
Where Brexit Hurts: The European Nurses and Doctors Leaving London - dpflan
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/world/europe/nhs-brexit-eu-migrants.html?type=new
======
Boothroid
There was a TV programme the other night about an employment agency in SE UK
that could not find enough British workers to do the work it had on its books,
and how Brexit had made things worse as many immigrants the agency was
previously placing in work had returned their home countries. My thoughts on
this were: those jobs were not paying enough to attract labour from the local
market, but immigrants were prepared to accept lower wages; thus, the jobs
were actually not viable without cheap foreign labour. This looks like a ponzi
scheme to me. Does it ever end? Is the plan to continue with immigration for
ever? Going by the arguments of the pro-immigration side that immigrants are
net contributors then surely we should aim to have the entire population of
the world living in the UK? What population do we want in the UK - 80 million?
100 million? 500 million? I would like an answer - I've noticed you never ever
get one from a Remainer, because the truth is there is no plan, and whilst in
the EU the UK had no control over immigration.

If ending the ponzi scheme and paying enough to attract British workers means
we have to get a bit poorer, so be it, I am happy to do so to hold the forces
of globalism at bay just a short while longer. I like diversity, and I want it
to remain - how dull and disappointing it would be to live in a world where
every country is made up of the same undifferentiated global populace and
culture.

Or we just continue the ponzi by attracting more workers from outside the EU,
e.g. Commonwealth countries, with which the UK has strong historic ties - we
just get to choose the highly skilled and temporary labour we want, rather
than having no choice over who comes, as is the case whilst the UK remains in
the EU.

------
dpflan
I wonder how telemedicine can change and help situations like these; whereby
medical providers are more accessible through telecommunications.

~~~
dazc
We already have a version of this, it's called NHS direct. You explain your
symptoms and the person at the other end of the line runs through a set of
scripted questions.

Real life example: I phoned once when a friend of mine thought he was having a
heart attack. Some of the questions were pertinent, some not (such as: could
your friend be pregnant?).

After 10 minutes it was decided he wasn't having a heart attack and should
make an appointment to see his GP.

I believe it is possible to escalate the call to a medical professional if you
know the system.

~~~
dpflan
Thanks for sharing. Did you interact with a human on the phone? Is 10 minutes
too long a time for a possible emergency condition like that?

~~~
dazc
Yes it was a human but she obviously had no medical training, just asking
scripted answers.

Ten minutes is far too long. If someone thinks they are having a heart attack
this should set a red flag for immediate professional attention?

Having a professional always dealing with these calls would be the ideal but,
I guess, you get back to the shortage of qualified staff problem.

Also, maybe, making access easier will also encourage people to use the
service more often - maybe for trivial issues too. So you end up making things
even worse?

I am 52 and when I was a child my parents could call our doctor at any time,
even if he was at home in the middle of the night. He would come out straight
away, no question. The assumption was if you had taken the trouble to call it
must be serious. Often it wasn't but with children you can't take chances.

