Who Would've Guessed: NHS staff sickness rates 1.5 times private sector, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:43 AM by jjkenobi

Not only are they underpaid and call in sick a lot, they are getting staff reduced to cut costs. What?? I thought only the evil big insurance companies cared about cutting costs. I wonder what kind of effect this could have on service levels? Wait times?

NHS Chiefs aim to cut staffing levels in bid to reduce looming deficit

Hospital managers are cutting back on staff in a bid to claw back £1.6m, The News can reveal.

Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust – which runs the new £256m Queen Alexandra superhospital – is placing strict controls on recruitment to save cash.

Staff could be asked to switch roles or work across different departments and some workers may not be replaced when they leave.

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:47 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by jdub297
Exposure to 'illness vectors' is a ruse, and you know it!

so you are saying that we should not expect a higher incidence of infection in people with a higher exposure to infection? are you for real?

'Exposure' does not equal infection and you know it!

How sad that the status quo depends on fear and intimidation.

jw

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:47 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by jdub297
Exposure to 'illness vectors' is a ruse, and you know it!

so you are saying that we should not expect a higher incidence of infection in people with a higher exposure to infection? are you for real?

'Exposure' does not equal infection and you know it!

How sad that the status quo depends on fear and intimidation.

jw

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:50 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by madeioo
It's amazing, even with all the problems that the OP continually finds with the NHS, they still manage to provide better healthcare than the US.

Continually?

These are YOUR reports. I take no position about the UK.

The U.S. "system" sucks.

jw

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:52 AM by Woland

reply to post by jdub297

I don't get it. The private sector employees are better paid, have shorter working days, have more money dedicated to each patient and, as pieman keeps saying, they don't deal with as many infectious diseases. Why wouldn't the UK's NHS employees not have a higher illness rate?

Yet, you use the story to show how awful a national healthcare system is, by comparing it to the UK's private sector? How asinine.

If you want to show that the UK's NHS is so terrible, when compared to the US system, you need to compare it to the illness rate of US medical employees. Better yet, you need to take an average of the UK's private medical sector and the NHS and then compare it to the US's stats.

The NHS's could be 'awesome' while the private sector's 'super awesome'. Equally, it could be 'poor' and 'extremely poor', respectively, but until you compare the stats to the US's, you don't have anything to criticise.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Woland]

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:55 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by pieman

so you are saying that we should not expect a higher incidence of infection in people with a higher exposure to infection? are you for real?

YES! People who deal with poison every day have no business saying: "Oh my god, that's poison!"

The truth is the truth. Deal with it.

jw

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:56 AM by madeioo

The OP isn't interested in that type of comparison, as it doesn't serve his agenda.

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 07:56 AM by woodwardjnr

reply to post by jkm1864

Ok maybe I'm biased on this subject as the NHS has been very good for me.

2002-Brain surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, Access to counselors, support groups for young people with Brain Tumors, alternative therapies all set up at the hospital. I still attend the support groups and see the counselor when i feel i need to.

2007 - More Brain surgery and chemotherapy, bi annual MRI scans. Treatment for the damage caused by the radiotherapy I had 5 years previously. more pills than i care to think about. All these things have kept me alive and well.

Ive met the stressed out doctors and the occaisional frumpy nurse along my way, but I hate to hear a bad word said against the people who have saved my life.

Maybe im the reason for the huge deficit.

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:02 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by Woland
you use the story to show how awful a national healthcare system is, by comparing it to the UK's private sector? How asinine.

I "use" the story to no 'purpose'. I did not write or publish it.

I made no comparison, and "asinine" is an unwarranted personal attack.

Best you can do , eh?

How pathetic.

jw

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:09 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by madeioo
The OP isn't interested in that type of comparison, as it doesn't serve his agenda.

I hope you spend ALL of everyone's money on healthcare - my daughter lives in London.

My interests and agenda are way beyond your understanding, this post is only a reflection of the news from the UK.

I offer no opinion or qualification of it; it is what it is.

jw

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:13 AM by Woland

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Woland
you use the story to show how awful a national healthcare system is, by comparing it to the UK's private sector? How asinine.

I "use" the story to no 'purpose'. I did not write or publish it.

I made no comparison

Au contraire:

This is what you get when gov't. is 'the boss.'

You're comparing a system funded by the public with a system based on insurance. You're saying that there is an alternative to one run by the 'gov't'. A quick check through your other posts show that you believe the UK's NHS is a worse system than the US's. Q.E.D.

I understand most of the criticism levelled at the proposed Helathcare system in the US, but one I don't get is this:

the elected government, which is responsible and accountable to the people is accused of stealing people's money to pay for a societal healthcare and that corporations, whose legal obligation is to the shareholder, not the customers (customer, indeed!), and charge more than you'd pay in taxes, are seen as running a fair system.

That's not necessarily aimed at you, just an observation.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by Woland]

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:13 AM by madeioo

Damaged Care
ONLY IN AMERICA!

The Rainmaker
ONLY IN AMERICA!

John Q.
ONLY IN AMERICA!

Sicko
ONLY IN AMERICA!

Don't reform your healthcare system! Keep the movie industry alive!

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:34 AM by jdub297

reply to post by madeioo

Wow.

Impressive!

I've given my opinion about "health care" elsewhere.

I despise the American "healthcare" system.

Can I be any more clear?

My "NEWS" posts are a reflection of others' observtions. If they are untrue or incorrect, do something about them.

jw

[edit on 19-8-2009 by jdub297]

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:38 AM by madeioo

I'm not contesting your sources, i'm only interested in presenting a balanced view. We can't compare if we don't have a frame of reference.

And if you despise the american healthcare system and the british and canadian healthcare system, why not make a thread discussing your ideas for this perfect healthcare system that you got in mind?

[edit on 19-8-2009 by madeioo]

reply posted on 19-8-2009 @ 08:49 AM by pieman

Originally posted by jdub297
'Exposure' does not equal infection and you know it!

it equals a higher chance of infection, it just does. if i come in contact with 3 sick people a month and a nurse comes in contact with 3 sick people an hour (very generously low estimate) clearly, the nurse is 160 times more likely to be infected in the same month, assuming she works a 40hr week. (40hrs X 4 weeks)

if a nurse is only 1.5 times as likely to ring in sick as a private sector worker, they seem to be doing a good job of getting on with it.

[edit on 19/8/09 by pieman]

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 02:29 AM by madeioo

Let's see if the OP makes a thread about this one, as he's been using any news coming out about the NHS over the last few days.

David Cameron: Conservatives are the party of the NHS

David Cameron is the party leader of the Conservative party and is expected to be the next prime minister of the United Kingdom, that is unless Mr. Daniel Hannan (conservative MPE) goes on Fox News and slags off a british institution that is so clearly loved by the public it serves.

But my prediction is that this piece of news will not be deemed newsworthy of a new thread by the OP as there isn't much in the article that he can use to "quote mine" as he has done previously.

By the way, we are still all waiting for your magical solution to healthcare policy. If it truly is such a good system, we europeans might learn a thing or two and implement it.

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 08:28 AM by jdub297

Originally posted by Woland
A quick check through your other posts show that you believe the UK's NHS is a worse system than the US's. Q.E.D.

A "quick check" reveals that that world press reports some things that mice would rather not hear.

If I add a comment, it by no means changes the original story.

The truth is the truth.

Some people can't handle the truth.

jw

reply posted on 20-8-2009 @ 08:31 AM by jdub297

reply to post by madeioo

I've posted my version, and you know it.

If the "piece" is so newsworthy, start a thread .

Apparently, I am willing to look farther and wider than some. Too bad if what I find upsets the status quo.

jw

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^