Sinn Fein - looming health service disaster?

Godge wrote: »

Public sector careers last up to 40 years, you wouldn't see that kind of change in 10 years but it is often seen in a 40-year career. There are a number of Secretary Generals of government Departments who started off as clerical assistants.

Like with like Is not being compared here. In theory , anyone starting off at the very, very bottom in any situation can end up as the CEO , or equivalent, in that situation or in any other situation or at least can end up fairly far up the ladder.
The public sector is structured towards this progression. In the County councils, for example, one starts off as a general operative. You get your annual increments - a promotion of sorts. You are exposed, while on the job to how your supervisor does her/his job and the other types of jobs around you. A vacancy comes up in the positions above you and with a bit of luck , a bit of networking and after a few attempts , away you go. As far as I know, the councils are continually offering in house training /refresher courses and support staff who wish to do relevant part or full time diploma/ degree courses.
So for those that want to progress within the council get every opportunity to do so. As I said it is highly structured to facilitate it. It is further assisted by the tradition of filling these positions from staff within house.

The structure - if one could call it that- in the Medical profession is completely different. The cleaner first needs to get sufficient points to get on to the relevant degree course , then pass it. Has to be very self driven and very disciplined at all times as there is a lot of actions, etc to be organised for the aspirant doctor after having got the degree along with with having to experience unsocial / long working hours - 'loved' by council staff. Aspiring doctors have to move all over the place, including overseas, to get the experienced required for a good number of years - and no disturbance allowance is paid.
As they say, single cases make for bad law - or something to that effect

LeeMajors wrote: »

Tell me again, under the glorious leadership of FG and Labour, what has been the reduction in the numbers of doctors working in the service?
From 3.1 per 1,000 to 2.7 per 1,000, isn't it?

At the same time there's been a 13% increase in middle and senior management since FG and Labour took office.

Who's screwing up the health service? Sinn Fein?

Lee,

I find this disappointing, particularly as the person who dredged up the physician/1000 people figures. Firstly I want it to be abundantly clear that those figures are physician/1000 people in the country. The difference between in the country and working in the system should be minimal but precision matters.

Secondly, I researched them after pages and pages of Sinn Féin supporters refusing to accept that reducing consultant salaries would result in fewer doctors working in the system. So if you're going to use these figures in your bid to attack FG/Labour, at least have the intellectual honesty to recognise that the figures are correlated with a salary cut as implemented by FG/Labour. Suggesting or implying it's purely correlated with FG/Labour in government is misleading. It is correlated with a specific policy measure, one which SF have very similar plans to even as the devil is in the detail.

Additionally, even you have to admit at this stage that SF have one set of figures on the subject which are contradictory in their health policy and another lot in their most recent alternative budget. This makes it difficult to assess their policies fairly. I'd consider it misleading to be perfectly blunt.

One last point I'm going to raise - and this is the second time I have raised it. The health policy highlights that SF will implement public only contracts. I'm not clear on whether, having woken up to the reality that the salary numbers in their health policy are likely to cause problems and updated them accordingly, whether SF is going to also get rid of the idea of public only contracts. If they have not, then this represents a very material change in contractual and working conditions and not to the benefit of the medical staff concerned either financially or intangibly.

So yes, physician/1000 people figures dropped during the period 2010-2012. That's because the government implemented a policy which you and many other pro-SF posters have been screaming would not result in those figures dropping. The fact that the 2011 SF health document figures are different to the 2014 alternative budget proposal doesn't change the fact that salary cuts are proposed; the way they are described is imprecise if not misleading and the question of public only contacts is not clear.

In this context, using the physician/1000 people figures as you have is disingenuous.