Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    so what about vets?
    Due to the lack of places on vetinary courses I would prefer if they were encouraged to also repay the public in a similr way to dentists and doctors. Im not really 100% sure if vets have to practise publically before they are allowed to go into the private sector though?!? :confused:

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Due to the lack of places on vetinary courses I would prefer if they were encouraged to also repay the public in a similr way to dentists and doctors. Im not really 100% sure if vets have to practise publically before they are allowed to go into the private sector though?!? :confused:
    how exactly would they practise publicly? clip corgi toenails for free?

    rosie
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    how exactly would they practise publicly? clip corgi toenails for free?

    rosie
    Have a period of service with the RSPCA or similar minimal profit organisation. Considering thier future earning potential I don't think that a year is too much to ask.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Have a period of service with the RSPCA or similar minimal profit organisation. Considering thier future earning potential I don't think that a year is too much to ask.
    so what about doctors working privately for hospitals like the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth in London where all the profits of the hospital go to supporting their hospice?

    rosie
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    so what about doctors working privately for hospitals like the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth in London where all the profits of the hospital go to supporting their hospice?

    rosie
    That depends on your point of view, in my estimation they are not public hospitals because (as far as I am aware) you have to actually pay to be treated. I would personally say that this is the private sector but to be honest it would be up to the people who instigate the changes that I am proposing to decide what constitutes a private or public sector hospital, vets etc...

    (Original post by Leekey)
    That depends on your point of view, in my estimation they are not public hospitals because (as far as I am aware) you have to actually pay to be treated. I would personally say that this is the private sector but to be honest it would be up to the people who instigate the changes that I am proposing to decide what constitutes a private or public sector hospital, vets etc...
    so why exactly does it make a difference whether a vet is paid by the RSPCA or directly by the pet owners? The RSPCA is not public either.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    The RSPCA is not public either.
    Opps, my bad!!! I assume it was, the whole point of my idea is that the govenment are not putting public funds (in the form of course costs) into providing the private sector with skilled professionals that the public sector is in desperate need of. Im not sure of the in's and out's of the vetinary profession so I find that one hard to use as an example but surely you see the logic behind the idea for dentists and doctors?!? :confused:

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Opps, my bad!!! I assume it was, the whole point of my idea is that the govenment are not putting public funds (in the form of course costs) into providing the private sector with skilled professionals that the public sector is in desperate need of. Im not sure of the in's and out's of the vetinary profession so I find that one hard to use as an example but surely you see the logic behind the idea for dentists and doctors?!? :confused:
    however doctors are still serving people as in making them healthy whoever pays them.

    in fact don't the NHS occasionally pay for people to have their op's etc privately when they have been waiting toooo long? like they sent some people to France too

    so I don't think it matters who you work for, if the public sector want you, they have to try and entice you to work for them...

    I think if you were to have it that everyone has to pay back their education like that, it should be the same for everyone, regardless of if their degree is popular or not. It's only fair!

    In case you haven't noticed, we all pay for our education and that of our children (although, granted, a person who spends most of their life living on benefits does not really contribute much, and some people e.g. doctors do take a lot mroe to educate) - we pay tax on what we earn! And (supposedly) in general the more educated earn more, so pay more tax.

    There isn't some mystical being in the sky generously paying for our education - we pay for it ourselves!

    Rosie
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    however doctors are still serving people as in making them healthy whoever pays them.

    in fact don't the NHS occasionally pay for people to have their op's etc privately when they have been waiting toooo long? like they sent some people to France too

    so I don't think it matters who you work for, if the public sector want you, they have to try and entice you to work for them...

    I think if you were to have it that everyone has to pay back their education like that, it should be the same for everyone, regardless of if their degree is popular or not. It's only fair!

    In case you haven't noticed, we all pay for our education and that of our children (although, granted, a person who spends most of their life living on benefits does not really contribute much, and some people e.g. doctors do take a lot mroe to educate) - we pay tax on what we earn! And (supposedly) in general the more educated earn more, so pay more tax.

    There isn't some mystical being in the sky generously paying for our education - we pay for it ourselves!

    Rosie
    Thankyou for the economics lesson, now would you suggest to me how you think a doctor (even at their level of income) can repay the £50k that it cost to get him there, keeping in mind that his taxes not only pay for that education but also the additional things that we ALL (regardless of education) pay for on a rolling basis?!? Do you seriously think that the tax people pay actually equates to the level that the government has spent on them?!? :confused:

    The point you raised about the NHS having to pay for private treatment and having to send patients abroad only served to sustain my argument that more needs to be done to ensure that the doctors we do train are kept in the public sector for the public good.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Thankyou for the economics lesson, now would you suggest to me how you think a doctor (even at their level of income) can repay the £50k that it cost to get him there, keeping in mind that his taxes not only pay for that education but also the additional things that we ALL (regardless of education) pay for on a rolling basis?!? Do you seriously think that the tax people pay actually equates to the level that the government has spent on them?!? :confused:

    The point you raised about the NHS having to pay for private treatment and having to send patients abroad only served to sustain my argument that more needs to be done to ensure that the doctors we do train are kept in the public sector for the public good.
    well duh
    the tax people pay (as a whole) OBVIOUSLY equates to how much the government has spent on their education PLUS their healthcare PLUS everything else....

    How is it AGAINST the public good for patients to be treated by doctors, regardless of NHS/private? If they want more doctors to work in the NHS, they need to improve conditions/pay/benefits as they are doing in other jobs. I don't see why doctors should be forced to spend x years working for the NHS when you don't think teachers should!

    What about people who complete all their medical training etc then decide not to be a doctor? maybe they go and have a family instead? Would you force them to work for the x years to pay back their education?

    I understand your argument but it's horribly inconsistent.

    Rosie
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    well duh
    the tax people pay (as a whole) OBVIOUSLY equates to how much the government has spent on their education PLUS their healthcare PLUS everything else....

    How is it AGAINST the public good for patients to be treated by doctors, regardless of NHS/private? If they want more doctors to work in the NHS, they need to improve conditions/pay/benefits as they are doing in other jobs. I don't see why doctors should be forced to spend x years working for the NHS when you don't think teachers should!

    What about people who complete all their medical training etc then decide not to be a doctor? maybe they go and have a family instead? Would you force them to work for the x years to pay back their education?

    I understand your argument but it's horribly inconsistent.

    Rosie
    I think you used the term equates when you actually intended "is proportional to", equates would imply equal to and therefore you would be suggesting that the figures balance (i.e. you pay for what you have had), this is clearly not the case and I would hope you would grasp that.

    I never suggested that it is against the public good for people to be treated. I suggested that it was not in the public's good for doctors to be entering the private sector when waiting lists are already (by your own admission) rediculous and we are struggling to care for our own people. These are people that pay taxes too and surely the government should be trying to ensure that both themselves and the peoples they represent are getting thier money's worth from the students that the PEOPLE of the nation are funding through thier taxes. Are the masses not being charged twice if the students they pay to educate are entering the private sector and charging them again for something that is everyone's human right?

    People being trained in medicine and not going into it (or a related field) at least for a limited time should IMO be penalised in someway because they have effectively had the government provide the financial support for them to do something that HUNDREDS of other would kill for the opportunity to do, then denied the country thier expertise. I wouldn't have a problem if medicine was widely available but it is not, therefore we should ensure that those that we do train are totally commited to the subject and profession.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    I think you used the term equates when you actually intended "is proportional to", equates would imply equal to and therefore you would be suggesting that the figures balance (i.e. you pay for what you have had), this is clearly not the case and I would hope you would grasp that.

    I never suggested that it is against the public good for people to be treated. I suggested that it was not in the public's good for doctors to be entering the private sector when waiting lists are already (by your own admission) rediculous and we are struggling to care for our own people. These are people that pay taxes too and surely the government should be trying to ensure that both themselves and the peoples they represent are getting thier money's worth from the students that the PEOPLE of the nation are funding through thier taxes. Are the masses not being charged twice if the students they pay to educate are entering the private sector and charging them again for something that is everyone's human right?

    People being trained in medicine and not going into it (or a related field) at least for a limited time should IMO be penalised in someway because they have effectively had the government provide the financial support for them to do something that HUNDREDS of other would kill for the opportunity to do, then denied the country thier expertise. I wouldn't have a problem if medicine was widely available but it is not, therefore we should ensure that those that we do train are totally commited to the subject and profession.
    Er, no, I did mean equates to. Please don't treat me like I'm 4.

    If the tax people pay as a whole (ie. total tax paid) does not equate to the money spent on education/health etc.. where exactly does the money for all this come from? (I know we have a national debt, but the point holds).

    You said: "we are struggling to care for our own people" - Eh? are people who have private healthcare NOT our own people?!

    So what if "the masses" end up subsidising doctors' education? Doctors' taxes end up paying for unemployment benefits, childless people subsidise the costs of those with children. What's new?

    Again, I fail to see why this should not apply to English or Law graduates - why just medics? Like I said, we are very short of teachers too! Yet there are many peopel qualified to teach who are working in other jobs. I really don't see why it should matter that medicine has more limited places than, say, media studies.

    Surely a doctor who works privately, earns lots of money, pays lots of income tax, treats people... pays the nation back more effectively than a graduate of a really crappy degree, who can't find a job and is on JSA. What about people who drop out? would you charge them a fee too? or what about people doing A-levels? That costs the government money too..

    Rosie

    Ps.
    I wouldn't want someone as my doctor who would kill to satisfy their own ambitions
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    Er, no, I did mean equates to. Please don't treat me like I'm 4.

    If the tax people pay as a whole (ie. total tax paid) does not equate to the money spent on education/health etc.. where exactly does the money for all this come from? (I know we have a national debt, but the point holds).

    You said: "we are struggling to care for our own people" - Eh? are people who have private healthcare NOT our own people?!

    So what if "the masses" end up subsidising doctors' education? Doctors' taxes end up paying for unemployment benefits, childless people subsidise the costs of those with children. What's new?

    Again, I fail to see why this should not apply to English or Law graduates - why just medics? Like I said, we are very short of teachers too! Yet there are many peopel qualified to teach who are working in other jobs. I really don't see why it should matter that medicine has more limited places than, say, media studies.

    Surely a doctor who works privately, earns lots of money, pays lots of income tax, treats people... pays the nation back more effectively than a graduate of a really crappy degree, who can't find a job and is on JSA. What about people who drop out? would you charge them a fee too? or what about people doing A-levels? That costs the government money too..

    Rosie

    Ps.
    I wouldn't want someone as my doctor who would kill to satisfy their own ambitions
    Gordon Brown has been trying to solve the problems raised in your 1st paragraph for quite a while now!!!

    People going private does not make them any less our people but I would ask why they have had to pay for something that should be made available to all. Surely there must be something wrong with our public system if so many people are going for private health care. The idea that I proposed would try and attract more skilled professionals back to the private sector by making it less appealing to cut and run away into the private sector.

    Due to the fact that we can only train a limited number of medics I think it is far more important that we make sure that the ones we do train are going to be of the most use to the system. If you would like the same kind of measures applied to teaching then thats another issue but the simple fact of the matter is that medics are in short supply and the government and people need more in the private sector. Given that the government are the ones underwriting the majority of the cost, I think that it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect a little bit of help in return. If there were a mass shortage of law graduates then I would expect a similar thing from those students (to a lesser extent obviously because of the reduced cost of training compared to med). IMO medicine is a dicipline that is unlike almost any other and therefore I consider it to be an exceptional case so I think that what I proposed is a valid method of ensuring the public good and that the govenment aren't throwing money and skills towards the private sector which is damaging our public health care.

    I've chosen to ignore the A-Level argument because it is quite a futile one. I would hope that you would differentitate between the relative cost of providing further and higher education.

    PS - LOL at your last PS message

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Gordon Brown has been trying to solve the problems raised in your 1st paragraph for quite a while now!!!
    but still in general taxes paid = cost of services.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    The idea that I proposed would try and attract more skilled professionals back to the private sector by making it less appealing to cut and run away into the private sector.
    (If you mean "public" by the first "private") No - your idea was to FORCE people to work in the public sector. *I* said that people should be attracted to work there by improvements in pay/conditions/benefits etc.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Due to the fact that we can only train a limited number of medics I think it is far more important that we make sure that the ones we do train are going to be of the most use to the system. If you would like the same kind of measures applied to teaching then thats another issue but the simple fact of the matter is that medics are in short supply and the government and people need more in the private sector.
    Again - do you mean public, in the last sentence?
    I still REALLY DON'T SEE why teachers etc should be different!

    (Original post by Leekey)
    If there were a mass shortage of law graduates then I would expect a similar thing from those students (to a lesser extent obviously because of the reduced cost of training compared to med). IMO medicine is a dicipline that is unlike almost any other and therefore I consider it to be an exceptional case so I think that what I proposed is a valid method of ensuring the public good and that the govenment aren't throwing money and skills towards the private sector which is damaging our public health care.
    Nope, I still don't see how it's different to, say, teachers
    -can only train a limited number
    - shortage of them
    - many work in private sector
    - still expensive (if less than docs) to train


    (Original post by Leekey)
    I've chosen to ignore the A-Level argument because it is quite a futile one. I would hope that you would differentitate between the relative cost of providing further and higher education.
    Even so, it still costs money - so why shouldn't people have to "repay" this in the form of "serving the country", just perhaps for less time?

    Rosie
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by crana)
    but still in general taxes paid = cost of services. Rosie
    Proportional but NOWEHERE NEAR equal.

    (Original post by crana)
    (If you mean "public" by the first "private") No - your idea was to FORCE people to work in the public sector. *I* said that people should be attracted to work there by improvements in pay/conditions/benefits etc.
    Yeah I did (sorry). Financial penalties are not forcing people into the public sector, they are just making the private one a little less attractive. Your suggestion on improvements in pay / conditions etc... is a valid argument but the cynic in me says its easier to introduce a penalty system rather then complete reform of the NHS pay structure.

    (Original post by crana)
    Again - do you mean public, in the last sentence?
    I still REALLY DON'T SEE why teachers etc should be different!

    Nope, I still don't see how it's different to, say, teachers
    -can only train a limited number
    - shortage of them
    - many work in private sector
    - still expensive (if less than docs) to trainRosie
    On that basis I would agree that teachers are of a similar ilk and should therefore be treated in a similar fashion. Im not as familiar with the need for teachers as I am for the need for medics / dentists etc... but based on that argument I don't think I can honestly disagree with you.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Proportional but NOWEHERE NEAR equal..
    I don't do economics or know much about it, but does this mean that our national debt has been increasing hugely for the last 100 years or so, to pay for schools, NHS etc??

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Yeah I did (sorry). Financial penalties are not forcing people into the public sector, they are just making the private one a little less attractive. Your suggestion on improvements in pay / conditions etc... is a valid argument but the cynic in me says its easier to introduce a penalty system rather then complete reform of the NHS pay structure.
    Ah right. I thought you wanted to make it compulsory to work in NHS for x years, not financially penalise people for not doing so.

    I think it would be better to give people an extra bit off their student loan if they worked for the NHS I think the financial penalty would also be difficult to implement. I'd be happy to go along with the payingt-off-(part of?) student loan though, for doctors, in the same way as it is for teachers.

    i also agree that we do need more NHS doctors.. I think it would be hard tho because i have seen several doctors privately (18 months wait for a first appointment?! thank goodness we had insurance!) and all of them also worked for the NHS, and mainly saw me on saturdays/evenings when they didnt have normal NHS clinics etc.

    most of the ones I saw - I didn't get the impression they did *that* much private work - there is not a HUGE call to see rheumatologists privately (in my area at least). It was more like occasional overtime for them (one said his wife made him go on saturdays toget a bit extra £!) than that they cut down on NHS work to see people privately.

    I used to work in a private hospital too and most of the consultants there would only be there for a few days per month or whatever - they didn't work there full time - it was a small bit extra on top of their NHS work.

    sooo i think for these people it would be hard to implement this, as they are already working for the NHS full-time... Yes I am sure some doctors do work full-time privately, or their private work means they work less than they would otherwise in the NHS - but from my experience at least it may be different? (maybe it is different in Londonm for e.g. - although i did see one of them there!)

    (Original post by Leekey)
    On that basis I would agree that teachers are of a similar ilk and should therefore be treated in a similar fashion. Im not as familiar with the need for teachers as I am for the need for medics / dentists etc... but based on that argument I don't think I can honestly disagree with you.
    Ok
    I'm familiar with teacher shortages - and I go to probably one of the schools that finds it easier to recruit staff etc! We've had to have double class sizes, lessons cancelled for weeks, half-lessons in lunch time etc to make up for staff being absent (ill etc) because there was no hope of getting a sub. for the 6 weeks or whatever to teach an A-level subject.

    and lets not even get on to inadequate teachers, such as the "Literacy" teacher i watched on my work experience - she made 9 or 10 spelling mistakes in one poem she was writing on the board with the kids (words like "stripy". they were not hard words)

    (Something we agree on! and I sense we are close to agreement on the doctors front too!)

    Rosie

    (Original post by Leekey)
    On that basis I would agree that teachers are of a similar ilk and should therefore be treated in a similar fashion. Im not as familiar with the need for teachers as I am for the need for medics / dentists etc... but based on that argument I don't think I can honestly disagree with you.
    The lack of doctors stems from the shortage of med school places. The lack of teachers is a result of the absolutely appalling pay.

    (Original post by Leekey)
    Gordon Brown has been trying to solve the problems raised in your 1st paragraph for quite a while now!!!

    People going private does not make them any less our people but I would ask why they have had to pay for something that should be made available to all. Surely there must be something wrong with our public system if so many people are going for private health care. The idea that I proposed would try and attract more skilled professionals back to the private sector by making it less appealing to cut and run away into the private sector.

    Due to the fact that we can only train a limited number of medics I think it is far more important that we make sure that the ones we do train are going to be of the most use to the system. If you would like the same kind of measures applied to teaching then thats another issue but the simple fact of the matter is that medics are in short supply and the government and people need more in the private sector. Given that the government are the ones underwriting the majority of the cost, I think that it is perfectly reasonable for them to expect a little bit of help in return. If there were a mass shortage of law graduates then I would expect a similar thing from those students (to a lesser extent obviously because of the reduced cost of training compared to med). IMO medicine is a dicipline that is unlike almost any other and therefore I consider it to be an exceptional case so I think that what I proposed is a valid method of ensuring the public good and that the govenment aren't throwing money and skills towards the private sector which is damaging our public health care.

    I've chosen to ignore the A-Level argument because it is quite a futile one. I would hope that you would differentitate between the relative cost of providing further and higher education.

    PS - LOL at your last PS message
    If you make private sector work less appealing to doctors, getting private sector treatment will be more expensive and so less people will pay for it. These people will opt for free healthcare instead, putting a further strain on the NHS.

    If you think about it, the overwheliming majority of people with an illness will get it treated somewhere, either privatly or by the NHS. If the private sector is smaller, it just means more patients are going to the NHS and vice versa. Basically, it doesn't matter where doctors work, it just matters how much they work. By making the private sector less appealing (essentially reducing pay) you will have the opposite effect - discouraging overtime and immigration of foreign doctors, and encouraging the emmigration of our doctors.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    If you make private sector work less appealing to doctors, getting private sector treatment will be more expensive and so less people will pay for it. These people will opt for free healthcare instead, putting a further strain on the NHS.
    Further starin which they would be much better equipt to deal with thats to an influx of new doctors. Do you think that someone paying for private health care is likely to decide that they suddenly want to stop because of a small price jump? Admittely it would have an impact but I can't see the THAT many people switiching to public health care due to a lightly more inflated price.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crana)
    I



    most of the ones I saw - I didn't get the impression they did *that* much private work - there is not a HUGE call to see rheumatologists privately (in my area at least). It was more like occasional overtime for them (one said his wife made him go on saturdays toget a bit extra £!) than that they cut down on NHS work to see people privately.

    I used to work in a private hospital too and most of the consultants there would only be there for a few days per month or whatever - they didn't work there full time - it was a small bit extra on top of their NHS work.

    sooo i think for these people it would be hard to implement this, as they are already working for the NHS full-time... Yes I am sure some doctors do work full-time privately, or their private work means they work less than they would otherwise in the NHS - but from my experience at least it may be different? (maybe it is different in Londonm for e.g. - although i did see one of them there!)


    In 12 years working for both the NHS and private sector I only ever met one doctor who only did private work.

    I also came accross the opposite a doctor who, although he did private work, did not take a sallary for it. What he earned privatly went into a trust fund to pay for things for his NHS patients.

    There is a saying that doctors get their money from private practice but their credibility from the NHS.


    BTW where are you that you have to wait 18 months for rhumatology. I've just been refered back to a rhumatoilogist, I saw my GP a week ago and asked for the referal and I'm seeing the rhumatologist in August. This is a routine appointment, if it had been urgent I'm sure it would have been quicker.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.