPA won't cover you for a lot of things as well.

[Renton 22001]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Well it was 18 weeks until last week, now it's an indefinite wait. But yes, good for you if you can afford it, the Tories will be wanting as many people as possible to follow in your footsteps and screw those who can't afford to. (That's not meant as a dig at you btw).

 

No worries - and i feel for those who have to rely solely on the NHS I don't however have enough empathy to forgo BUPA for NHS treatment.

 

Don't 'feel' for me, honestly. The service I and my family have personally received has been brilliant.

[Geordieracer 0]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.

 

Agreed. I'd still rather use them for treatment though. Wait for 6-12 months for an op on my nose or go through BUPA via work and get it done in 3 weeks (granted by the same surgeon) in a clean, comfortable environment.

 

Easy choice.

 

Well it was 18 weeks until last week, now it's an indefinite wait. But yes, good for you if you can afford it, the Tories will be wanting as many people as possible to follow in your footsteps and screw those who can't afford to. (That's not meant as a dig at you btw).

 

No worries - and i feel for those who have to rely solely on the NHS I don't however have enough empathy to forgo BUPA for NHS treatment.

 

Don't 'feel' for me, honestly. The service I and my family have personally received has been brilliant.

 

That came out slightly wanky - apologies. As you say though individual experiences will vary wildly.

[ewerk 31203]

I've been paying the bastards for the last two years without having to use them. Probably best not to complain though.

 

I'd like to see a law introduced that all doctors, nurses and dentists have to work for the NHS for ten years post-qualification. It would probably contravene some EU law though and I'm not sure whether it's the people with less than ten years experience that are moving to the private sector.

Edited June 30, 2010 by ewerk

[ChezGiven 0]

Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

How do you know this?

 

I started my banking career managing public sector clients and in particular NHS Trusts (heavy deposits to be had) and the level of middle management they had (even at small trusts) was absurd. I was often sat in a meeting with their finance teams and they'd have more managers than you could poke a stick at and often I would have trouble understanding what they actually did. Their non medical pay rolls were often phenomenal and oustripped the medical staff.

Forgive me for not accepting that as evidence that the cost of non-medical management costs outstrips medical labour costs across the NHS. Its blatantly bollocks.

 

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/101...ve_targets.html

 

"Management costs now stand at £1.85bn"

 

Management has to spend the rest of the £120bn of the budget that isnt spent on themselves. I'd say good managers are in short supply.

[Kitman 2207]

Sounds like it's back to the bread line Britain of the 1980's.

 

However sounds like something had to be done and Labour weren't going to do it....it's probably quite smart to live beyond your means, knowing someone else has to pick up the tab, and will get the blame for sorting it out.

 

What's difficult to tell from this remove is whether the scale of the cuts is warranted or just politically driven. Could anything decent be recovered from privatising the banks bailed out during the GFC?

[peasepud 59]

Despite being a preachy lefty, I know I'm a hypocrite at a personal level having spent my working life in two industries I generally abhor (Personal financial services and banking) but I do take a moral stance in not having signed up for the company BUPA scheme. Maybe if I did get something nasty or if I had a family I'd reconsider but it's a line I never want to cross.

 

Im sorry but I dont understand that morale stance?

 

You can afford (I assume) to take advantage of a subbsidised company scheme that will get you and your family treated should something happen yet you choose to not take advantage of that as some kind of stance?

 

Its not like you're saying you're paying the money to the NHS instead, what you're technically doing is adding to the burden of the NHS by using it (dont get me wrong its something you're more than entitled to as you've paid your NI for it). I just dont go with the "Im standing up for the NHS" logic. Its the equivalent of using a free soup kitchen instead of going to Ramsays.

 

*Thats not a dig btw although Im sure it reads that way, its just not a view I understand. Dont sign upto BUPA because you dont want to/ are willing to take the chance etc but its not some "power to the people" stance.

[NJS 4411]

PP:

 

I don't see your view as a dig though I don't agree.

 

My view is its a matter of conscience - I honestly would feel extermely uncomfortable using their service as private healthcare and education are probably the two aspects of modern society I disagree with most. The actual membership for me is "free" (you pay a subsidised rate for family members) but that doesn't mean its more attractive. The idea that if I did use it, I would be somehow saving NHS resources actually puts me off the idea more than making it attractive.

 

Of course it's not a choice but I'd rather have the premium as salary.

[Anth 113]

I work for a local Authority in the North East and out of the 7000 non school posts, 1000 are getting the chop. Bugger!

[peasepud 59]

PP:

 

I don't see your view as a dig though I don't agree.

 

My view is its a matter of conscience - I honestly would feel extermely uncomfortable using their service as private healthcare and education are probably the two aspects of modern society I disagree with most. The actual membership for me is "free" (you pay a subsidised rate for family members) but that doesn't mean its more attractive. The idea that if I did use it, I would be somehow saving NHS resources actually puts me off the idea more than making it attractive.

 

Of course it's not a choice but I'd rather have the premium as salary.

 

If everyone such as yourself who was entitled to private healthcare took it up and that freed up 100 beds per day* in NHS hospitals would that not be a better thing for the country though?

 

 

 

*totally made up figure not to be quoted by CT as a good thing done by the current government.

[Christmas Tree 4827]

PP:

 

I don't see your view as a dig though I don't agree.

 

My view is its a matter of conscience - I honestly would feel extermely uncomfortable using their service as private healthcare and education are probably the two aspects of modern society I disagree with most. The actual membership for me is "free" (you pay a subsidised rate for family members) but that doesn't mean its more attractive. The idea that if I did use it, I would be somehow saving NHS resources actually puts me off the idea more than making it attractive.

 

Of course it's not a choice but I'd rather have the premium as salary.

 

If everyone such as yourself who was entitled to private healthcare took it up and that freed up 100 beds per day* in NHS hospitals would that not be a better thing for the country though?

 

 

 

*totally made up figure not to be quoted by CT as a good thing done by the current government.

 

[NJS 4411]

If everyone such as yourself who was entitled to private healthcare took it up and that freed up 100 beds per day* in NHS hospitals would that not be a better thing for the country though?

 

At some level yes - but I think the division it sets up where the people who can afford healthcare (or education) get the good stuff and the rest are left with a begrudged token effort as the US seems to be like is a much greater wrong in my opinion.

 

I don't suppose there are many people like me though - people I work with are generally happy to take advantage and I don't hate them for it - it's just not for me.

 

As I originally said as well, being an honest human if something did crop up I'd probably go for it but I wouldn't use it for something "trivial" - I had a problem with my sinuses a couple of years ago which nearly went as far as getting them drilled but I was happy with the excellent service I got from my GP/local hospital.

[peasepud 59]

I can understand the view but at the same time I dont agree with it however Ive never been that political anyway.

 

It does highlight something though, if a company is willing to offer private healthcare to its employees then something should be paid to the NHS for those that opt out. At the end of the day that free provision is replacing some wages, if it wasnt there then you'd probably have a bigger pay packet and therefore would have paid more National Insurace to go towards the NHS.

 

Basically what Im saying is you're a leech NJS, you're not paying your full subs yet you want the benefits..........................you twat.

 

 

[Kitman 2207]

I can understand the view but at the same time I dont agree with it however Ive never been that political anyway.

 

It does highlight something though, if a company is willing to offer private healthcare to its employees then something should be paid to the NHS for those that opt out. At the end of the day that free provision is replacing some wages, if it wasnt there then you'd probably have a bigger pay packet and therefore would have paid more National Insurace to go towards the NHS.

 

Basically what Im saying is you're a leech NJS, you're not paying your full subs yet you want the benefits..........................you twat.

 

 

 

What the UK needs is more tax inspectors to raise enough to pay for the whole damn party

[NJS 4411]

I can understand the view but at the same time I dont agree with it however Ive never been that political anyway.

 

It does highlight something though, if a company is willing to offer private healthcare to its employees then something should be paid to the NHS for those that opt out. At the end of the day that free provision is replacing some wages, if it wasnt there then you'd probably have a bigger pay packet and therefore would have paid more National Insurace to go towards the NHS.

 

Basically what Im saying is you're a leech NJS, you're not paying your full subs yet you want the benefits..........................you twat.

 

 

 

 

I used to work for someone who argued that as he'd opted out of the NHS and state education for his kids, he should pay less tax to avoid paying for both - I suggested he go the whole hog and contract out all aspects of "society" including the emergency services.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Tories harboured plans to at least think about the healthcare/NHS angle.

 

 

(And btw, sounding like a complete Tory twat I'd guess I pay more NI than most on here )

[Geordieracer 0]

Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

How do you know this?

 

I started my banking career managing public sector clients and in particular NHS Trusts (heavy deposits to be had) and the level of middle management they had (even at small trusts) was absurd. I was often sat in a meeting with their finance teams and they'd have more managers than you could poke a stick at and often I would have trouble understanding what they actually did. Their non medical pay rolls were often phenomenal and oustripped the medical staff.

Forgive me for not accepting that as evidence that the cost of non-medical management costs outstrips medical labour costs across the NHS. Its blatantly bollocks.

 

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/101...ve_targets.html

 

"Management costs now stand at £1.85bn"

 

Management has to spend the rest of the £120bn of the budget that isnt spent on themselves. I'd say good managers are in short supply.

 

I said payroll not costs. The point I was making is that the level of middle management was too high and there are clear synergies to be made.

[Guest alex]

Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

How do you know this?

 

I started my banking career managing public sector clients and in particular NHS Trusts (heavy deposits to be had) and the level of middle management they had (even at small trusts) was absurd. I was often sat in a meeting with their finance teams and they'd have more managers than you could poke a stick at and often I would have trouble understanding what they actually did. Their non medical pay rolls were often phenomenal and oustripped the medical staff.

Forgive me for not accepting that as evidence that the cost of non-medical management costs outstrips medical labour costs across the NHS. Its blatantly bollocks.

 

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/101...ve_targets.html

 

"Management costs now stand at £1.85bn"

 

Management has to spend the rest of the £120bn of the budget that isnt spent on themselves. I'd say good managers are in short supply.

 

I said payroll not costs. The point I was making is that the level of middle management was too high and there are clear synergies to be made.

Still sounds way out. A huge portion of the NHS spending would still be staff costs. If management 'only' accounts for £1.85b there's no way it can outstrip medical labour costs, I'd have thought.