Lack of Nurses now at dangerous level

[El Cid]

If you lower the remuneration of a role year after year, its bound to have a negative effect on the employers ability to fill the specific roles.

[crookedspire]

Unfortunately no matter how much the Tories screw the NHS people still vote for them. Turkeys and Christmas.

 

Your right let's all gone with the ship with band playing. In the United States health insurance is far from cheap many American poor don't have it when you ring for an ambulance the first question is do you have health insurance if you say no the phone goes down. The NHS needs protection from cuts and needs more staff trust me you wouldn't like the American system.

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2017 at 20:59 ----------

 

Unfortunately however bad labour are there still people who will vote for them . Red rose on a donkey

 

So the NHS is in the caring hands of right me think otherwise like IV said you wouldn't want an American style system to replace the NHS.

[melthebell]

Unfortunately however bad labour are there still people who will vote for them . Red rose on a donkey

how clever, youve used taxmans analogy, twisted it around the opposite way and STILL not mentioned anything about the NHS or nurses Oo

[mafya]

Why doesn't the Govt invest in training up nurses that are required for the NHS instead of relying on nurses already trained up from other country's?

[tinfoilhat]

It's easy to blame the tories - they're in charge (and the main players in coalition) for long enough to make good changes and good decisions. However there are two things that strike me - a) could labour have done much different given the state of the economy in 2010, and b)would the unions kicked up less of a fuss to some of the more radical changes if it had been a labour government who asked for said changes. Remember, they weren't prepared to ring fence money or reverse many changes at the last election.

 

I suppose if we built up enough momentum to push for a referendum to increase a specific tax (income, VAT, NI etc) specifically for the NHS, things might change but given the economic pain that's coming, I don't know how many people will want to vote for it. Vote labour?

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2017 at 21:39 ----------

 

Why doesn't the Govt invest in training up nurses that are required for the NHS instead of relying on nurses already trained up from other country's?

 

Money. Money money money money. They pay for a reasonable amount of nurses to be trained in the uk only for them to go to austrailia etc etc.

[El Cid]

It's easy to blame the tories - they're in charge (and the main players in coalition) for long enough to make good changes and good decisions. However ......

 

Who should we blame?

[mafya]

It's easy to blame the tories - they're in charge (and the main players in coalition) for long enough to make good changes and good decisions. However there are two things that strike me - a) could labour have done much different given the state of the economy in 2010, and b)would the unions kicked up less of a fuss to some of the more radical changes if it had been a labour government who asked for said changes. Remember, they weren't prepared to ring fence money or reverse many changes at the last election.

 

I suppose if we built up enough momentum to push for a referendum to increase a specific tax (income, VAT, NI etc) specifically for the NHS, things might change but given the economic pain that's coming, I don't know how many people will want to vote for it. Vote labour?

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2017 at 21:39 ----------

 

 

Money. Money money money money. They pay for a reasonable amount of nurses to be trained in the uk only for them to go to austrailia etc etc.

 

My bold=

Train them up free with a condition that they have to work in the NHS for a minimum of 10 to 15 years otherwise they need to pay back the cost of training with interest could be one way...

[hackey lad]

how clever, youve used taxmans analogy, twisted it around the opposite way and STILL not mentioned anything about the NHS or nurses Oo

 

here we go then . labour can and are promising everything , billions to the nhs , billions to education , free education for all ,regardless of age . and while all these promises are fine , where is the money coming from . they might as well promise a free Ferrari to everyone when they reach the age of 21 . truth is , a promise is only a promise if it is held

[tinfoilhat]

[/b]

 

My bold=

Train them up free with a condition that they have to work in the NHS for a minimum of 10 to 15 years otherwise they need to pay back the cost of training with interest could be one way...

 

Ok, what if they decide 5 years in they don't want to be a nurse and want to be a hairdresser or a full time mum, then emigrate (or not)?

[hackey lad]

[/b]

 

My bold=

Train them up free with a condition that they have to work in the NHS for a minimum of 10 to 15 years otherwise they need to pay back the cost of training with interest could be one way...

 

that is a fantastic idea which I first saw on 60 Minutes many years ago . It went along the lines of when after your free training to be a doctor (in some US states) then you had to go to wherever they sent you , to practice as a Gp for 8 years . if you did not do this then you had to pay for all your training plus interest . Because apparently after the training most people wanted to go to affluent areas to practise leaving poor areas such as Harlem , Bronx with no doctors

 

---------- Post added 14-05-2017 at 22:06 ----------

 

Ok, what if they decide 5 years in they don't want to be a nurse and want to be a hairdresser or a full time mum, then emigrate (or not)?

 

then they pay for the training the have been given