The Fine Gael thread

[Rossfan]

Correct Maguire ( unfortunately)

[lynchbhoy]

You will find that the hundred thousand thugs protesting were not just protesting about water charges. Water Charges was the final straw for these thugs and won't pay brigade. 80% of total health expenditure is spent on salaries yet none of this could be tackled.

Saying the 80% of money is spent on salaries doesn't say anything directly, hospitals without staff would be useless. And of course salaries of the people in the health service were cut, by 30% in some cases. How did that one work out http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-25pc-of-medical-consultant-posts-filled-29447254.html. As always your posts have a limited connection with reality.

Precisely. What would you expect money in the health service to be spent on, if not doctors, nurses, surgeons, porters etc.... ? Without people, there's no health service.

Should take a look at clearing out "administration" staff. Lots of incompetent pen-pushers who add no value.

Maybe, but any money saved would be needed for more doctors and nurses, so you still have that proportion of expenditure on salaries. The point is that the 80% argument means absolutely nothing.

I'd expect it would mean the world to those waiting for medical procedures, those on trolleys or those trying to get medication

[lynchbhoy]

That Mike Hunt is getting tiresome with his stereotypes of cushy public sector jobs.
Try picking up body pieces or hosing down blood after a traffic accident.
He also seems to be an expert on the internal workings of the HSE .
He's joined my ignore list as I can't suffer his sh1te any longer.

Not sure that ignore option is working. You've mentioned having me on that list three times now yet you still pass comment on what I post.

Guaranteed job for life with defined benefit pension is something the private sector could only dream of. Most people would be grateful but you talk like you're hard done by.

You can't blame them for that. Until these things ( db pension, guaranteed pay increases or back pay pay increases, bonuses etc) are brought into line with private sector- then there will be this disparity.
There is an over subscription of staff in certain departments ( eg Fortas decommissioned yet all staff reassigned to other departments - some if not all departments already fully staffed).
Then the lack of performance management in these agencies and departments... Even when they have perf mgt systems. You'd not believe the inefficiency and the lack of work and pure laziness of about 40-50% of these people

[Maguire01]

You will find that the hundred thousand thugs protesting were not just protesting about water charges. Water Charges was the final straw for these thugs and won't pay brigade. 80% of total health expenditure is spent on salaries yet none of this could be tackled.

Saying the 80% of money is spent on salaries doesn't say anything directly, hospitals without staff would be useless. And of course salaries of the people in the health service were cut, by 30% in some cases. How did that one work out http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-25pc-of-medical-consultant-posts-filled-29447254.html. As always your posts have a limited connection with reality.

Precisely. What would you expect money in the health service to be spent on, if not doctors, nurses, surgeons, porters etc.... ? Without people, there's no health service.

Should take a look at clearing out "administration" staff. Lots of incompetent pen-pushers who add no value.

Maybe, but any money saved would be needed for more doctors and nurses, so you still have that proportion of expenditure on salaries. The point is that the 80% argument means absolutely nothing.

I'd expect it would mean the world to those waiting for medical procedures, those on trolleys or those trying to get medication

Why would a random statistic mean anything to them? Is 80% staffing costs too low or too high for a health service? Without context it means nothing to anybody.

[lynchbhoy]

You will find that the hundred thousand thugs protesting were not just protesting about water charges. Water Charges was the final straw for these thugs and won't pay brigade. 80% of total health expenditure is spent on salaries yet none of this could be tackled.

Saying the 80% of money is spent on salaries doesn't say anything directly, hospitals without staff would be useless. And of course salaries of the people in the health service were cut, by 30% in some cases. How did that one work out http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-25pc-of-medical-consultant-posts-filled-29447254.html. As always your posts have a limited connection with reality.

Precisely. What would you expect money in the health service to be spent on, if not doctors, nurses, surgeons, porters etc.... ? Without people, there's no health service.

Should take a look at clearing out "administration" staff. Lots of incompetent pen-pushers who add no value.

Maybe, but any money saved would be needed for more doctors and nurses, so you still have that proportion of expenditure on salaries. The point is that the 80% argument means absolutely nothing.

I'd expect it would mean the world to those waiting for medical procedures, those on trolleys or those trying to get medication

Why would a random statistic mean anything to them? Is 80% staffing costs too low or too high for a health service? Without context it means nothing to anybody.

That actually wasn't what I meant. I'm sure you know this.

The point is that money saved on wages for excess pen pushers would be greatly appreciated by those in dire need of augmented medical services.

[Rossfan]

Another who knows all about the internal workingsof the HSE.
Perhaps he could let us know
What is salaries % in other places eg 6 Cos., GB, Denmark
What is ratio of admin/medical/nursing/support staffs in HSE and other Countries.
Easier to trot put Oul clichés I suppose.
Should join the Lucyloolah party perhaps

[lynchbhoy]

Another who knows all about the internal workingsof the HSE.
Perhaps he could let us know
What is salaries % in other places eg 6 Cos., GB, Denmark
What is ratio of admin/medical/nursing/support staffs in HSE and other Countries.
Easier to trot put Oul clichés I suppose.
Should join the Lucyloolah party perhaps

There are people who have worked in or with hse and gov agencies/gov dept's that also use the Internet

Your ignorance should be astounding but I'm actually not surprised.

It appears you are already a hurler on the ditch for one of the lucyloolah parties

[Maguire01]

You will find that the hundred thousand thugs protesting were not just protesting about water charges. Water Charges was the final straw for these thugs and won't pay brigade. 80% of total health expenditure is spent on salaries yet none of this could be tackled.

Saying the 80% of money is spent on salaries doesn't say anything directly, hospitals without staff would be useless. And of course salaries of the people in the health service were cut, by 30% in some cases. How did that one work out http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-25pc-of-medical-consultant-posts-filled-29447254.html. As always your posts have a limited connection with reality.

Precisely. What would you expect money in the health service to be spent on, if not doctors, nurses, surgeons, porters etc.... ? Without people, there's no health service.

Should take a look at clearing out "administration" staff. Lots of incompetent pen-pushers who add no value.

Maybe, but any money saved would be needed for more doctors and nurses, so you still have that proportion of expenditure on salaries. The point is that the 80% argument means absolutely nothing.

I'd expect it would mean the world to those waiting for medical procedures, those on trolleys or those trying to get medication

Why would a random statistic mean anything to them? Is 80% staffing costs too low or too high for a health service? Without context it means nothing to anybody.

That actually wasn't what I meant. I'm sure you know this.

The point is that money saved on wages for excess pen pushers would be greatly appreciated by those in dire need of augmented medical services.

You're trying to pick an argument where there is none then, as you're not contradicting anything I said.

[lynchbhoy]

You will find that the hundred thousand thugs protesting were not just protesting about water charges. Water Charges was the final straw for these thugs and won't pay brigade. 80% of total health expenditure is spent on salaries yet none of this could be tackled.

Saying the 80% of money is spent on salaries doesn't say anything directly, hospitals without staff would be useless. And of course salaries of the people in the health service were cut, by 30% in some cases. How did that one work out http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/only-25pc-of-medical-consultant-posts-filled-29447254.html. As always your posts have a limited connection with reality.

Precisely. What would you expect money in the health service to be spent on, if not doctors, nurses, surgeons, porters etc.... ? Without people, there's no health service.

Should take a look at clearing out "administration" staff. Lots of incompetent pen-pushers who add no value.

Maybe, but any money saved would be needed for more doctors and nurses, so you still have that proportion of expenditure on salaries. The point is that the 80% argument means absolutely nothing.

I'd expect it would mean the world to those waiting for medical procedures, those on trolleys or those trying to get medication

Why would a random statistic mean anything to them? Is 80% staffing costs too low or too high for a health service? Without context it means nothing to anybody.

That actually wasn't what I meant. I'm sure you know this.

The point is that money saved on wages for excess pen pushers would be greatly appreciated by those in dire need of augmented medical services.

You're trying to pick an argument where there is none then, as you're not contradicting anything I said.

I'm not trying to argue anything here.
Your statement that was 80% etc was an Irrelevent statistic etc

I'm merely making the point that 80% or whatever excessive staffing levels there are in gov departments - esp dept of health - are relevant to the people in dire need of healthcare , operations and beds instead of trolleys etc
Reduced and adequate staffing levels SHOULD mean more money for such front line services.
Not an argument but an observation- ok slightly correcting your throwaway comment but I don't think you though too much into it

[Maguire01]

I'm not trying to argue anything here.
Your statement that was 80% etc was an Irrelevent statistic etc

It is. It means absolutely nothing on its own. Unless you can tell me what proportion of expenditure should be on staff, and what proportion should be on other things (and what those other things are).

I'm merely making the point that 80% or whatever excessive staffing levels there are in gov departments - esp dept of health - are relevant to the people in dire need of healthcare , operations and beds instead of trolleys etc

Firstly, we're not talking about the department of health. The 80% reference was made in relation to "total health expenditure", i.e. it includes hospitals, health centres, residential homes etc. - all those functions that provide healthcare on the front line.
Secondly, the percentage of spend on salaries in a government department doesn't tell us whether staffing levels are excessive - the actual spend in €/£ might, or the proportion of spend in admin vs frontline.

Reduced and adequate staffing levels SHOULD mean more money for such front line services.

Seriously? So you reduce the number of people in administration. What do you do with the money you save? Buy paperclips? NO, you spend it on doctors, nurses, surgeons etc. It's still expenditure on salaries! So if you spend 80% on salaries now, you restructure to divert more money to frontline services, you still spend 80% on salaries. So unless you can tell me that the 80% is wrong in the first place, and tell us what it should be (and why), then the 80% figure means absolutely nothing on its own.

Not an argument but an observation- ok slightly correcting your throwaway comment but I don't think you though too much into it

Clearly.

[armaghniac]

Seriously? So you reduce the number of people in administration. What do you do with the money you save? Buy paperclips? NO, you spend it on doctors, nurses, surgeons etc. It's still expenditure on salaries! So if you spend 80% on salaries now, you restructure to divert more money to frontline services, you still spend 80% on salaries. So unless you can tell me that the 80% is wrong in the first place, and tell us what it should be (and why), then the 80% figure means absolutely nothing on its own.

These aggregate figures conceal more than they reveal. Also in some cases they are dishonestly calculated, the likes of Hobbs have been known to take gross salaries and gross pension payments and add them together to get these figures, but some of the gross salary was paid by the employee as a pension contribution and this cannot be ignored if pensions are also counted.

Unless people start demanding measures that actually help, e.g. admin to frontline ratios, detailed cost per patient when compare to other countries etc then nothing will happen. But nobody does demand this, it is much easier to rant without data. 

[lynchbhoy]

I'm not trying to argue anything here.
Your statement that was 80% etc was an Irrelevent statistic etc

It is. It means absolutely nothing on its own. Unless you can tell me what proportion of expenditure should be on staff, and what proportion should be on other things (and what those other things are).

I'm merely making the point that 80% or whatever excessive staffing levels there are in gov departments - esp dept of health - are relevant to the people in dire need of healthcare , operations and beds instead of trolleys etc

Firstly, we're not talking about the department of health. The 80% reference was made in relation to "total health expenditure", i.e. it includes hospitals, health centres, residential homes etc. - all those functions that provide healthcare on the front line.
Secondly, the percentage of spend on salaries in a government department doesn't tell us whether staffing levels are excessive - the actual spend in €/£ might, or the proportion of spend in admin vs frontline.

Reduced and adequate staffing levels SHOULD mean more money for such front line services.

Seriously? So you reduce the number of people in administration. What do you do with the money you save? Buy paperclips? NO, you spend it on doctors, nurses, surgeons etc. It's still expenditure on salaries! So if you spend 80% on salaries now, you restructure to divert more money to frontline services, you still spend 80% on salaries. So unless you can tell me that the 80% is wrong in the first place, and tell us what it should be (and why), then the 80% figure means absolutely nothing on its own.

Not an argument but an observation- ok slightly correcting your throwaway comment but I don't think you though too much into it

Clearly.

Really???
Not sure you comprehend at all but ,More savings on unnecessary staff in department blocks around D2,D4 & D7 means more money can be given to frontline services in hospitals and medical centres around the country
End of

[Maguire01]

Yes, and directing money to frontline services means hiring more doctors and nurses. It's still expenditure on staff. That's my point. The 80% is irrelevant.

[lynchbhoy]

Yes, and directing money to frontline services means hiring more doctors and nurses. It's still expenditure on staff. That's my point. The 80% is irrelevant.

Useful expenditure that has a direct impact upon the people that require help as opposed to useless expenditure that has no impact at all in medical help required by people.

Undoubtedly of massive interest and 80% is relevant.
Unless you can come back with some relevant statistic to prove that the extra staffing in civil service office blocks is in someway relevant . You've turned this into a mini argument due to trying to back up your ill conceived throwaway comment.
Give over your fooling no one here!
Come back to me with a decent thought out notion and we can discuss.

[armaghniac]

Yes, and directing money to frontline services means hiring more doctors and nurses. It's still expenditure on staff. That's my point. The 80% is irrelevant.

Useful expenditure that has a direct impact upon the people that require help as opposed to useless expenditure that has no impact at all in medical help required by people.

Undoubtedly of massive interest and 80% is relevant.
Unless you can come back with some relevant statistic to prove that the extra staffing in civil service office blocks is in someway relevant . You've turned this into a mini argument due to trying to back up your ill conceived throwaway comment.
Give over your fooling no one here!
Come back to me with a decent thought out notion and we can discuss.

Maguire is clearly not arguing for  extra staffing in civil service office blocks, so I cannot see how this post makes sense. Perhaps it is not meant to.