The Fine Gael thread

[trileacman]

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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

[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.

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.

Yes, it's clear you have won the crowd with your logic. 

[foxcommander]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...


oh..and RTE says there were 30,000 at the protest on Saturday. Someone from FG must have loaned them their calculator.
Impartial reporting??

[mikehunt]

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.

Here's a bit more ranting and mindless rhetoric for you. Levels of mgt numbers in the HSE has increased by 11% since 2011 while front line staff levels have dropped.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/too-many-managers-1.2021282

Figures being paid to ex HSE employees which was leaked over the weekend.

http://www.thejournal.ie/hse-whisteblower-report-contracts-tendering-2006850-Mar2015/

This happened while numbers on trollies were at an all time high.

[Lar Naparka]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...


oh..and RTE says there were 30,000 at the protest on Saturday. Someone from FG must have loaned them their calculator.
Impartial reporting??

??
The Sunday Mirror put the figure at 80,000. Both estimates can't be correct.

[mikehunt]

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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

Country is running a deficit and you're not bothered about expenditure percentages within one of the biggest spending depts in the country? How can you possibly control costs if you don't monitor them? If salaries are 70% of total spend one year and 80% the next month then alarm bells should ring especially in an organisation where there is very little if any revenue being generated. Doesn't matter what game you're in if one cost totals 80% then it needs seious attention. Before even a bed is dressed, an xray machine purchased, medication purchased, total cost is close to 80%.

Salary and wages as a percentage of total cost is not even 60% in the NHS. This is your starting point. That one figure alone would suggest that this 80% means a lot more than the "square root of eff all".

[LeoMc]

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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

Country is running a deficit and you're not bothered about expenditure percentages within one of the biggest spending depts in the country? How can you possibly control costs if you don't monitor them? If salaries are 70% of total spend one year and 80% the next month then alarm bells should ring especially in an organisation where there is very little if any revenue being generated. Doesn't matter what game you're in if one cost totals 80% then it needs seious attention. Before even a bed is dressed, an xray machine purchased, medication purchased, total cost is close to 80%.

Salary and wages as a percentage of total cost is not even 60% in the NHS. This is your starting point. That one figure alone would suggest that this 80% means a lot more than the "square root of eff all".

On its own 80% means nothing.
Putting it up against 60%* gives it a meaning.
Showing an increase from 70%* to 80% gives it a meaning.
Giving a breakdown of that 80% (Doctors / Nurses / Direct ancillary / Admin / Managerial) would give it even more meaning.

Any sources for these 2 figures?

[mikehunt]

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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

Country is running a deficit and you're not bothered about expenditure percentages within one of the biggest spending depts in the country? How can you possibly control costs if you don't monitor them? If salaries are 70% of total spend one year and 80% the next month then alarm bells should ring especially in an organisation where there is very little if any revenue being generated. Doesn't matter what game you're in if one cost totals 80% then it needs seious attention. Before even a bed is dressed, an xray machine purchased, medication purchased, total cost is close to 80%.

Salary and wages as a percentage of total cost is not even 60% in the NHS. This is your starting point. That one figure alone would suggest that this 80% means a lot more than the "square root of eff all".

On its own 80% means nothing.
Putting it up against 60%* gives it a meaning.
Showing an increase from 70%* to 80% gives it a meaning.
Giving a breakdown of that 80% (Doctors / Nurses / Direct ancillary / Admin / Managerial) would give it even more meaning.

Any sources for these 2 figures?

If one cost is answerable for 80 percent of total costs then this figure is not meaningless unless you're a financial illiterate.  When I heard it I went "wtf".

[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.

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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

Country is running a deficit and you're not bothered about expenditure percentages within one of the biggest spending depts in the country? How can you possibly control costs if you don't monitor them? If salaries are 70% of total spend one year and 80% the next month then alarm bells should ring especially in an organisation where there is very little if any revenue being generated. Doesn't matter what game you're in if one cost totals 80% then it needs seious attention. Before even a bed is dressed, an xray machine purchased, medication purchased, total cost is close to 80%.

Salary and wages as a percentage of total cost is not even 60% in the NHS. This is your starting point. That one figure alone would suggest that this 80% means a lot more than the "square root of eff all".

Out of interest, do you have sources for the 80% for the Irish health expenditure and 60% for the UK?
And did salaries really rise from 70% to 80% of Irish health expenditure in a year? If so, again interested to see the source.

Also, you could easily reduce the 80% by sacking a few nurses and doctors and spending the money renovating the offices in the Department of Health. It wouldn't improve healthcare, but it would 'improve' your statistic (using your logic).

[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.

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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

Country is running a deficit and you're not bothered about expenditure percentages within one of the biggest spending depts in the country? How can you possibly control costs if you don't monitor them? If salaries are 70% of total spend one year and 80% the next month then alarm bells should ring especially in an organisation where there is very little if any revenue being generated. Doesn't matter what game you're in if one cost totals 80% then it needs seious attention. Before even a bed is dressed, an xray machine purchased, medication purchased, total cost is close to 80%.

Salary and wages as a percentage of total cost is not even 60% in the NHS. This is your starting point. That one figure alone would suggest that this 80% means a lot more than the "square root of eff all".

On its own 80% means nothing.
Putting it up against 60%* gives it a meaning.
Showing an increase from 70%* to 80% gives it a meaning.
Giving a breakdown of that 80% (Doctors / Nurses / Direct ancillary / Admin / Managerial) would give it even more meaning.

Any sources for these 2 figures?

Similar to my own questions. But also, we need to know:

Whether 60% of spend on salaries provides a better service. It's a comparison, but it still doesn't actually tell you which is better.
Similarly for the 70% to 80% increase - if this was as a result of negotiating better prices for medicines and using the saved money to hire extra nurses, then it's a result.

[mikehunt]

Similar to my own questions. But also, we need to know:

Whether 60% of spend on salaries provides a better service. It's a comparison, but it still doesn't actually tell you which is better.
Similarly for the 70% to 80% increase - if this was as a result of negotiating better prices for medicines and using the saved money to hire extra nurses, then it's a result.

You tried to ridicule Lynchboy and now when there are comparisons given u ask "but do they provide a better service than the HSE?" it's the HSE ffs, described as Angola by a previous minister for health. As for your ridiculous statement about possible savings in medicine being used to hire extra nurses? There are so many holes in that statement I don't know where to start but here are a few pointers. Why do Irish patients go over the border to get their medication? Because it's cheaper and by a good distance (excuse the pun). NHS get cheaper drugs. And as for using these "savings" to hire extra nurses, I've already posted a link which states that front level staff numbers have diminished as the number of middle managers has increased. All your postings are hypothetical and far far away from reality.

The proof is in the figures. NHS are able to spend 40% of costs on non salary costs compared to 20% spent by the HSE. Services and facilities would have to be better with these figures. More resources available to invest in technology, drugs, research etc.

[Rossfan]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...


oh..and RTE says there were 30,000 at the protest on Saturday. Someone from FG must have loaned them their calculator.
Impartial reporting??

??
The Sunday Mirror put the figure at 80,000. Both estimates can't be correct.

Nobody mentioning the 4,570,000 or 4,520,000 who didn't partake part in Ogle's march.

[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.

Jesus quit while you still can lynchboy. You've been called out for chatting shite so quit trying to warp in into some sort of enlightened thought.

The 80% pay figure means the square root of fcuk all. We could fire 100 nurses in the morning buy 30 digital x-ray machines and get the pay % down to 70%. By your own admission this would mean fcuk all to front-line services. This 80% figure means fcuk all. It could be 85% tommorrow and it would still tell us fcuk all about the health service, it could be 75% next month and would still tell us fcuk all.

This reminds me of the thread a few weeks back about the bodybuilders training every other day/4 times a week. Just quit whilst ya can.

??
You might want to re-write your post in order for it to make sense or be comprehensible!!

[foxcommander]

Getting back on track with the liars....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0322/688916-no-record-kept-of-2012-irish-water-meetings/

Now why would you do something like that? Lets see who'll give us the party blurb...


oh..and RTE says there were 30,000 at the protest on Saturday. Someone from FG must have loaned them their calculator.
Impartial reporting??

??
The Sunday Mirror put the figure at 80,000. Both estimates can't be correct.

Nobody mentioning the 4,570,000 or 4,520,000 who didn't partake part in Ogle's march.

Maybe you can organise a Pro-Irish Water march and 4,570,000 or 4,520,000 will turn up.

[armaghniac]

Maybe you can organise a Pro-Irish Water march and 4,570,000 or 4,520,000 will turn up.

The pro Irish water people have jobs and things to do other than march around. They will show their preference by paying their bills and voting for responsible parties.