Sinn Fein - looming health service disaster?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 09:07AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"related"? Tenuous.
I wonder why they call it "pay and conditions" when you are now claiming these are synonyms?

Look, you can attack me all you want, it still won't change what the researchers found.

How about returning to their findings and addressing those. All I did was post up the discussion and conclusions from a study that was reported on in the Irish Times, an article from which was posted in this thread.

They are the ones who concluded there was an imperative for "interventions at the postgraduate level [to] include streamlining specialty training pathways, addressing pay and working conditions"

What's your issue with their findings?

Dog of Tears · 19-03-2015 09:07AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are now also claiming doctors need higher salaries to pay off heir debt. Free third level education for all solves this.

Magic-money solves every problem in SF's world.

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 09:13AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are now also claiming doctors need higher salaries to pay off heir debt. Free third level education for all solves this.

I'm not claiming anything - why do you insist on attacking me!

C Haugh, B Doyle, S O'Flynn made the claims - the article has the address for correspondence. You should let them know your findings about free third level education so they can amend the article.

Incidentally, free education will cover more than just tuition? It'll cover living expenses?

That being the case, hasn't the bill for free education just spiralled?

Also given the lead in time for this what about doctors graduating tomorrow and the next seven years or so - will SF be happy to sit through a full election cycle while doctors continue to leave to service their debts?

OR will they write off the graduate debts of doctors? And how will that play with hard pressed homeowners who have had no universal write-off or write down of debt?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 09:21AM

Here's a graphic from the journal article in question

Figure 2. Push factors of students contemplating or definitely going abroad.

I presume debt would be a good proxy for concern about salary/pay - if you felt you were being paid sufficiently, you wouldn't be worried about debt?

Chips Lovell · 19-03-2015 09:25AM

Haven't checked in on this thread for a while. Was it established that SF had abandoned their €100,000 public sector pay cap? Or had abandoned it just for doctors?

If so, does anyone have the link to hand?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 09:35AM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Haven't checked in on this thread for a while. Was it established that SF had abandoned their €100,000 public sector pay cap? Or had abandoned it just for doctors?

If so, does anyone have the link to hand?

........Now you've p1$$ed on the chips!!!!!

SF, apparently, don't 'abandon' policies or do u-turns.

Please remain in your seat, somebody will be along to disabuse you of your notions in due course!:D

LeeMajors wrote: »

If using language like 'abandoned' makes you feel better, don't let me stop you.
Pejorative terminology seems to be a speciality of the anti-Sfer.
Still, if it makes you happy.

19-03-2015 09:41AM

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Haven't checked in on this thread for a while. Was it established that SF had abandoned their €100,000 public sector pay cap? Or had abandoned it just for doctors?

If so, does anyone have the link to hand?

No pay cap. Pay cut of 15% for 100k->€150k and 30% of €150k+

Assuming all on the marginal.

Dan_Solo · 19-03-2015 10:09AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Here's a graphic from the journal article in question

Figure 2. Push factors of students contemplating or definitely going abroad.

I presume debt would be a good proxy for concern about salary/pay - if you felt you were being paid sufficiently, you wouldn't be worried about debt?

In that case if your debt was reduced through free third level you wouldn't be so worried about salary, so works both ways.
Or we could just go with what the survey says and assume these doctors are intelligent enough to know that their debt and salaries are connected in some way themselves.
Any other mechanism by which you would like to promote Salary from its 4th place in importance?

Dan_Solo · 19-03-2015 10:11AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not claiming anything - why do you insist on attacking me!

Hilarious faux offence yet again. If asking for your opinion on a piece YOU are promoting as backing your claims is "attacking you" then asking anyone their opinion on an SF policy MUST also be a personal attack.
I presume you will not be doing this then in future.

Dan_Solo · 19-03-2015 10:17AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Eh, no.

Then why did you use bold font to highlight trainee salary when this has nothing whatsoever to do with SF proposed policy and is entirely a product of FF and FG policies? Did you highlight it for no reason at all?
Let me guess, this request for clarification is another "personal attack"?

Dan_Solo · 19-03-2015 10:18AM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

No.

SF are being blamed for coming up with populist, poorly thought-out policy statements that will inevitably worsen what is already a underfunded health service.

I would have thought that much was obvious.

Can't answer the specific question? Well go vague and insulting and hope nobody notices the difference...
What has your post to do with Jawgap highlighting TRAINEE doctor salary and conditions? You can't answer therefore SF suck?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:19AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hilarious faux offence yet again. If asking for your opinion on a piece YOU are promoting as backing your claims is "attacking you" then asking anyone their opinion on an SF policy MUST also be a personal attack.
I presume you will not be doing this then in future.

I'm not and have not offered an opinion.

I'm just pointing out that the Irish Times article - offered as conclusive proof -

LeeMajors wrote: »

........

And look here,

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fnine-in-10-medical-students-may-leave-ireland-on-qualifying-1.2135857&ei=IhIKVeK5OsiP7AaFpIHQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHrnFtqilIDsrBCLtOeY21p-ZwAoQ

An Irish Times article from last week detailing the top three reasons why graduates are determined to leave......

First reason,
Career opportunities, i.e defined career path.

Second reason,
Working conditions, quite obvious really, long hours, bad facilities etc

Third reason,
Lifestyle, speaks for itself.

No mention of money.

Point proved, thread debunked.

Goodnight.

Is perhaps not as conclusive as the Irish Times article made out.

Before offering an opinion on the survey I'd want to see their primary data and their study design.

But I'm happy to accept, at face value, the conclusion of the researchers, that post-graduate pay for doctors needs to be addressed, among other issues.

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:21AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then why did you use bold font to highlight trainee salary when this has nothing whatsoever to do with SF proposed policy and is entirely a product of FF and FG policies? Did you highlight it for no reason at all?
Let me guess, this request for clarification is another "personal attack"?

just adding emphasis - and as I said i offered the study not as a critique of SF policy or FF policy or FG/Lab policy, but because it was mentioned in the Irish Times.

surely it's better to have the original study and associated data to examine, rather than relying on the Irish Times or RTE?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:24AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Was the bold in the original text?
Or are you claiming adding emphasis to certain parts of the document is not offering any opinion?
Why did you need to post anything extra at all then if the document itself is all we need? Is this the journo filter at work again so we shouldn't be listening to you at all?

No, but it's entirely acceptable to quote and the add emphasis. You seem rather hung up on the fact that I 'bolded' a few statements. I took care to copy over entire paragraphs to make sure no context was lost.

I even brought their graph across - which showed pay was an issue for nearly two-thirds of respondents.

If you think I've mis-represented the paper, feel free to copy over any bits you want.

Happyman42 · 19-03-2015 10:25AM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not and have not offered an opinion.

I'm just pointing out that the Irish Times article - offered as conclusive proof -

Is perhaps not as conclusive as the Irish Times article made out.

Before offering an opinion on the survey I'd want to see their primary data and their study design.

But I'm happy to accept, at face value, the conclusion of the researchers, that post-graduate pay for doctors needs to be addressed, among other issues.

The poster quite clearly says: 'detailing the top three reasons' and then says 'no mention of money there'

Your major discovery isn't one at all it seems.

Anybody got any idea what FG/Lab propose to tackle the top three reasons for doctors leaving?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:30AM

<snip>

Background
To provide the optimum level of healthcare, it is important that the supply of well-trained doctors meets the demand. However, despite many initiatives, Ireland continues to have a shortfall of physicians, which has been projected to persist. Our study aimed to investigate the migration intentions of Irish medical students and identify the factors that influence their decisions in order to design appropriate interventions to sustain the supply of trained doctors in order to maintain a viable medical system.

Methods
An online cross-sectional survey was undertaken of all Irish medical students studying in the Republic of Ireland. The survey included nominal, ordinal, and scale items to determine migration intentions, factors influencing their decisions, and understanding of the Irish healthcare system.

Results
A total of 2 273 medical students responded (37% response rate), of whom 1 519 were classified as Irish medical students (having completed secondary school in Ireland). Of these, 88% indicated they were either definitely migrating or contemplating migrating following graduation or completion of the pre-registration intern year. Forty percent expressed an intention of returning to Ireland within 5 years. The factors most influencing their decision to leave were career opportunities (85%), working conditions (83%), and lifestyle (80%).

Conclusion
The migration intentions expressed in this study predict an immediate and severe threat to the sustainability of the Irish healthcare service. Urgent interventions such as providing information about career options and specialty training pathways are required. These must begin in the undergraduate phase and continue in postgraduate training and are needed to retain medical school graduates.

Just because salary/pay got trimmed from the abstract (and from the Irish Times articles) doesn't mean it's insignificant - it ranked 4th on the list (see earlier graph) with nearly two-thirds of respondents (65%) citing 'pay' in response to the question

“Which of the following would influence your decision to go abroad for work/further training?"

You can comment on my stylistic choices all you want - but it won't change the data.

FreudianSlippers · 19-03-2015 10:30AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In that case if your debt was reduced through free third level you wouldn't be so worried about salary, so works both ways.
Or we could just go with what the survey says and assume these doctors are intelligent enough to know that their debt and salaries are connected in some way themselves.
Any other mechanism by which you would like to promote Salary from its 4th place in importance?

Firstly, I don't think €8k a year is really crushing trainee doctors. Secondly, where do you suggest we get the money to eliminate all 3rd level fees?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:32AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you alter the text, which is what you do when you change the font, you are expressing an opinion.
You can't pretend otherwise I'm afraid. It's painful watching you try TBH.

So my 'bolding' of text renders a study I was never involved in, invalid?

FreudianSlippers · 19-03-2015 10:32AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Adding emphasis to specific parts of a document is not expressing an opinion on that document?
Please explain.

I take it you don't do a lot of academic writing?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:35AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

The poster quite clearly says: 'detailing the top three reasons' and then says 'no mention of money there'

Your major discovery isn't one at all it seems.

Anybody got any idea what FG/Lab propose to tackle the top three reasons for doctors leaving?

.....and - quelle surpise - an attempt to move away from data that shows that doctors (especially doctors in their mid-twenties) do consider pay when deciding whether to emigrate.

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:38AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Adding emphasis to specific parts of a document is not expressing an opinion on that document?
Please explain.

It's simply bring out the point I think is important for the reader's attention - which is why people bold text but within a paragraph so the idea / finding can be assessed in it's proper context.

And, yes, I probably should've added '[emphasis added]' but this is the internet not a dissertation or journal article........my bad.

K-9 · 19-03-2015 10:41AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Have you found a way to blame SF for this yet?

Banned for repeatedly ignoring questions, points and what looks like an attempt to derail th thread.

Happyman42 · 19-03-2015 10:43AM

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and - quelle surpise - an attempt to move away from data that shows that doctors (especially doctors in their mid-twenties) do consider pay when deciding whether to emigrate.

No, I never pretended that pay wasn't a consideration in-spite of being told over and over again that it 'was the key decision' 'that doctors where lying' when answering the surveys.

I am glad you have finally seen that pay is down the list when considering reasons to leave though.

It doesn't take a giant leap to work out that doctors would consider working for less if the primary reasons for leaving are tackled and I was wondering what Leo Varadkar is proposing to achieve this.
If you are comparing parties fairly and with an independent mind you would know this, surely?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 10:49AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I never pretended that pay wasn't a consideration in-spite of being told over and over again that it 'was the key decision' 'that doctors where lying' when answering the surveys.

I am glad you have finally seen that pay is down the list when considering reasons to leave though.

It doesn't take a giant leap to work out that doctors would consider working for less if the primary reasons for leaving are tackled and I was wondering what Leo Varadkar is proposing to achieve this.
If you are comparing parties fairly and with an independent mind you would know this, surely?

Again, I posted the original journal article in response to the Irish Times newspaper article - it wasn't done to compare party policies. It was done, if anything, to show how original research gets filtered before it hits more general publications such as newspapers and websites - as evidenced by the fact that the IT and RTE got the same article, based on the same data and produced content that emphasised different elements of it.

The data is there (along with other research that I referenced) - if someone wants to take it and run a comparison across the parties or use it to critique or comment on FF, FG or LAB health policy, then be my guest - I haven't a monopoly on it!

But this is the thread for discussing SF's health policy, and that is data that shows grads do factor pay - among other considerations - into their decision-making processes when deciding to emigrate or not, therefore SF's intentions (past or otherwise) in respect of clinicians pay is relevant to the discussion, imo.

Happyman42 · 19-03-2015 11:04AM

Jawgap wrote: »

But this is the thread for discussing SF's health policy, and that is data that shows grads do factor pay - among other considerations - into their decision-making processes when deciding to emigrate or not, therefore SF's intentions (past or otherwise) in respect of clinicians pay is relevant to the discussion, imo.

And who exactly is making the point that they don't 'factor pay' in their decision making process?

Jawgap · 19-03-2015 11:11AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

And who exactly is making the point that they don't 'factor pay' in their decision making process?

Well there seemed to be an idea knocking around the thread that SF's policy towards consultant and public sector pay would be benign in its impact on consultant and NCHD recruitment and retention rates.

I would disagree.

The study shows that pay is a factor for nearly two-thirds of medical students (the first cohort of whom will likely be graduating into a world where SF are in power) - so any proposal to reduce pay, increase levies (focused on their profession) etc will likely negatively impact on their decisions to stay and practice here or go abroad for at least the early or middle part of their career.

SF previously had mooted a salary cap for consultants - who is to say it won't be re-introduced. And perhaps young doctors are unwilling to stake their careers on it. Pay, the survey shows, clearly has an effect and a more pronounced effect at the margins.

Godge · 19-03-2015 11:19AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Well there seemed to be an idea knocking around the thread that SF's policy towards consultant and public sector pay would be benign in its impact on consultant and NCHD recruitment and retention rates.

I would disagree.

The study shows that pay is a factor for nearly two-thirds of medical students (the first cohort of whom will likely be graduating into a world where SF are in power) - so any proposal to reduce pay, increase levies (focused on their profession) etc will likely negatively impact on their decisions to stay and practice here or go abroad for at least the early or middle part of their career.

SF previously had mooted a salary cap for consultants - who is to say it won't be re-introduced. And perhaps young doctors are unwilling to stake their careers on it. Pay, the survey shows, clearly has an effect and a more pronounced effect at the margins.

If you think about it logically, if pay is a consideration now for two-thirds of potential doctors, cutting pay will only increase that percentage. You would need pay as a consideration to be as low as say 20% in order for cutting pay to have little or no effect.

Dog of Tears · 19-03-2015 11:20AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can't answer the specific question? Well go vague and insulting and hope nobody notices the difference...
What has your post to do with Jawgap highlighting TRAINEE doctor salary and conditions? You can't answer therefore SF suck?

Don't see any insults in my post tbh.

You seem very sensitive about any criticism of SF policy - which is quite strange as you're apparently not a member of the Party.

Why is this I wonder?

Happyman42 · 19-03-2015 11:28AM

Jawgap wrote: »

The study shows that pay is a factor for nearly two-thirds of medical students (the first cohort of whom will likely be graduating into a world where SF are in power) - so any proposal to reduce pay, increase levies (focused on their profession) etc will likely negatively impact on their decisions to stay and practice here or go abroad for at least the early or middle part of their career.

The survey is telling us quite clearly that any attempt to continue running the health service with the primary flaws is what is going to force these doctors to leave.
When you prioritise other problems first in your answers, then that clearly means that if they are fixed your need to leave dilutes.
Again I mention Norway as being a case in point here and maybe you are ready to take on board why I mention it. They 'fixed' the work conditions and work life balance issues and doctors have stayed in their system and are working for much less than here.

Permabear · 19-03-2015 11:38AM

This post has been deleted.

Sinn Fein - looming health service disaster?

Comments