Karl did use the word "parasite" in describing such people.
I'm sure a lot of them work hard, possibly even as hard as postgraduate doctors. And, so some of their income would be earned, and they'd probably consider they'd be underpaid if they only got the salary of a postgraduate doctor (or, the person who makes overpriced coffee).
But, the rest of their income is unearned, stolen from the labours of others. Parasites in deed.
@Telford - do you still maintain that the post-graduate doctors conform to the definition of *greedy* which we find in Oxford Languages?
Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power
OK. What is the best word to describe someone allowing patients to die for a 35% Pay rise
Please answer my question (which BTW I have re-worded slightly), and give some sort of proof that patients have died as a direct result of the doctors' actions.
@Telford - do you still maintain that the post-graduate doctors conform to the definition of *greedy* which we find in Oxford Languages?
Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power
OK. What is the best word to describe someone allowing patients to die for a 35% Pay rise
Please answer my question (which BTW I have re-worded slightly), and give some sort of proof that patients have died as a direct result of the doctors' actions.
I asked you to help me to answer the question. If nobody has been affected by their strike, are they actually needed ?
So are you saying that the doctors themselves are somehow superfluous? Because *these people*, as you so offensively put it, are actually in the business of treating people, and (in many cases) saving lives. That is their aim and vocation, not the insatiable pursuit of wealth and power.
Other posters - more articulate and knowledgeable than I - have tried to explain to you why the doctors feel that they have been brought to this pass, but apparently to no avail.
OK. What is the best word to describe someone allowing patients to die for a 35% Pay rise ?
If someone puts up with a 26% pay cut for a while, are they greedy if they say enough is enough, and ask for it to be reversed?
Because that is the situation here according to the doctors' unions. They say their salary is just three quarters of what it was in 2008. Their colleagues are emigrating to countries that offer fair pay, so those that stay are doing more work.
If the NHS wants doctors it needs to pay enough that they wouldn't rather emigrate.
It's worth remembering that this dispute has indeed been rumbling on for years - it affected me early in 2016, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere, with brain surgery (I still have the remains of one!) being deferred for 3 or 4 months.
Wanting a de facto massive pay cut to be restored is hardly greed, a s defined above.
I ask again - is there any firm evidence that anyone has died as a direct result of the current strike? Throwing out wild surmises that *these people* are *allowing patients to die* is not, perhaps, very truthful or accurate...
I ask again - is there any firm evidence that anyone has died as a direct result of the current strike? Throwing out wild surmises that *these people* are *allowing patients to die* is not, perhaps, very truthful or accurate...
That's a difficult thing to measure.
Surely the major direct effect of a strike is the cancelling of "elective" procedures, as the remaining resources get shuffled around to try and prevent patients actually dying. "Elective" procedures aren't exactly optional: nobody has operations for fun. They're all quality-of-life things: hip replacements and so on.
It's going to be difficult to point to an individual patient and say "this person died, but wouldn't have died if there had been a junior doctor on duty that day".
Here is a study attempting to measure the direct effects of the junior doctor's strikes last spring, which concludes that the hospital ran more efficiently without the junior doctors, because they were replaced by more experienced doctors. Patient outcomes were unaffected.
The study does not, of course, measure the lack of all the other things that the more senior doctors were not doing because they were covering for their junior striking colleagues.
Working person who wants to maintain their standard of living - greedy. Selfish. Uncaring. Traitors to the King, God bless him.
Wealthy person who wants even more - rewarded for enterprise. You should not be envious of these moral paragons.
How dare working people want to maintain their standard of living! Bloody communists, dragging this country down. They should be happy with a mud hut and a diet of bread and cabbages like the serfs they are.
Do you think that perhaps a (hypothetical) public servant, offered lots of extra £££ by the State to go and quell an incipient communist insurrection, might also be classed as *greedy* if they accepted the invitation?
On the Laura Kuenssberg show ( BBC1 ) this morning the lady member of her guest panel of three stated that nobody can get an appointment to see their doctor. If she believes this to be true, does she think that all GPs just sit in their offices all day and have no contact with any patients ?
I hate it when people exaggerate to make their point and she did it most of the time
On the Laura Kuenssberg show ( BBC1 ) this morning the lady member of her guest panel of three stated that nobody can get an appointment to see their doctor. If she believes this to be true, does she think that all GPs just sit in their offices all day and have no contact with any patients ?
I hate it when people exaggerate to make their point and she did it most of the time
Have you tried getting a GP appointment recently? Let me tell you what happens around here.
My GP does a triage telephone system, as do many these days. To get a phone appointment you have to phone early. Lines open at 8am. So, call at 8. The lines are engaged. Keep trying. Eventually at 8.15 you get through only to find that all the appointments have been taken, so are advised to try again tomorrow. Repeat ad nauseam.
Once, after trying this method for several days, I was advised by the receptionist that I might stand a better chance by turning up in person at 8am to get a telephone appointment. I did that. At 7.50 there was already a queue of about 20 people outside the surgery. By 8.00 the queue was stretching half way up the road.
So the “lady member” (whatever that means) on the panel was absolutely correct.
It’s variable from place to place. In some places it’s not too difficult to get a face to face GP appointment within a week. In other places it seems to be next to impossible to get an appointment at all.
On the Laura Kuenssberg show ( BBC1 ) this morning the lady member of her guest panel of three stated that nobody can get an appointment to see their doctor. If she believes this to be true, does she think that all GPs just sit in their offices all day and have no contact with any patients ?
I hate it when people exaggerate to make their point and she did it most of the time
Have you tried getting a GP appointment recently? Let me tell you what happens around here.
My GP does a triage telephone system, as do many these days. To get a phone appointment you have to phone early. Lines open at 8am. So, call at 8. The lines are engaged. Keep trying. Eventually at 8.15 you get through only to find that all the appointments have been taken, so are advised to try again tomorrow. Repeat ad nauseam.
Once, after trying this method for several days, I was advised by the receptionist that I might stand a better chance by turning up in person at 8am to get a telephone appointment. I did that. At 7.50 there was already a queue of about 20 people outside the surgery. By 8.00 the queue was stretching half way up the road.
So the “lady member” (whatever that means) on the panel was absolutely correct.
How could she have been correct to see that nobody can get an appointment. What do you think that Doctors are doing ?
The truth is that it's difficult to get an appointment.
Difficult is an understatement. Pretty near impossible is a more accurate description.
You have a tendency to take everything literally and in so doing, completely miss the point. I can’t figure out if you’re doing this deliberately or not.
I tried to get an appointment last Thursday. Our GP has a web-based triage system - plus a phone system for anyone who can't cope with using the Internet.
I described my symptoms, sent the form off, got an immediate reply telling me to go to an appointment three hours later. The GP then sent me to the hospital for further investigation, which did take longer than usual because of the junior doctors' strike, but I have no complaints about the care I received.
Now, if I'd had different (less alarming) symptoms or asked for a routine appointment, you're right, I'd have had to wait several days or weeks. But that's because the surgery is badly understaffed and prioritising patients who need help urgently. Being British, I have absolutely no problem with being asked to wait while someone in greater need sees the doctor before me: in fact I was somewhat freaked out when they told me to come in straightaway.
If you want to get annoyed about something, save it for the ultimate cause of underfunding and understaffing. That would be the government, in case you were wondering.
@Spike: our GP used to do a telephone system as well. It's awful, isn't it. The only thing I found that helped was going in in person and begging the receptionist for help, which is not something you have the energy for when you're unwell.
Some months ago, I needed a GP appointment urgently. On phoning at 8am (I was only the third in the queue), I was given a slot just after noon that very same day.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
I have mixed feeling about the doctors going on strike.
I can see their grievance -it is unfair to have an effective pay cut. And the hospital services are stretched more and more as the years go by and the population gets older and (in many cases) less fit and more unhappy.
But striking may not be the only sanction that could be tried. And striking won't necessarily get the public on their side.
Exact figures are difficult to come by but here are some 'back of an envelope' figures:
Approx 66% of 'junior' doctors in England belong to the BMA. And you had to be a BMA member to vote in the ballet. Of those entitled to vote 77% voted and of those 98% voted to strike.
This comes out at around 50% of doctors voting to strike. Of course you don't have to be a BMA member to go on strike. Numbers actually striking are, again, hard to come by. Phrases such as 'tens of thousands' are quoted.
It may be that those voting are more unhappy for various reasons. And those who become politically active in the BMA may more unhappy or 'militant' for want of a better phrase.
Some 'junior' doctors may be very close to becoming a 'not junior' ie consultant, and not want to 'rock the boat' of their career progress. Others may be unhappy because their work is in the most pressed and demoralised parts of the NHS and they can't see themselves ever becoming a consultant. Around half of 'junior' doctors will have general practice as pretty much their only career option. And many see that as an 'also ran' career.
But don't forget that being a doctor in the NHS is still a great job. Job security almost guaranteed and, for women who want to have a baby, far better maternity leave and pay than in most jobs in the private sector. And then , if you can stay the course, an index linked pension at the end.
So you can see why the govt are not about to give them a huge pay rise.
The reason it is difficult to see a GP is that they are, as pointed out under staffed and under funded. Also when a financial crisis hits, as it has people do not get the right nutrition, they eat what they can. Sometimes that is very little. Parents may go without for the kids to eat. That will lead to more ill people and therefore more pressure on GPs
But striking may not be the only sanction that could be tried.
So which sanction do you think they should try instead?
So you can see why the govt are not about to give them a huge pay rise.
As above, and as per your original post, they've experienced a pay cut in real terms, so it doesn't really represent a rise.
But don't forget that being a doctor in the NHS is still a great job. Job security almost guaranteed and, for women who want to have a baby, far better maternity leave and pay than in most jobs in the private sector.
Welcome to the global market for doctors, where pay and conditions in America or Australia is significantly better.
Some months ago, I needed a GP appointment urgently. On phoning at 8am (I was only the third in the queue), I was given a slot just after noon that very same day.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
The only point I am trying to make is that it is not impossible to see a doctor. It's merely difficult.
Some months ago, I needed a GP appointment urgently. On phoning at 8am (I was only the third in the queue), I was given a slot just after noon that very same day.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
The only point I am trying to make is that it is not impossible to see a doctor. It's merely difficult.
I don’t think her comments were supposed to be taken literally
Some months ago, I needed a GP appointment urgently. On phoning at 8am (I was only the third in the queue), I was given a slot just after noon that very same day.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
The only point I am trying to make is that it is not impossible to see a doctor. It's merely difficult.
Approx 66% of 'junior' doctors in England belong to the BMA. And you had to be a BMA member to vote in the ballet. Of those entitled to vote 77% voted and of those 98% voted to strike.
98% of people who voted voting in favour of the strike is about as strong support as you will get.
77% turnout is considerably higher than general elections have seen in recent years.
Some months ago, I needed a GP appointment urgently. On phoning at 8am (I was only the third in the queue), I was given a slot just after noon that very same day.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
The only point I am trying to make is that it is not impossible to see a doctor. It's merely difficult.
I don’t think her comments were supposed to be taken literally
I think she could have found a better way to make her point.
Some months ago, I needed a GP appointment urgently. On phoning at 8am (I was only the third in the queue), I was given a slot just after noon that very same day.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
The only point I am trying to make is that it is not impossible to see a doctor. It's merely difficult.
I don’t think her comments were supposed to be taken literally
I think she could have found a better way to make her point.
Most people would understand when hyperbole was being deployed. Besides, it's not improbable that at least some people have experienced this consistently.
Calls take time to place, and in general calling on a PSTN line which is on the same exchange as the surgery is going to complete faster than if you call with a mobile (and then it's down to how fast you can retry the call once it hits busy tone).
Comments
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tax-avoidance-firm-linked-michelle-31742113
Etc. These bastards boil my fucking piss. They're parasitic.
Me too - they suck!
I'm sure a lot of them work hard, possibly even as hard as postgraduate doctors. And, so some of their income would be earned, and they'd probably consider they'd be underpaid if they only got the salary of a postgraduate doctor (or, the person who makes overpriced coffee).
But, the rest of their income is unearned, stolen from the labours of others. Parasites in deed.
Why do you think that I am one of these people ?
That's a really bizarre take on my post.
😆🤣
Yes. Educating you on who the greedy bastards in our society are, as opposed to those you imply are such, like junior doctors.
Actually, probably not, as certain people have a penchant for performative faux-stupidity.
Have any of them been on strike and have any people died because they were on strike ?
Having or showing an intense and selfish desire for wealth or power
Perhaps you have a different understanding of the word?
OK. What is the best word to describe someone allowing patients to die for a 35% Pay rise
Please answer my question (which BTW I have re-worded slightly), and give some sort of proof that patients have died as a direct result of the doctors' actions.
I asked you to help me to answer the question. If nobody has been affected by their strike, are they actually needed ?
I'm not being snarky - I just don't quite see what you're getting at.
Your sarcasm detector is broken. If these people can go on strike without the health of patients being affected, are they actually needed ?
So are you saying that the doctors themselves are somehow superfluous? Because *these people*, as you so offensively put it, are actually in the business of treating people, and (in many cases) saving lives. That is their aim and vocation, not the insatiable pursuit of wealth and power.
Other posters - more articulate and knowledgeable than I - have tried to explain to you why the doctors feel that they have been brought to this pass, but apparently to no avail.
Because that is the situation here according to the doctors' unions. They say their salary is just three quarters of what it was in 2008. Their colleagues are emigrating to countries that offer fair pay, so those that stay are doing more work.
If the NHS wants doctors it needs to pay enough that they wouldn't rather emigrate.
Wanting a de facto massive pay cut to be restored is hardly greed, a s defined above.
I ask again - is there any firm evidence that anyone has died as a direct result of the current strike? Throwing out wild surmises that *these people* are *allowing patients to die* is not, perhaps, very truthful or accurate...
That's a difficult thing to measure.
Surely the major direct effect of a strike is the cancelling of "elective" procedures, as the remaining resources get shuffled around to try and prevent patients actually dying. "Elective" procedures aren't exactly optional: nobody has operations for fun. They're all quality-of-life things: hip replacements and so on.
It's going to be difficult to point to an individual patient and say "this person died, but wouldn't have died if there had been a junior doctor on duty that day".
Here is a study attempting to measure the direct effects of the junior doctor's strikes last spring, which concludes that the hospital ran more efficiently without the junior doctors, because they were replaced by more experienced doctors. Patient outcomes were unaffected.
The study does not, of course, measure the lack of all the other things that the more senior doctors were not doing because they were covering for their junior striking colleagues.
Wealthy person who wants even more - rewarded for enterprise. You should not be envious of these moral paragons.
How dare working people want to maintain their standard of living! Bloody communists, dragging this country down. They should be happy with a mud hut and a diet of bread and cabbages like the serfs they are.
I wonder what the presenters of 'GB News' are paid for spouting the drivel they obviously do ...
Too much.
It's not just the doctor's union who say this, but those notorious lefties at the Financial Times:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDGSCUNWAAAAAsJ?format=png&name=medium
(IRONY)
I hate it when people exaggerate to make their point and she did it most of the time
Have you tried getting a GP appointment recently? Let me tell you what happens around here.
My GP does a triage telephone system, as do many these days. To get a phone appointment you have to phone early. Lines open at 8am. So, call at 8. The lines are engaged. Keep trying. Eventually at 8.15 you get through only to find that all the appointments have been taken, so are advised to try again tomorrow. Repeat ad nauseam.
Once, after trying this method for several days, I was advised by the receptionist that I might stand a better chance by turning up in person at 8am to get a telephone appointment. I did that. At 7.50 there was already a queue of about 20 people outside the surgery. By 8.00 the queue was stretching half way up the road.
So the “lady member” (whatever that means) on the panel was absolutely correct.
How could she have been correct to see that nobody can get an appointment. What do you think that Doctors are doing ?
The truth is that it's difficult to get an appointment.
You have a tendency to take everything literally and in so doing, completely miss the point. I can’t figure out if you’re doing this deliberately or not.
I described my symptoms, sent the form off, got an immediate reply telling me to go to an appointment three hours later. The GP then sent me to the hospital for further investigation, which did take longer than usual because of the junior doctors' strike, but I have no complaints about the care I received.
Now, if I'd had different (less alarming) symptoms or asked for a routine appointment, you're right, I'd have had to wait several days or weeks. But that's because the surgery is badly understaffed and prioritising patients who need help urgently. Being British, I have absolutely no problem with being asked to wait while someone in greater need sees the doctor before me: in fact I was somewhat freaked out when they told me to come in straightaway.
If you want to get annoyed about something, save it for the ultimate cause of underfunding and understaffing. That would be the government, in case you were wondering.
As @BroJames says, it varies from place to place...
@Telford - what point are you trying to make? I think we all agree that it is difficult to get a GP appointment these days, but are you implying that this is because the GPs are just as greedy as you think (or have been told) the post-grad doctors are, and are doing as little work as possible for their £££?
I can see their grievance -it is unfair to have an effective pay cut. And the hospital services are stretched more and more as the years go by and the population gets older and (in many cases) less fit and more unhappy.
But striking may not be the only sanction that could be tried. And striking won't necessarily get the public on their side.
Exact figures are difficult to come by but here are some 'back of an envelope' figures:
Approx 66% of 'junior' doctors in England belong to the BMA. And you had to be a BMA member to vote in the ballet. Of those entitled to vote 77% voted and of those 98% voted to strike.
This comes out at around 50% of doctors voting to strike. Of course you don't have to be a BMA member to go on strike. Numbers actually striking are, again, hard to come by. Phrases such as 'tens of thousands' are quoted.
It may be that those voting are more unhappy for various reasons. And those who become politically active in the BMA may more unhappy or 'militant' for want of a better phrase.
Some 'junior' doctors may be very close to becoming a 'not junior' ie consultant, and not want to 'rock the boat' of their career progress. Others may be unhappy because their work is in the most pressed and demoralised parts of the NHS and they can't see themselves ever becoming a consultant. Around half of 'junior' doctors will have general practice as pretty much their only career option. And many see that as an 'also ran' career.
But don't forget that being a doctor in the NHS is still a great job. Job security almost guaranteed and, for women who want to have a baby, far better maternity leave and pay than in most jobs in the private sector. And then , if you can stay the course, an index linked pension at the end.
So you can see why the govt are not about to give them a huge pay rise.
So which sanction do you think they should try instead?
As above, and as per your original post, they've experienced a pay cut in real terms, so it doesn't really represent a rise.
Welcome to the global market for doctors, where pay and conditions in America or Australia is significantly better.
The only point I am trying to make is that it is not impossible to see a doctor. It's merely difficult.
I don’t think her comments were supposed to be taken literally
Fair enough, and you are alas! right.
77% turnout is considerably higher than general elections have seen in recent years.
I think she could have found a better way to make her point.
Most people would understand when hyperbole was being deployed. Besides, it's not improbable that at least some people have experienced this consistently.
Calls take time to place, and in general calling on a PSTN line which is on the same exchange as the surgery is going to complete faster than if you call with a mobile (and then it's down to how fast you can retry the call once it hits busy tone).