[7589200]

(Original post by Carter78)
At the end of the day it's not the patient's fault that they shouldn't get a full-service of care on June 21st because doctor's want more pay. The army don't go around striking, and if anyone has a right to complain about under-funding, shi*ty working conditions and crappy pay then it's them.

In any strike its always the employers that are to blame, not the customers. Its kinda the whole point. If it was the customers, you'd just raise the prices/taxes lol

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Anyone can be greedy, regardless of profession. Damaging patients survival prospects so you can retire at 60 is just that.

So what you are saying is that they should shut up and be grateful? The point is that they are causing significant delays - not threatening lives.

Where did they grab £54,000 from? And not all doctors are highly paid consultants, thus blanketing all doctors in the same brackets is grossly unfair.

[Carter78]

(Original post by Vazzyb)
In any strike its always the employers that are to blame, not the customers. Its kinda the whole point. If it was the customers, you'd just raise the prices/taxes lol

There are ins and outs to every industrial dispute. The losers of this strike are undoubtedly the patients, they are not responsible for NHS policy yet will feel the full brunt of this strike action.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Publius)
How about you respect people on an individual basis, based on whether they actually deserve it or not?

So why are you generalising all GPs as vicious incompetent idiots as displayed in your posts above?

[Dillydilly]

Jeez, this country stuffs doctors' mouths with gold - are you for real! Firstly all GPs own their own businesses (their practice), that means a second business mortgage. Unlike the blessed private sector you seem to hold in high esteem (hail Tesco) they have no choice but to only get their business from the Government. The same Gov that demands high taxes off them, has already taken a pension rise from them and charges 50% on any earnings over a set amount. When we talk about waste in the NHS let us consider what is classed as 'medical' today. An average GP deals with issues like people 'quitting smoking'! Time wasting to the max, cost effective? No. How many patients visiting their Doctor before starting? Hmmmm none I bet. So the NHS is responsible for other rubbish like prescribing sun cream, yes people actually go to their GP for sun cream. The NHS is abused by patients and the Gov. For years GPs have had their power stripped away from th by Gov and The PCT. They invest money into their businesses and now on top of a previous pension hike they ignored they are being pushed again by the Gov. You cannot keep pushing those who pay out south already and not expect it to effect the services provided. The Gov should start having the courage to tackle the real issues facing our economy and stop picking on those who contribute (normally without complaint) so much.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[AspiringGenius]

Yeah Doctors have to do at least 5 years of medical school, 2 years of foundation and then any further training (>5 years I believe for GP) plus they have to complete ongoing training programmes and fitness to practice exams continually throughout their career.

They work very long shifts and deal with perhaps the most important aspect of our society. There is good reason why doctors earn sometimes >£100000 per annum and people who contribute so much to our society deserve a decent pension.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Dillydilly)
Jeez, this country stuffs doctors' mouths with gold - are you for real! Firstly all GPs own their own businesses (their practice), that means a second business mortgage. Unlike the blessed private sector you seem to hold in high esteem (hail Tesco) they have no choice but to only get their business from the Government. The same Gov that demands high taxes off them, has already taken a pension rise from them and charges 50% on any earnings over a set amount. When we talk about waste in the NHS let us consider what is classed as 'medical' today. An average GP deals with issues like people 'quitting smoking'! Time wasting to the max, cost effective? No. How many patients visiting their Doctor before starting? Hmmmm none I bet. So the NHS is responsible for other rubbish like prescribing sun cream, yes people actually go to their GP for sun cream. The NHS is abused by patients and the Gov. For years GPs have had their power stripped away from th by Gov and The PCT. They invest money into their businesses and now on top of a previous pension hike they ignored they are being pushed again by the Gov. You cannot keep pushing those who pay out south already and not expect it to effect the services provided. The Gov should start having the courage to tackle the real issues facing our economy and stop picking on those who contribute (normally without complaint) so much.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

a GP practice is not a business.

[Jamie]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Well, we both know that doctors have longer education times than pretty much all other careers, and that as doctors pay less than 100% income tax, their taxes don't even cover their own wages, let alone contributing to education etc. (the public sector's contribution to the economy is not a direct one, but rather exists in facilitating the private sector's contributions).

Words cannot express how badly your economics education has failed.
Everyone in the country who pays taxes contributes to health, education etc.
The taxes a doctor pays are not to cover their own salary, but the cost of THEIR healthcare and THEIR education.

Hell the whole basis of education is that it is a positive cycle. It increases the wealth of the nation leading to increased tax revenues, paying for the increased cost of education.

I said doctors pay for their own education in taxes and that is true. THe amount of tax revenue paid more than compensates for the schooling from age 5-18 (which you allude to in saying how the public pay for doctors to be educated for 20 years)

[Jamie]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
a GP practice is not a business.

Actually they are. They are independent practices subcontracted to the local health board. Their contracts stipulate the number of patients they see and what services they must provide. How much they can charge for any given service etc. Targets are set and a certain level of funds can only be recieved by meeting those targets (Set by DoH).
Some GPs have a pharmacy in their practice, which is owned and run by the doctors. They cannot overcharge however as tabs are kept by the local health board, and any fiddling is dealt with by cancelling of the contract.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Jamie)
Actually they are. They are independent practices subcontracted to the local health board. Their contracts stipulate the number of patients they see and what services they must provide. How much they can charge for any given service etc. Targets are set and a certain level of funds can only be recieved by meeting those targets (Set by DoH).
Some GPs have a pharmacy in their practice, which is owned and run by the doctors. They cannot overcharge however as tabs are kept by the local health board, and any fiddling is dealt with by cancelling of the contract.

:O! I should know that... (hangs head in shame)

[Jamie]

(Original post by Dillydilly)
Jeez, this country stuffs doctors' mouths with gold - are you for real! Firstly all GPs own their own businesses (their practice), that means a second business mortgage.

Only some GPs own their own practices. These are called GP partners (as in partners in business). they tend to be the most senior gps.
Other gps are called salaried gps which means they get a basic salar but no share in the business revenues.

Practice owning GPs technically get more money, but the extra work involved can be extremely large, covering other peoples days off etc such that it owrks out they get little pay for the extra work they do.

[Kinkerz]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Yeah Doctors have to do at least 5 years of medical school, 2 years of foundation and then any further training (>5 years I believe for GP) plus they have to complete ongoing training programmes and fitness to practice exams continually throughout their career.

They work very long shifts and deal with perhaps the most important aspect of our society. There is good reason why doctors earn sometimes >£100000 per annum and people who contribute so much to our society deserve a decent pension.

The world is in economic turmoil. Cuts are occurring all over. There is no reason for doctors not to be part of this. Plus, the pension that they'd get is well above the national average salary!

Doctors are in the top 1% or so of earners: it looks bad to the rest of the public (whose salaries, on average, are considerably less than that of doctors) when they start kicking up a fuss over a pension that is still pretty handsome and they already earn a lot of money. There are people who work much harder for much less.

The pensions alone is not a good enough reason to induce further public animosity (which, let's face it, will be the only result of this 'strike') as far as I'm concerned. The constellation of events that has lead to the strike over the previous years, I think, might be.

[Jamie]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
As to specific pay, I have not done nearly enough research to work out a new NHS pay scale. The way I would sort out pay is to privatise the hospitals under a mandatory national health insurance scheme, and let each one set the pay of their staff.

Pay for some consultants would reach several hundred thousand per year. Other places would struggle to pay more than £50k per year.
It would end up with a very harsh postcode lottery for patients as those with the most difficult local population struggle to pay for the services and for quality doctors.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Finally, the pension is guaranteed in that it is not subject to stock or share prices in the way private sector pensions are. The Government is changing it because it was initially unworkable. It is hardly the fault of the present government that the previous one put it in a position to be unable to pay these pensions, though perhaps this is the inherent risk in public sector pensions: when you put your money in, you assume Labour aren't lying to you.

Currently the NHS pension scheme is £2billion pounds in surplus every year. THat is to say £2billion pounds more is going in than coming out.
Sadly however that £2billion is not being built into some sort of war chest of investment like some massive sovereign wealth fund. Instead it goes into the government coffers. Hence why doctors are feeling that increasing contributions further amounts to a stealth tax.

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
On the retirement ages, they are protesting a move to 62, and really I'd imagine a 62 year old doing about as well as a 60 year old. Besides this, most of the older doctors are consultants, who tend to do more hands off, advisory jobs anyway.

You are plain wrong.
Normal retirement age in the 1995 section of the NHS Pension Scheme is age 60, and in the 2008 section of the NHS Pension Scheme, age 65. The newest one is 68.
Based on these increases the retirement for doctors by the time I retire in 2050 will likely be around 75-80.
You also have little idea about job plans and PAs for senior consultants.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Joinedup)
they do get to work for the private sector alongside their nhs jobs, and very lucrative it is I hear... Moonlighting as it's known in any other industries

this right to 'moonlight' was what they were on strike about back the 70s

Senior doctors can work elsewhere yes.

So if an NHS consultant is contracted to work 40 hours per week in the NHS they can spend the rest of their time doing as they please.

So if they want to spend the weekend with their family they can. If they want to spend their weekend performing operations, they can. If this impacts their NHS work that is a big no no and they can and have been struck off for this.

The chap who was on the apprentice a few years back (only doctor ever) was suspended and had GMC action because he was doing extra work shifts when he was already contracted to work.

[Jamie]

(Original post by navarre)
Yes, but that's part of the job description. You become a doctor to save lives (I am applying this year after my A levels), and yes, you should be given a good salary and pension, but that isn't why you should do it.

When you have a family, and want to provide for them you will learn to make more of a stand.
If i was just after money I wouldn't be an A&E doctor - arguably the hardest and worst paid of the specialties.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Publius)
Firstly, there are better ways of treating lower back pain and torticollis than benzos. And GP's have quite clearly shown themselves incapable of treating anxiety disorders, thus they should be referred to someone that knows what they're talking about.

Have to disagree with the pain management aspect. Thats from my experience as an emergency doctor, and working in pain medicine.
A short course of low dose benzos does wonders.

As for referring on anxiety disorder patients...to whom. Mental health services are a completel shambles with woefully low numbers of psychiatric doctors.

(Original post by Publius)
Rubbish, i'm yet to meet a distinguished specialist that does not quite clearly have a wider and more apt medical knowledge than your average GP.

I want to disagree with you but frankly I find the GP training system way too short and think it is harmful as a result. GPs disagree and they are a rather powerful bunch in the nhs. Tories have not helped by forcing a NHS shake up which gives power to the GPs (and none to hospitals. It is worth noting however that GPs were against this because mos of them know their limitations.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Publius)

As for asthma, i would say that it is you that is peddling fallacies: asthma is not contrary to popular belief an atopic condition, in fact this study:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/54/3/268.full

finds that the number of asthma cases attributable to atopy is less than one half. It is a problem when parents take their child to the doctors with a cough and come back with a load of inhalers. I have been told this is a problem by scientists that work specifically on lung function and diseases, and from what i've heard it definitely contributes. And of course i don't think it is the cause of asthma either (that was your assumption, not mine).

Publius your post a beautiful illustration of medical journalism. Dangerous interpretations of data that lead to incorrect conclusions.

You read that article and conclude that GPs are getting it wrong and as a result giving patients inhalers they don't need.

The article says nothing of the sort. It doesn't even imply it.

What the research you quoted says is that doctors (including respiratory) are likely over emphasising the role of atopy (allergies) in asthma. THe classical triad of asthma, atopy (such as hayfever ) and eczema is well known, as any medical student will tell you.
There are many different causes for asthma exacerbations and every asthma sufferer will usually identify a few. A dusty room, changes in weather, certain times of year, cold weather, exercise, viral infections.
Some of these are shown to be due to allergic type reactions. The article concludes that scientists and doctors appear to have over estimated how much of these asthma exacerbations are related to atopy versus other causes.

It does not debate tratment (over or under). Instead it concludes that this over estimation may mean that research is being over directed to atopy instead of other areas of asthma.

Regardless of the cause of the asthma the NICE and BTS guidelines for its treatment are quite clear, and its treatment by GPs is generally superb. The presence of clear guidelines and the so called treatment ladder are part of the reason for this.

I would be wary about making assertions about rather complex stuff using such phrases as "I have been told" and "I have heard".

[All Taken]

I'm an aspiring medic here, and I say good.

6 years medical training;
£9000 tuition fee per annum, £54k basic cost of training;
average F1 salary of £22K, rises to £27K for F2- really nowhere near what most people think.

Under the new pension scheme, a medic has to pay approximately £200,000 more into their pensions, for a worse pension plan;
A lot would need to work until 68 years of age (preposterous).

Speciality doctors make between £36-70K a year, and its only the consultants who are into the right speciality, and are in the right place at the right time, which have a 100K basic salary.

Doctors sit all these additional exams of practice until the second part of the leaving exams in their respective specialities (such as the MRCOG part 2); which people can end up doing only once in their 30s or 40s due to other family commitments.

It is a noble profession, and one where you cannot really screw up- too many complaints and you're struck from the General Medical Council and are out of a job.

I personally know people who did a 3 year Economics course with a starting package of over 55K per year. Doctors aren't your main concern.

Funny part is:

1. It is not a "strike".

2. They're not asking for a raise, just for the government not to take away a sustainable, well established pension plan for the medics which was established in 2008. The vast majority of doctors don't earn gold, and should just be treated fairly, and I believe with a bit more respect from the government (not to mention the most pseudo-intellectual, piece of crap reforms this country's NHS has EVER seen).

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details...lt.aspx?Id=553

http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advic...ml?id=20002305

[Chiko 1001]

(Original post by Publius)
Firstly, there are better ways of treating lower back pain and torticollis than benzos. And GP's have quite clearly shown themselves incapable of treating anxiety disorders, thus they should be referred to someone that knows what they're talking about.

Rubbish, i'm yet to meet a distinguished specialist that does not quite clearly have a wider and more apt medical knowledge than your average GP.

I'm sorry, but benzo addiction has been caused by negligent prescribing: many GPs simply don't know how damaging they can be, and use them to treat a myriad of things for which there could be better alternatives. Benzo withdrawal is particularly nasty, so although it may not be as much of a national health problem as fat people, it is still a substantial one, that was entirely self-created and that ruins young peoples lives (thus particularly damaging to everyone). I have witnessed how easily these things are given away when they are not needed, and how unaware the recipients are of the associated dangers. To add to this GP's are now prescribing zopiclone as a 'non-addictive' substitute for benzodiazepines, when in fact it could be more addictive than any of them.

As for asthma, i would say that it is you that is peddling fallacies: asthma is not contrary to popular belief an atopic condition, in fact this study:

http://thorax.bmj.com/content/54/3/268.full

finds that the number of asthma cases attributable to atopy is less than one half. It is a problem when parents take their child to the doctors with a cough and come back with a load of inhalers. I have been told this is a problem by scientists that work specifically on lung function and diseases, and from what i've heard it definitely contributes. And of course i don't think it is the cause of asthma either (that was your assumption, not mine).

Overprescription is a problem whether you want to believe it or not.

Back pain: I have never in my life seen or heard of a GP give benzos for back pain. Nor is it what medical students are taught. It doesn't even come up. I'm sorry if you've encountered a renegade. Back pain is treated with physio, mobilisation and NSAIDs. Not benzos. Your accusation does not apply to the vast majority, like it or not. And no GP would give zopiclone for back pain, it's a bloody sedative not a painkiller. I don't know where this information is coming from but frankly it is bull**** in its entirety. Benzos are hypnotics, they ease anxiety, they are not used as painkillers in the population at large. In hospital perhaps, where it's helpful to have a patient woozy for a while, but they don't replace co-codamol and ibuprofen in primary care. For big accidents where you need a heavy whack then grand, but again that's a hospital thing. Week long courses of benzos for pain is not going to create armies of addicts.

Specialists would struggle to comment on things outwith their speciality at any length. I see more of them than you. I work with them all day every day. They do what they love and they call other specialists about the rest. That's why they're specialists. They have no more knowledge than GPs in anything else. Why would they? They go straight into specialist training at the same time GPs leave for GP land. You have rose tinted glasses my friend.

One study does not prove a damn thing against what goes into deciding standard medical training. The opinion of endless specialists is that atopy and asthma are seen together more often than not. Providing us with a review paper from 1999 says nothing against the knowledge that asthma is a condition caused by heightened immune response. The paper didn't try to question that! More to the point I don't get why you're so eager to tell us asthma isn't atopic.. it's still immune, and it's still treated with inhalers. The overwhelming majority of children going to a GP with a cough get told it'll be fine on its own. They get inhalers if they have indications of asthma- a pattern of obstructive spirometry, worse with cold/dust/other identifiable triggers, and family history. An atopic picture is often present with the patient or their family. Don't believe me? Actually sit in a clinic for a few weeks and let your pattern recognition sort you out.

I am yet to see a single one of your arguments backed up by anything more substantial than personal opinion, which you have proved yourself to be meaningless given your number of misunderstandings.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Kinkerz)
The world is in economic turmoil. Cuts are occurring all over. There is no reason for doctors not to be part of this. Plus, the pension that they'd get is well above the national average salary!

Doctors are in the top 1% or so of earners: it looks bad to the rest of the public (whose salaries, on average, are considerably less than that of doctors) when they start kicking up a fuss over a pension that is still pretty handsome and they already earn a lot of money. There are people who work much harder for much less.

The pensions alone is not a good enough reason to induce further public animosity (which, let's face it, will be the only result of this 'strike') as far as I'm concerned. The constellation of events that has lead to the strike over the previous years, I think, might be.

I would go so far as to say Doctors earn in the top % because they invest so much of their time and energy into their job. they are probably in the top % of the country in terms of committment to proffession.

You could argue the end of any strike is public animosity, but this is about letting the government know that people won't take these cuts blind down. Doctors have just as much right to strike as anybody else experiencing cuts to their work/pension induced by the government.