[Dillydilly]

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

Of course it's a business, they recieve their income from patients lists and additional money from securing contracts from the PCT e.g sexual health. Profits are then spread across partners after payment of salaries etc. All GP partners are paid gross wages p.month and their tax payments are submitted as any other business owner would. How did you think they made money? They are certainly not paid a direct salary from the government. Every patient and every health incentive/target creates income incentive for practices which is putting money back (at 40%-50%) into the Government coffers. Therefore it could only be classified as a business.

[Kinkerz]

(Original post by Jamie)
What ramifications.

Further public animosity primarily.

The government has shown time and time and again they don't give a crap what the public think.

Don't see your point.

[Dillydilly]

Can we just clarify that three years ago under Labour Doctors' pension contributions were increased by 9.3% - no strike was called, Doctors (reluctant or not) accepted that they had to pay these additional contributions. Fast-forward and they are again being expected to increase their payments by an additional 3%. It is simply unfair, again I repeat the point re: TV presenters paid by The BBC hundreds of thousands of public money to commentate on sport. From a PSB broadcaster who generates an additional commercial profit through its BBC Worldwide company and pays its employees bonuses in Love To Shop vouchers - thousands of them! The BBC et al don't seem to be focusing on this as much as they are the Doctors strike - i wonder why? I bet Paxman is paid more than any hospital consultant. Now who do I think really deserves my money? Is it Tess Daley or the person who trained 10 years+ to save lives, work terrible shifts and all they want from life is good pay and a decent retirement? I really think that irrespective of the big squeeze on society there are so many obvious issues with where the Gov chooses to spend tax payers' money. I really do think all this public sector bashing is terrible. How could any of you really argue against people who are working hard every day. So what it isn't cleaning loos but it is work and everybody who works is entitled to be recompensed and respected for the contribution they make big or small.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Kinkerz)
Further public animosity primarily.


Don't see your point.

Does it matter if the public hate us or support us.

They hate the tube strikes by train drivers but I'm sure those guys sleep fine at night and get paid handsomely for it.

[Publius]

(Original post by Jamie)
So why are you generalising all GPs as vicious incompetent idiots as displayed in your posts above?

I'm not, there are of course many very good GP's, but that doesn't negate the fact that the best, most dynamic doctors for the most part are not going to go into general practice, and that general practitioners in general are making big mistakes with what they're prescribing.

(Original post by Chiko 1001)
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.

You have completely misread what was written, i was questioning the other apparent doctor poster 'jamie' who said that benzo's were effective for treating back pain, and are used as such. So if the two doctors on here have both directly contradicted each other, what does that add to the original question i posed about the fallibility of doctors?

I have provided more evidence for my claims than anyone else has to support there. I really cannot be arsed to continually argue with sanctimonious doctors that obviously cannot view anything objectively, contradict each other, and put words in my mouth by making incorrect assumptions.

[Kinkerz]

(Original post by Jamie)
Does it matter if the public hate us or support us.

They hate the tube strikes by train drivers but I'm sure those guys sleep fine at night and get paid handsomely for it.

Politicians win votes in part by emphasising points in their potential policies that they think the public will lap up. If doctors are disliked by the public, improving the working lives of doctors is not going to be a point likely to gain politicians' support in the future. More importantly, public dislike for doctors is going to spread through to the way they approach consultations and the doctor-patient relationship will suffer.

To the public, doctors look like tantrum-throwing money-grabbers who consider themselves impervious to the current economic turmoil (whether true or not). I'm uncomfortable about that and I'm not sure a strike is a wise thing at this point despite the immense frustration that doctors must be feeling.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Publius)
You have completely misread what was written, i was questioning the other apparent doctor poster 'jamie' who said that benzo's were effective for treating back pain, and are used as such. So if the two doctors on here have both directly contradicted each other, what does that add to the original question i posed about the fallibility of doctors?

I have provided more evidence for my claims than anyone else has to support there. I really cannot be arsed to continually argue with sanctimonious doctors that obviously cannot view anything objectively, contradict each other, and put words in my mouth by making incorrect assumptions.

Except one is a qualified doctor of some seniority, and the other is a medical student.

Providing fantastic evidence for the assertion that people like yourself will quote anyone and anything as being 'the doctors'.

I would suggest you peruse the 3 links I added which are from well respected NHS linked websites, all of which mention the use of diazepam in the treatment of acute muscular back pain.

[M4LLY]

I'm going to stay in bed all day, just to be on the safe side

[diggy]

Doctors striking is so uncommon it basically negates their duty of care

You gotta do what you gotta do i guess was

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by Kinkerz)
I've said I agree that there's more to it than just pension value in previous posts. But it seems unlikely to me that the mainstream media are going to display it as such. I mean, look at this Daily Mail article, whose audience arguably makes up most of the patient body in the UK. My point is simply: Is 'striking' a good idea? Will it make any positive difference? Are the likely ramifications worth it?

Last week I looked up each major newspaper outlet talking about the strikes. Needless to say they were generally negative. However, what was more interesting was the comments. Even in the Daily Mail, people were generally very supportive (unfortunately you can't see the comments anymore - for some reason). Talking to the patients I look after on a day to day basis - they're supportive too.

So regarding loss of public opinion i) I don't think it will happen beyond a few blowhards in the media ii)If they do, they will forget about it in a few months, just as they did with the nurses strike (one question time audience member had the audacity to suggest that doctors should follow the nurses footsteps and not strike!) iii)Even if we do, overall, lose public opinion, so what? The doctor-patient relationship will still be maintained by personal affability like it always has.

As for the strike itself, what else can we do? It may not lead to anything, but otherwise we are just giving the signal that we'll lie down and take a 5% tax for no reason. By doing nothing, we just open the way for more unilateral decisions next time the government decides it needs to cut the deficit.

[ThisLittlePiggy]

For me the strikes are not about the money but rather the fairness of the whole thing.I am a big one for justice and the changes that are being made are simply not fair.

If Doctors are to be expected to contribute more why not the other top paid civil servants?

The reason is because they knew we would hardly complain and we would take it but that if if we did they could turn this to their advantage and slur our profession for years to come - damaging the trust the public have in the profession and thus weakening our influence as an advocate for our patients in health care reform.

Lawyers, politicians and other public sector workers, especially the well paid ones, are already held in low esteem by the public and there is nothing to gain by aggravating them to strike - and strike they would for they,unlike us, people would not suffer in such as would occur in a total withdrawal of service in the NHS.

The pension deal was only recently negotiated, generates money, and was good as it meant that by and large elderly Doctors would not be forced to work at an age where it would be detrimental to optimal patient care and patient's health.

-TLP

[Deeduldum]

This Little Piggy, Do you know how much the state pension is in the UK? £6000 a year. So I'm sure retired doctors can struggle by on the £68,000 pension the government is offering them or a large fraction of it if they choose not to work the final few years. Many hospital doctors will also supplement this state provision with private pension arrangements fuelled by their private work on top of their NHS salary. Getting a pension anything like ten times the basic state pension seems pretty 'fair' to me.

[Captain Crash]

(Original post by Deeduldum)
This Little Piggy, Do you know how much the state pension is in the UK? £6000 a year. So I'm sure retired doctors can struggle by on the £68,000 pension the government is offering them or a large fraction of it if they choose not to work the final few years. Many hospital doctors will also supplement this state provision with private pension arrangements fuelled by their private work on top of their NHS salary. Getting a pension anything like ten times the basic state pension seems pretty 'fair' to me.

You do realise that doctors already pay enough to cover final salary pensions? This industrial action isn't about pension amounts as such. It's about making us pay more for less when the pension scheme was self-sustaining and subsidising the tax payer to the tune of £2bn per annum anyway. Meanwhile MPs and Civil servants see their better pensions sustained at a much lower contribution rate.

What the reforms essentially amount to is a 5% income tax solely placed on doctors. That's why we're going to industrial action.

[Deeduldum]

(Original post by Captain Crash)
You do realise that doctors already pay enough to cover final salary pensions? This industrial action isn't about pension amounts as such. It's about making us pay more for less when the pension scheme was self-sustaining and subsidising the tax payer to the tune of £2bn per annum anyway. Meanwhile MPs and Civil servants see their better pensions sustained at a much lower contribution rate.

What the reforms essentially amount to is a 5% income tax solely placed on doctors. That's why we're going to industrial action.

Where do you think those salary contributions come from to make up the pension pot that's so full - salaries funded by the tax payer.

[ThisLittlePiggy]

(Original post by Deeduldum)
This Little Piggy, Do you know how much the state pension is in the UK? £6000 a year. So I'm sure retired doctors can struggle by on the £68,000 pension the government is offering them or a large fraction of it if they choose not to work the final few years. Many hospital doctors will also supplement this state provision with private pension arrangements fuelled by their private work on top of their NHS salary. Getting a pension anything like ten times the basic state pension seems pretty 'fair' to me.

It's not about Drs pensions versus all others.

It is about a deal that was only recently made, and which is being reneged upon so that the pot can be raided and the money used to cover past sins.

The pension plan generates money and is fair for the work done.

[Jamie]

(Original post by Deeduldum)
This Little Piggy, Do you know how much the state pension is in the UK? £6000 a year. So I'm sure retired doctors can struggle by on the £68,000 pension the government is offering them or a large fraction of it if they choose not to work the final few years. Many hospital doctors will also supplement this state provision with private pension arrangements fuelled by their private work on top of their NHS salary. Getting a pension anything like ten times the basic state pension seems pretty 'fair' to me.

I am not average nor basic. I did not have the average or basic education. I do not have the average or basic debt.
I do not pay the average amount of tax.
I do not take the average amount of sick days per year.

So why the hell should my pension always be compared to the average or the basic?

[Kinkerz]

(Original post by Jamie)
I am not average nor basic. I did not have the average or basic education. I do not have the average or basic debt.
I do not pay the average amount of tax.
I do not take the average amount of sick days per year.

So why the hell should my pension always be compared to the average or the basic?

Quite pithily said.

Unfortunate that the publicising of the situation hasn't presented things like this.

[ThisLittlePiggy]

(Original post by Jamie)
I am not average nor basic. I did not have the average or basic education. I do not have the average or basic debt.
I do not pay the average amount of tax.
I do not take the average amount of sick days per year.

So why the hell should my pension always be compared to the average or the basic?

Hear, hear!