Amazing how we've gone from "clap for the NHS they're amazing" to "you want fair compensation? psst!"
Also if the strike has only been going on for a little while then how does the Daily Mail account for the fact that NHS quality has gone down every year of the decade long Tory rule.
Maybe it's not the doctors that's the problem.. maybe it's the politicians (including Labour since Wes Streeting is chomping at the bit to carve up the NHS and continue the Tory legacy)
Brexit (and moreso post-GFC austerity) have been actions of brain-dead economic self-harm, but I don't know where you got your numbers from here. Even PPP adjusted the UK is ahead.
It was from this, a clip from BBC Question Time I confess I did not fact-check it myself, I allowed myself to believe that a peer and former tory minister would quote correct figures.
Numbeo.com for numbers, personal experience as well. Lithuania might be doing ok, but it's nowhere near how good the UK is doing. Thus anyone struggling in the UK would be dead in Lithuania.
I disagree.
Left is more than wealth. Left is often reffered to socialism or liberalism. Either cases have at its core nothing to do with wealthy at all. Its not because your local politics have the left as wealthy fuckwads that this is everywhere.
That said, dont get me wrong, this is some terrible shit to say and the wealthy should piss off.
The principle of "let consenting adults do whatever they want" is absolutelly compatible with some people having almost all of the money and others starving, but the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is not.
Liberalism (the first) has nothing to do with Left (the second).
Now if Liberalism was actually about maximizing Freedom in all its senses, then it would end up mainly concerning itself with how Human Basic Needs and Money and Ownership Law (mainly of Land) are used to limit the Freedom of most people, but "strangelly" I have never once heard or read a "liberal" mention how the very structures that keep a few in wealth limit the freedom of everybody else.
Trully thinking liberals could end up as lefties but they always stop at the boundary of reducing wealth discrimination, liberalizing access to land anf in general doing things that would free people who are born landless (i.e. most people) from being forced to work for others under other people's conditions for a roof over their heads and food on their tables.
De facto present day liberals as are hard right (though socially liberal, they're extremelly conservative in everything else).
That's some authoritarian delusion. Liberalism gives everyone tools to achieve their own goals. What you want is to erase individuality for some imaginary greater cause. Which is exactly what all and every totalitarian regime is about.
Libertarians are for example in favour of Private Education, something which gives better tools to those born from wealthier parents who can afford the better schools than to those born from poor parent's who can: providing people who were lucky to pop-out of a wealthier vagina more/better tools hence more/better chances in life than others is literally the opposite of Meritocracy.
Ditto for Inheritance legislation: it makes even the most inept, lazy-ass, destructive scion of a wealthy family out there have far more chances and power than even the smartest, most hardworking, most able creator out there from poor families.
And lets not forget keeping Land Ownership as is now locking in centuries (in some countries millenia) of the most anti-meritocratic methods of acquring it and a gigantic advantage which is passed down the generations through inheritance, all this, again, the very opposite of a "fair playing field where everybody has a chance".
Libertarianism just wants to remove the Power of the State, a system which is managed by people elected by citizens in a "all votes count the same" process, by the Power of Money, which is mainly the product of past injustices, dynastic and were power has an extremelly uneven distribution (with some having hundreds of billions of times more power than others).
By wanting to weaken the fair playing field (one person one vote) in access to power which is vote by severely reducing that which that power controls (i.e. reducing the State) and replace it by an extremelly unever form of power, Money, which is so unfair that, like in the times of the Monarchy, it is Power which is mainly inherited, Liberarians are some of the most anti-Democratic anti-Freedom people out there, not to mention extraordinary hypocrites.
You can disagree with me all you want. You’re extremely misinformed, though. An entire life of propaganda made you believe some weird shit, but socialism is unequivocally about wealth distribution and liberalism is undoubtedly right-wing.
I didn’t understand your comment about local politics. Mostly because you can’t possibly know where i’m from, and calling the left ‘wealthy fuckwads’ is just bizarre.
No. I’ve read enough theory to know that the left understands the world as a struggle between two classes: capitalists and workers.
The right believes in meritocracy, the invisible hand of the market, and risking capital as the most valuable asset.
Of course there are poor people leaning right. There is not a single leftist billionaire, though.
…oh, and in case you’re from the United States (you act as if you were): Both of your political parties are right-wing. Your ‘radical leftist politicians’ are centrists at best. Right-wingers don’t become leftists because they’re ok with giving some human rights to the population.
Why is written 'harming' in single quotes? Is this some opinion that someone has had that they are publishing as fact?
The government is just holding out in the hope that public opinion on the strikes turns on their favour or that the nurses and doctors run out of savings to keep striking.
In my opinion I think quotes in general should be banned from being headlines. It's been abused as a tactic for making inflammatory headlines with little factual basis under the technicality it just being the words of someone else.
It'll be paraphrased from something a Tory said and I suspect the quotes cover the "paper" from libel since they can then claim it was opinion rather than fact
I read a while back that it's to insulate the paper from any potential defamation lawsuits, the quotes are there to ensure the difference between "we believe the strikes are harming patients also this person says they must stop" and "this person believes the strikes are harming patients and also says they must stop"
It's actually very common practice in the UK, most headlines make use of quotations to endorse a position by means of quoting an opinion and providing context to that opinion.
In this specific case it is of course bullshit, the language of the headline is deliberately worded to incite anger against the healthcare professionals and the quotes are added to preserve the emotive qualities of the headline when read by the layperson while insulating the paper from legal risk.
How is "despite waiting lists being a record high" on the doctors? That's on the hospitals or government for not hiring enough doctors, probably because they don't pay well enough. The doctors should add "the waiting lists are too long" to their complaints (if not already on there).
From the paper that brought you: "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" an editorial from 1934 reporting on Hitlers blackshirts, by the then editor Viscount Rothermere who's son the current Viscount Rothermere still owns it... same shite different arsehole...
It's a tabloid for the working class that actively promotes shitting on the working class. Unfortunately, they're as popular now as they ever have been.
Patients are harming striking doctors. If they want to be seen sooner, they could help apply pressure to the government to improve conditions, instead of licking boots and crying about labour action.
There's a very high level of support for NHS strikes, around 2:1 for vs against. Mebbe cast aspersions on those with the power to resolve them, not the people the Daily Mail will never give a platform to.
Is that 2 thirds getting off the couch and doing anything? Interesting that the western world can sanction countries under the logic that people can pressure the governments. But when it's time for pressuring their own, well... suddenly it's time to get indignant about casting aspersions. At least the French riot. Maybe the UK is waiting for another bus to tell them what to believe.
If you cannot be arsed to think about how power works, there is no helping you.
Still, at least France will get its revolution. All those people out on the streets, it's inevitable, right? So easy, the whole world would be a socialist paradise if only people weren't so stupid and lazy and too busy keeping a roof over their heads to be more like your saintly self.
I was originally making a contrary joke in response to the headline. With a bit of a message tacked on about supporting strikers, semi in response to entitled behavior I've directly seen by people on the Canadian side of things. With a bit of natural disdain for the British thrown in of course.
Now it's true I've been a bit of a dick but you're in the mud with me too lmao.
there is no helping you.
And what was it you said?
Great tools for building solidarity
Anyway I'm not sure we're really on separate sides here, so much as just being nasty at this point. So peace.
Thatcher outlawed this (surprise, surprise) but thr way Japanese train drivers strike is they run the trains but refuse to collect fairs. That seems like a much better system to me.
I don't know how doctors could do something similar though.
As someone who is consistently a patient I can very safely say that the only things that harm me are pharmaceutical and insurance companies. (I’m USA based)
The Daily Shart has never been anything but tabloid garbage, no one should ever be subjected to anything from that publication for the good of all humankind
They aren’t idiots as much as they are greedy. They didn’t get into government leadership positions because they want to help people. They do it so they can take advantage of it and make money.
When they fuck up and people suffer, it isn’t an “accident”. It’s design because in the end they are making money off the people paying them off, etc.
Our big mistake is thinking these people are well intentioned, but forgiving their fuck ups because of “incompetence”. No, they are purposefully fucking you over to benefit themselves.
Not to detract from the discussion but does anyone know what's handwritten at the top of the 'paper' above the word Daily? It looks like it says "Hi Hi Farm" or "4141 Farm" and it's becoming that mystery that's going to periodically pop in my head at night when I'm trying to sleep.
I think it's 4141 Farm, probably an address if the paper is delivered? Just my guess. Could also just be a quick note someone jotted down on the closest piece of paper during a phone call or something, who knows haha
You will benefit from seeing class in this more practical way, because right now, politicians and the people who finance their campaigns are the ones benefiting from the vague definition that keeps things the way they are, in their interest.
And just so we’re clear about how I’m defining class, here it is: Society is divided into two classes, not three, not four, not five. On the one hand, there are those who need to work to live, and on the other, those who have the privilege to make other people work so they don’t have to.
So long as you exchange your mental or physical energy for a salary, you are part of the working class. The class of people that works. A term which I know is confusing because to most people “working class” just means “poor,” but here it literally means what it says, regardless of whether the work you do is white-collar or blue-collar.
The remaining few who make most if not the entirety of their money through rents, speculation, or profit, mainly by owning things like companies or housing, not through their own work, are called the capitalist class, or the owner class.
Capitalism is like one giant game of monopoly. At first we all start off and we are all pretty much equal. Then a few players start getting lucky, within a few generations there is a clear divide. Not as much of stark contrast as today but its there. At this point you can still have a job that pays well while not being in the 1%. Eventually, the unlucky players run out of money and start being eliminated. That's when the luckiest players starts sucking up money from those who actually have it. The 1% will become the 0.5%, then the 0.25%. We will one day have just the 1.
I think so. I get the same sort of articles pushed on me in my news feed, like "How this 20 year old's side hustle allowed her to buy a house with cash!" It feels sometimes like a narrative being pushed by media conglomerates to keep people hopeful or to sway public opinion, but I assume the actual answer is that those articles generate a reliable number of clicks and therefore revenue.
So yeah, it's infuriating to consider that people are being manipulated like that, but in most cases it doesn't really affect me, so my fury stays at a mild level.
It sounds like you think this shouldn't be here, but do you think it's not worth talking about or that we should all be more than mildly infuriated?
It's definitely worth talking about and it makes me more than mildly infuriated because this affects me directly (as someone who administers anesthesia). But I think I'm just getting heavy political agenda vibes verses something that's ACTUALLY mildly infuriating that other people can relate to. I'm being overly critical I'm sure. But for example - go to this community's equivalent subreddit. There's a post where someone bought diving goggles and the retailer placed price tag stickers on the LENSES of the goggles, leaving a gooey residue. That's definitely mildly infuriating and fitting for the sub. I just feel this post is low effort political outrage.
Not much up to date with UK politics but striking Doctors sounds a bit irresponsible. I totaly get the need for fair compensation and they should totally get that, no question, but is it a good idea to strike in the health industry? There have to be better options, no? Or maybe I‘m just uninformed but this sounds like it’s puting peoples health at risk, which feels wrong to me.
As far as I'm aware, doctors striking typically works differently than most other labor. They usually have a certain number of doctors in rotation working to take care of crticial things. Non-critical operation gets delayed indefinitely though.
Just like the rail worker strike in the US, my opinion is that if some people are that critical that anyone thinks they shouldn't strike, their employers shouldn't let it get to that point. Preferably the employees would have democratic control of the company so it never becomes an issue, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Anyway, the company is responsible for strikes happening, not the workers.
If junior doctors are paid so badly wouldn't a better response to this be to quit and do something else or move to a different country? You help yourself and eventually the NHS has to realise that only paying a gazillion bureaucrats whilst having too few and too badly paid doctors isn't going to work out. To be fair this is already happening, many doctors have left and we have 22 month waiting times... Time is approaching where NHS, the huge bureaucratic behemoth, is dismantled and replaced with something better.
Drexit (“Doctor-Exit”) is the exponentially growing trend for doctors to walk away from their jobs in the NHS, either to new healthcare systems overseas such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or perhaps worse, into new professions altogether, leaving behind their well trained medical brains. This exodus has been gaining momentum for several years with the workforce now at breaking point.
Four in 10 junior doctors are actively planning to quit the NHS as soon as they can find another job, according to a survey by the British Medical Association.
The survey, released as part of the BMA chair of council Prof Philip Banfield’s new year message, found poor pay and working conditions were among the main reasons for junior doctors wanting to leave.
"If junior doctors are paid so badly wouldn't a better response to this be to quit and do something else or move to a different country?"
They are, and they have been...? The NHS has been hemorrhaging staff since well before the pandemic, from nurses, senior nursing staff, registrars, junior doctors and consultants... I know at least 5 people myself from various hospital/GP health care trades that have upped sticks and moved to Canada, Australia or New Zealand... because of exactly these problems. They get payed better and have a higher quality of life in the commonwealth than back here...
If health care is a human right, it should be available to everyone, paid for by those who have the money. And those who provide it of cause should be paid well, from doctors to nurses to assistants.
The argument is that under this government the conditions the workers have to endure is causing staff to leave and deterring new staff, so if they don't act then more people will have worse health outcomes down the line. Is not just about wages.
Doctors aren't the only ones with power to end the strike. What about their demands? Doctors who aren't getting what they need aren't able to provide the best care either.
Understaffing, penny-pinching, forcing medical professionals to take on more and more work with no help, to say nothing of increased pay. These working conditions hurt patients chronically.
That's why doctors and nurses strike. Especially THESE doctors - the new ones who just graduated from medical school. They're the single most exploited group of people working in healthcare when you account for how little they are paid in comparison to how much they're expected to work and how much revenue they generate.
In the US we call them resident doctors. In the UK junior doctors. I absolutely support their strike
It's the government that has systematically been selling off the NHS to private companies and allowing private insurers to let those who can pay skip those queues making them longer for everyone else, and it's the government that has refused to give enough money both to the NHS itself and its staff (intentionally, so that it can't function, which makes people like you complain about queues and blame strikes instead of looking at why they are both happening in the first place, while they're busy doing the aforementioned selling off and profiteering).
Well done for putting yourself up as an example to show everyone who this propaganda is aimed at and how well it works.
Whilst I agree that the daily mail is a peice of toilet paper, the rest of this post is concerning.
I would encourage you not to see the world in black and white. The NHS has been outsourcing operations to private providers since Tony Blares day, it's not a new occurance.
Also private doesn't have to mean american style healthcare. I would strongly encourage you to read up about how health care works in Germany and Franc. Both have fully privatised health care with goverment provided insurance coverage. Their systems are more efficient and provide better outcomes than the UK, whilst spending less money per person.
Whilst I agree front line staff are under paid, I also think the NHS suffers from poor management on a mid to upper level and that a polarised view set discourages us from seeking meaningful reforms.
The Dutch private system works very well, too. Unfortunately, as an American looking across the pond, it sure reads an awful lot to me like they're just aching to get in on the absolute scam of a healthcare system we have here.
If doctors aren't working, patients aren't being seen.
It's not really that deep, but for some reason you've assumed my entire political philosophy from one short comment. Which is precisely the problem with political debate nowadays.
Okay, so this kind of rationale is used a lot in the US to justify treating all kinds of professions (almost always those that exist at the action layer, where you're doing the actual nominal work of the business) like shit. The rough format is "Won't someone PLEASE think of the {customer}?!" Of course, this is always aimed at the people at the action layer, never ever at the administrative level. So, it might be more accurate to say "YOU need to care about the customer [because nobody else will]." It's often very closely tied to sacrifice rhetoric in the workplace, where the employer places the onus on the employee to sacrifice, often without any bound. In other words, to accept personal loss with no expectations of recompense; they'll take as much as they can get from the employee, and no amount of sacrifice will ever be 'enough', as there will always be some new crisis demanding a new sacrifice.
In teaching, this is "Won't someone please think of the kids? What will they do if there's no school? Remember why we're here, it's about the kids." In EMS and all of healthcare, just replace the kids with the patients. It's very common to see this in any industry where they think they can get away with paying their people in passion. It's shitty and exploitive, and it ultimately does a disservice to the customer by creating high employee turnover, low organizational experience, organizational dysfunction (often in spite of ballooning admin costs and positions in these types of sectors) and more burned out employees.
How about, refusal to pay fair wages to [insert worker category] harms [insert end user]?
Article says it’s coming into a period when the NHS is coming under pressure- what do you think that translates to for the doctors and healthcare professionals that prop up that system? Sunshine and roses?
I made no comment on the merits of the strikes. I just said that if the doctors aren't working then they're obviously not seeing patients, which in turn will lead to treatments being delayed further. Which is obvious, so the headline is technically correct.
Not sure why people think that's such a controversial thing to say. 😂
Okay, so, technically it may be correct, that there's a causal relationship between access to medical services, the demand on those services and the availability of those providing the services. If supply goes down due to a strike, then yes, services are being interrupted to those who need them, and thus the situation is "harming" patients.... By some definition of "harm".
However, this bullshit headline implies that doctors are actively and intentionally harming patients and they are exclusively responsible for that, which is entirely untrue.
It's the government's responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system operates effectively and efficiently, and if they're pushing people to the point where they feel that they need to execute a strike in order to be heard, that's a significant sign of poor management at best, IMO.
The headline tries to shift the concept of responsibility for patients being "harmed" from the lack of doctors due to the strike.... From the government, who is actually at fault, to the doctors, who are simply trying to get a fair deal.
The government for not negotiating to get this nonsense sorted out quicker, and the doctors for choosing to withdraw their labour. The doctors know full well that this will harm patients, but they chose to do it anyway. So let's not pretend this is a one-sided thing.
I am not truly sure I could blame either side of that.
The government were - and are - people who explicitly campaign with/for this shit. You could be angry if they didn't completely trash the country, its finances, and its health system to enrich themselves, after all that's their very agenda. Voters for them - much as I cannot understand why anybody would vote that way - would rightfully be angry if they did stuff like care for anybody but themselvs. The voters would have been lied to.
At the same time, the doctors can only do so much to protest while also ensuring patients get as much care as possible. I talk to a doctor frequently. She was recently diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer while around the same time her mum was also diagnosed with cancer. You know what she did? Go to work. And do long hours. More than she is paid for. Becaue there's no alternative. No one else can see to the patients. She would rather need to recuperate herself and care more for her mum, but there's just no option. That's so fucked up I lack words, and it also means the UK has a natural doctors problem: The ones that don't move away because fuck, why wouldn't you?!, they die off faster rather than slower or at least quit the field to protect their own health.
At some point, doctors end up having to force the issue. If they don't do it, things never improve.
Dude isn't this "mildly infuriating". The daily mail is designed to piss people off, feels more than "mildly" infuriating lol
!deliberatelyinfuriating?
Lol
Amazing how we've gone from "clap for the NHS they're amazing" to "you want fair compensation? psst!"
Also if the strike has only been going on for a little while then how does the Daily Mail account for the fact that NHS quality has gone down every year of the decade long Tory rule.
Maybe it's not the doctors that's the problem.. maybe it's the politicians (including Labour since Wes Streeting is chomping at the bit to carve up the NHS and continue the Tory legacy)
They got their claps, what else do they want?
Guys! I have this genius idea.
Let's pay them to stop the strike!
It's so simple. Give them a reason to keep doing their jobs, and this whole thing can be over with. Amazing.
Our government can't pay doctors, but it can give away trillions to private corporations and constantly raise the pay of politicians.
Almost like shitstains like Tories shouldn't ever be elected. It's amazing how dumb a certain percentage of the population is.
I'm interested, but how do we get our mates from Eton to profit from this?
Wasn't Brexit supposed to save them money so they can pour it back into the NHS?
Ah yes, another lie from the brexiteer brigade which is a gift for future generations to live with.
Yeah, right.
Our GDP per capita is now lower than Lithuania, just another brexit benefit.
Lithuania GDP Per Capita: $28,094
UK GDP Per Capita: $46,371
Brexit (and moreso post-GFC austerity) have been actions of brain-dead economic self-harm, but I don't know where you got your numbers from here. Even PPP adjusted the UK is ahead.
https://fb.watch/moX9dzwIzT/
It was from this, a clip from BBC Question Time I confess I did not fact-check it myself, I allowed myself to believe that a peer and former tory minister would quote correct figures.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. If you think that life is bad in the UK, you'd die from starvation in Lithuania.
Lithuania is actually doing pretty fine for itself. Haven't heard of any people starving to death there. Might drop some sources for that?
Numbeo.com for numbers, personal experience as well. Lithuania might be doing ok, but it's nowhere near how good the UK is doing. Thus anyone struggling in the UK would be dead in Lithuania.
Oh alright. I misunderstood your comment then. Yes, I agree with you.
Obligatory
Fuck the Daily Mail.
And The Sun along with them.
Absolute fucking rags that I wouldn't wipe my ass with.
Written by, and for, cunts.
I feel the author also deserves some credit. So: Fuck Steve Barclay.
Add the Express to the list too
You just described the left part of left vs right.
I disagree.
Left is more than wealth. Left is often reffered to socialism or liberalism. Either cases have at its core nothing to do with wealthy at all. Its not because your local politics have the left as wealthy fuckwads that this is everywhere.
That said, dont get me wrong, this is some terrible shit to say and the wealthy should piss off.
A) Liberalism is not left wing
B) Socialism, at its core, is about seizing control of the means of production, as it is they which create wealth.
Liberalism is the ONLY left wing.
The principle of "let consenting adults do whatever they want" is absolutelly compatible with some people having almost all of the money and others starving, but the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is not.
Liberalism (the first) has nothing to do with Left (the second).
Now if Liberalism was actually about maximizing Freedom in all its senses, then it would end up mainly concerning itself with how Human Basic Needs and Money and Ownership Law (mainly of Land) are used to limit the Freedom of most people, but "strangelly" I have never once heard or read a "liberal" mention how the very structures that keep a few in wealth limit the freedom of everybody else.
Trully thinking liberals could end up as lefties but they always stop at the boundary of reducing wealth discrimination, liberalizing access to land anf in general doing things that would free people who are born landless (i.e. most people) from being forced to work for others under other people's conditions for a roof over their heads and food on their tables.
De facto present day liberals as are hard right (though socially liberal, they're extremelly conservative in everything else).
Most people who call themselves liberals don’t even know what that word means, and just think it means gay rights and anti racial oppression.
That's some authoritarian delusion. Liberalism gives everyone tools to achieve their own goals. What you want is to erase individuality for some imaginary greater cause. Which is exactly what all and every totalitarian regime is about.
BULLSHIT!
Libertarians are for example in favour of Private Education, something which gives better tools to those born from wealthier parents who can afford the better schools than to those born from poor parent's who can: providing people who were lucky to pop-out of a wealthier vagina more/better tools hence more/better chances in life than others is literally the opposite of Meritocracy.
Ditto for Inheritance legislation: it makes even the most inept, lazy-ass, destructive scion of a wealthy family out there have far more chances and power than even the smartest, most hardworking, most able creator out there from poor families.
And lets not forget keeping Land Ownership as is now locking in centuries (in some countries millenia) of the most anti-meritocratic methods of acquring it and a gigantic advantage which is passed down the generations through inheritance, all this, again, the very opposite of a "fair playing field where everybody has a chance".
Libertarianism just wants to remove the Power of the State, a system which is managed by people elected by citizens in a "all votes count the same" process, by the Power of Money, which is mainly the product of past injustices, dynastic and were power has an extremelly uneven distribution (with some having hundreds of billions of times more power than others).
By wanting to weaken the fair playing field (one person one vote) in access to power which is vote by severely reducing that which that power controls (i.e. reducing the State) and replace it by an extremelly unever form of power, Money, which is so unfair that, like in the times of the Monarchy, it is Power which is mainly inherited, Liberarians are some of the most anti-Democratic anti-Freedom people out there, not to mention extraordinary hypocrites.
You can disagree with me all you want. You’re extremely misinformed, though. An entire life of propaganda made you believe some weird shit, but socialism is unequivocally about wealth distribution and liberalism is undoubtedly right-wing.
I didn’t understand your comment about local politics. Mostly because you can’t possibly know where i’m from, and calling the left ‘wealthy fuckwads’ is just bizarre.
So you’re trying to gaslight people into thinking that wealthy people only represent the left or the right? Rofl.
No. I’ve read enough theory to know that the left understands the world as a struggle between two classes: capitalists and workers.
The right believes in meritocracy, the invisible hand of the market, and risking capital as the most valuable asset.
Of course there are poor people leaning right. There is not a single leftist billionaire, though.
…oh, and in case you’re from the United States (you act as if you were): Both of your political parties are right-wing. Your ‘radical leftist politicians’ are centrists at best. Right-wingers don’t become leftists because they’re ok with giving some human rights to the population.
No. The true left is all about freedoms and rights - liberal democracy. What you call left is the same authorisation shit as right.
Cringe
Yes, pseudo-lefties are cringe indeed.
It works that way pretty much everywhere but the US.
Nice subject change!
Why is written 'harming' in single quotes? Is this some opinion that someone has had that they are publishing as fact?
The government is just holding out in the hope that public opinion on the strikes turns on their favour or that the nurses and doctors run out of savings to keep striking.
In my opinion I think quotes in general should be banned from being headlines. It's been abused as a tactic for making inflammatory headlines with little factual basis under the technicality it just being the words of someone else.
Couldn't agree more, you see it used a lot to punt far-right & clickbaity nonsense
Unless it's an actual quotation (with source, ofc).
Banned by who?
It'll be paraphrased from something a Tory said and I suspect the quotes cover the "paper" from libel since they can then claim it was opinion rather than fact
Yes, the health secretary, it literally says so in the headline.
I read a while back that it's to insulate the paper from any potential defamation lawsuits, the quotes are there to ensure the difference between "we believe the strikes are harming patients also this person says they must stop" and "this person believes the strikes are harming patients and also says they must stop"
It's actually very common practice in the UK, most headlines make use of quotations to endorse a position by means of quoting an opinion and providing context to that opinion.
In this specific case it is of course bullshit, the language of the headline is deliberately worded to incite anger against the healthcare professionals and the quotes are added to preserve the emotive qualities of the headline when read by the layperson while insulating the paper from legal risk.
Yeah it's in the first line of the article under the headline.
Nobody's asking where all these strikingly beautiful doctors are?
I mean, to be fair, it's also a business strategy on the Internet.
Daily Mail is considered expensive toilet paper by a lot of Brits.
The worst thing about it is that it's not even available in two-ply.
Yep, the Daily Fail. Fucking Murdoch rag.
It's owned by Viscount Rothermere, another ultra rich wealth-hoarding media mogul.
GB News and Talk TV are the Fox News of Britain.
I'd say the Daily Mail are more like an amalgamation of Breitbart and TMZ.
for an expensive toilet paper brand, even they try to save on manufacturing costs
Daily Hate Mail
How is "despite waiting lists being a record high" on the doctors? That's on the hospitals or government for not hiring enough doctors, probably because they don't pay well enough. The doctors should add "the waiting lists are too long" to their complaints (if not already on there).
But didn't you hear? Nobody wants to work!!!(for slave wages and predatory insurance plans)
From the paper that brought you: "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" an editorial from 1934 reporting on Hitlers blackshirts, by the then editor Viscount Rothermere who's son the current Viscount Rothermere still owns it... same shite different arsehole...
Capitalism is pay to play bitch. Funny how it's harmful when it affects their control but underfunding healthcare isn't.
There's nothing capitalist about the situation.
And in a few years they'll headline "Lazy students refuse to study medicine, hospitals closing due to doctor shortage!"
Then they'll tell you how the rich go to the EU for treatment and blame it all in Brussels
That's the Daily Mail for you.
It's a tabloid for the working class that actively promotes shitting on the working class. Unfortunately, they're as popular now as they ever have been.
Daily Fail or Daily Heil, there's no denying that this is one useless rag of a tabloid.
It's the Daily Mail... What were you expecting. Even toilet paper has more worth
Toilet paper is actually priceless. It's very important. I think you meant "used" toilet paper.
I would expect nothing else from the Daily Fail. That paper is a crock of shit.
Toilet paper is better, right?
Patients are harming striking doctors. If they want to be seen sooner, they could help apply pressure to the government to improve conditions, instead of licking boots and crying about labour action.
There's a very high level of support for NHS strikes, around 2:1 for vs against. Mebbe cast aspersions on those with the power to resolve them, not the people the Daily Mail will never give a platform to.
Is that 2 thirds getting off the couch and doing anything? Interesting that the western world can sanction countries under the logic that people can pressure the governments. But when it's time for pressuring their own, well... suddenly it's time to get indignant about casting aspersions. At least the French riot. Maybe the UK is waiting for another bus to tell them what to believe.
You're calling yourself comrade but you think it's all about individual actions and nothing to do with power?
Fuck knows what sanctions have to do with it. Since when did ordinary people get to decide when and where sanctions are applied?
Empty posturing, finger-wagging, sneering. Great tools for building solidarity 'comrade'.
Solidarity is when no one does collective action and just blames the media.
If you cannot be arsed to think about how power works, there is no helping you.
Still, at least France will get its revolution. All those people out on the streets, it's inevitable, right? So easy, the whole world would be a socialist paradise if only people weren't so stupid and lazy and too busy keeping a roof over their heads to be more like your saintly self.
You hopped up on the high horse first my friend.
I was originally making a contrary joke in response to the headline. With a bit of a message tacked on about supporting strikers, semi in response to entitled behavior I've directly seen by people on the Canadian side of things. With a bit of natural disdain for the British thrown in of course.
Now it's true I've been a bit of a dick but you're in the mud with me too lmao.
And what was it you said?
Anyway I'm not sure we're really on separate sides here, so much as just being nasty at this point. So peace.
Striking doctors...are striking doctors.
Yes, it will harm patients, but when wouldn't it? How exactly do they think strikes work, working anyway and loudly complaining?
And as can brought up, the people not meeting the demands should be falling under the same scrutiny. It could be ended by either side.
Thatcher outlawed this (surprise, surprise) but thr way Japanese train drivers strike is they run the trains but refuse to collect fairs. That seems like a much better system to me.
I don't know how doctors could do something similar though.
They do, doctors are still working for emergency cases, pre appointments get pushed....
As someone who is consistently a patient I can very safely say that the only things that harm me are pharmaceutical and insurance companies. (I’m USA based)
The Daily Shart has never been anything but tabloid garbage, no one should ever be subjected to anything from that publication for the good of all humankind
The daily fail
Daily Heil
It's like every other instance of people demanding better pay the bosses always blame the workers.
Although in this case the bosses agree with the workers, it's the utter idiots we have in government that are blame.
They aren’t idiots as much as they are greedy. They didn’t get into government leadership positions because they want to help people. They do it so they can take advantage of it and make money.
When they fuck up and people suffer, it isn’t an “accident”. It’s design because in the end they are making money off the people paying them off, etc.
Our big mistake is thinking these people are well intentioned, but forgiving their fuck ups because of “incompetence”. No, they are purposefully fucking you over to benefit themselves.
The bosses ARE the government. Never work for the public sector!
Would you just shut up, and tell me how Annabel will heal her heartache?!?!
I wonder if putting "harming" in scarequotes is their way of saying "We're not saying that!"
I walked into a doctor's office. The guy referred me to someone by circling a number on a piece of paper then charged my insurance 250.
They're striking because they're greedy? But to strike they're losing money, so...
Either way doctors have insane hours.
The doctor I know works 12 hour shifts, has a really nice, but nowhere near million dollar house, and isn't ER or ICU. Anecdotes are just anecdotes.
Spot the American.
The "Daily Mail" is less useful than toilet paper.
Not to detract from the discussion but does anyone know what's handwritten at the top of the 'paper' above the word Daily? It looks like it says "Hi Hi Farm" or "4141 Farm" and it's becoming that mystery that's going to periodically pop in my head at night when I'm trying to sleep.
I think it's 4141 Farm, probably an address if the paper is delivered? Just my guess. Could also just be a quick note someone jotted down on the closest piece of paper during a phone call or something, who knows haha
Right below a kid who just became an mega millionaire. His time at BVB was fun but he's the enemy now!
"And it wouldn't be surpising If there'd be another rising Said the man from the Daily Mail"
F That Daily Mail
I get the spirit, and I agree. But it's the first time I hear doctors labeled as working class. World has changed...
https://youtu.be/Nd7cohTdRAo?t=450
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Nd7cohTdRAo?t=450
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Capitalism is like one giant game of monopoly. At first we all start off and we are all pretty much equal. Then a few players start getting lucky, within a few generations there is a clear divide. Not as much of stark contrast as today but its there. At this point you can still have a job that pays well while not being in the 1%. Eventually, the unlucky players run out of money and start being eliminated. That's when the luckiest players starts sucking up money from those who actually have it. The 1% will become the 0.5%, then the 0.25%. We will one day have just the 1.
Everyone is a worker except for hereditary lords.
Does this really belong in this community? Is this REALLY mildlyinfuriating?
I think so. I get the same sort of articles pushed on me in my news feed, like "How this 20 year old's side hustle allowed her to buy a house with cash!" It feels sometimes like a narrative being pushed by media conglomerates to keep people hopeful or to sway public opinion, but I assume the actual answer is that those articles generate a reliable number of clicks and therefore revenue.
So yeah, it's infuriating to consider that people are being manipulated like that, but in most cases it doesn't really affect me, so my fury stays at a mild level.
It sounds like you think this shouldn't be here, but do you think it's not worth talking about or that we should all be more than mildly infuriated?
It's definitely worth talking about and it makes me more than mildly infuriated because this affects me directly (as someone who administers anesthesia). But I think I'm just getting heavy political agenda vibes verses something that's ACTUALLY mildly infuriating that other people can relate to. I'm being overly critical I'm sure. But for example - go to this community's equivalent subreddit. There's a post where someone bought diving goggles and the retailer placed price tag stickers on the LENSES of the goggles, leaving a gooey residue. That's definitely mildly infuriating and fitting for the sub. I just feel this post is low effort political outrage.
It makes you feel rich (and stupid) just like the elite
This thread reads like a Monty Python sketch.
Not much up to date with UK politics but striking Doctors sounds a bit irresponsible. I totaly get the need for fair compensation and they should totally get that, no question, but is it a good idea to strike in the health industry? There have to be better options, no? Or maybe I‘m just uninformed but this sounds like it’s puting peoples health at risk, which feels wrong to me.
If it feels wrong, they can be paid. End of story.
As far as I'm aware, doctors striking typically works differently than most other labor. They usually have a certain number of doctors in rotation working to take care of crticial things. Non-critical operation gets delayed indefinitely though.
Just like the rail worker strike in the US, my opinion is that if some people are that critical that anyone thinks they shouldn't strike, their employers shouldn't let it get to that point. Preferably the employees would have democratic control of the company so it never becomes an issue, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. Anyway, the company is responsible for strikes happening, not the workers.
If junior doctors are paid so badly wouldn't a better response to this be to quit and do something else or move to a different country? You help yourself and eventually the NHS has to realise that only paying a gazillion bureaucrats whilst having too few and too badly paid doctors isn't going to work out. To be fair this is already happening, many doctors have left and we have 22 month waiting times... Time is approaching where NHS, the huge bureaucratic behemoth, is dismantled and replaced with something better.
They are leaving.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/02/06/why-are-so-many-doctors-quitting-the-nhs/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/28/four-in-10-junior-doctors-plan-quit-nhs-survey
"If junior doctors are paid so badly wouldn't a better response to this be to quit and do something else or move to a different country?"
They are, and they have been...? The NHS has been hemorrhaging staff since well before the pandemic, from nurses, senior nursing staff, registrars, junior doctors and consultants... I know at least 5 people myself from various hospital/GP health care trades that have upped sticks and moved to Canada, Australia or New Zealand... because of exactly these problems. They get payed better and have a higher quality of life in the commonwealth than back here...
But if healthcare is a human right, then they should not strike as that is violating the rights of others?
If health care is a human right, it should be available to everyone, paid for by those who have the money. And those who provide it of cause should be paid well, from doctors to nurses to assistants.
The argument is that under this government the conditions the workers have to endure is causing staff to leave and deterring new staff, so if they don't act then more people will have worse health outcomes down the line. Is not just about wages.
You say “this government” and I’m not even sure which country you’re referring to at this point.
It seems like the enshittification has hit us on a global scale. This is the new pandemic.
The article is about the UK, so obviously the UK government is what I was referring to.
Well, appointments are being cancelled because of the strikes, so technically that's correct? 🤷
Doctors aren't the only ones with power to end the strike. What about their demands? Doctors who aren't getting what they need aren't able to provide the best care either.
Understaffing, penny-pinching, forcing medical professionals to take on more and more work with no help, to say nothing of increased pay. These working conditions hurt patients chronically.
That's why doctors and nurses strike. Especially THESE doctors - the new ones who just graduated from medical school. They're the single most exploited group of people working in healthcare when you account for how little they are paid in comparison to how much they're expected to work and how much revenue they generate.
In the US we call them resident doctors. In the UK junior doctors. I absolutely support their strike
It's the government that has systematically been selling off the NHS to private companies and allowing private insurers to let those who can pay skip those queues making them longer for everyone else, and it's the government that has refused to give enough money both to the NHS itself and its staff (intentionally, so that it can't function, which makes people like you complain about queues and blame strikes instead of looking at why they are both happening in the first place, while they're busy doing the aforementioned selling off and profiteering).
Well done for putting yourself up as an example to show everyone who this propaganda is aimed at and how well it works.
Whilst I agree that the daily mail is a peice of toilet paper, the rest of this post is concerning.
I would encourage you not to see the world in black and white. The NHS has been outsourcing operations to private providers since Tony Blares day, it's not a new occurance.
Also private doesn't have to mean american style healthcare. I would strongly encourage you to read up about how health care works in Germany and Franc. Both have fully privatised health care with goverment provided insurance coverage. Their systems are more efficient and provide better outcomes than the UK, whilst spending less money per person.
Whilst I agree front line staff are under paid, I also think the NHS suffers from poor management on a mid to upper level and that a polarised view set discourages us from seeking meaningful reforms.
The Dutch private system works very well, too. Unfortunately, as an American looking across the pond, it sure reads an awful lot to me like they're just aching to get in on the absolute scam of a healthcare system we have here.
If doctors aren't working, patients aren't being seen.
It's not really that deep, but for some reason you've assumed my entire political philosophy from one short comment. Which is precisely the problem with political debate nowadays.
And whose fault is it that those doctors aren't working?
Could it be... The people not paying them enough?
Okay, so this kind of rationale is used a lot in the US to justify treating all kinds of professions (almost always those that exist at the action layer, where you're doing the actual nominal work of the business) like shit. The rough format is "Won't someone PLEASE think of the {customer}?!" Of course, this is always aimed at the people at the action layer, never ever at the administrative level. So, it might be more accurate to say "YOU need to care about the customer [because nobody else will]." It's often very closely tied to sacrifice rhetoric in the workplace, where the employer places the onus on the employee to sacrifice, often without any bound. In other words, to accept personal loss with no expectations of recompense; they'll take as much as they can get from the employee, and no amount of sacrifice will ever be 'enough', as there will always be some new crisis demanding a new sacrifice.
In teaching, this is "Won't someone please think of the kids? What will they do if there's no school? Remember why we're here, it's about the kids." In EMS and all of healthcare, just replace the kids with the patients. It's very common to see this in any industry where they think they can get away with paying their people in passion. It's shitty and exploitive, and it ultimately does a disservice to the customer by creating high employee turnover, low organizational experience, organizational dysfunction (often in spite of ballooning admin costs and positions in these types of sectors) and more burned out employees.
"Look at how the poors keep trying to hurt the money!"
Ya an over worked under paid medical workers with limited resources is preferred... The only people hurting others is wealthy individuals
How about, refusal to pay fair wages to [insert worker category] harms [insert end user]?
Article says it’s coming into a period when the NHS is coming under pressure- what do you think that translates to for the doctors and healthcare professionals that prop up that system? Sunshine and roses?
Patients are already being harmed by draconian healthcare systems.
Back to reddit you go
The overreaction to a simple comment suggests it's everyone else that needs to go back to Reddit.
What a weird thing to say.
Not at all. An understandable comment given that you ignored the thoughtful comments about why doctors are striking.
I made no comment on the merits of the strikes. I just said that if the doctors aren't working then they're obviously not seeing patients, which in turn will lead to treatments being delayed further. Which is obvious, so the headline is technically correct.
Not sure why people think that's such a controversial thing to say. 😂
Okay, so, technically it may be correct, that there's a causal relationship between access to medical services, the demand on those services and the availability of those providing the services. If supply goes down due to a strike, then yes, services are being interrupted to those who need them, and thus the situation is "harming" patients.... By some definition of "harm".
However, this bullshit headline implies that doctors are actively and intentionally harming patients and they are exclusively responsible for that, which is entirely untrue.
It's the government's responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system operates effectively and efficiently, and if they're pushing people to the point where they feel that they need to execute a strike in order to be heard, that's a significant sign of poor management at best, IMO.
The headline tries to shift the concept of responsibility for patients being "harmed" from the lack of doctors due to the strike.... From the government, who is actually at fault, to the doctors, who are simply trying to get a fair deal.
But it's both sides that are to blame.
The government for not negotiating to get this nonsense sorted out quicker, and the doctors for choosing to withdraw their labour. The doctors know full well that this will harm patients, but they chose to do it anyway. So let's not pretend this is a one-sided thing.
I am not truly sure I could blame either side of that.
The government were - and are - people who explicitly campaign with/for this shit. You could be angry if they didn't completely trash the country, its finances, and its health system to enrich themselves, after all that's their very agenda. Voters for them - much as I cannot understand why anybody would vote that way - would rightfully be angry if they did stuff like care for anybody but themselvs. The voters would have been lied to.
At the same time, the doctors can only do so much to protest while also ensuring patients get as much care as possible. I talk to a doctor frequently. She was recently diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer while around the same time her mum was also diagnosed with cancer. You know what she did? Go to work. And do long hours. More than she is paid for. Becaue there's no alternative. No one else can see to the patients. She would rather need to recuperate herself and care more for her mum, but there's just no option. That's so fucked up I lack words, and it also means the UK has a natural doctors problem: The ones that don't move away because fuck, why wouldn't you?!, they die off faster rather than slower or at least quit the field to protect their own health.
At some point, doctors end up having to force the issue. If they don't do it, things never improve.