The NHS is being severely challenged in coping with the Covid-2019 outbreak. Until now, hospital structures have been able to withstand the challenge with the competence, professionalism and self-sacrifice of the operators. However, as the contagion spreads, there is a strong concern of a collapse of the system, so much so that the government has realized that emergency measures are needed in the sector, starting precisely with a strengthening of the "front line" committed in the (unfortunately defensive) battle against the mysterious virus: medical and paramedical staff. Various hypotheses are being examined: from the recall to service of retired operators to an extraordinary plan for the hiring of doctors and nurses, through the use of fixed-term employment relationships.
The syndicate of hospital doctors, Anaoo, after having denounced the lack of 46 workers, including 8 doctors, put forward proposals (alternatives to the recall of pensioners) regarding the possibility of making use of specialist doctors and non-graduated nurses still enrolled in the Register. We know that healthcare is one of those sectors in which demand is often not answered by supply, especially in the northern regions (in private healthcare, for example, the presence of foreign EU and non-EU personnel is quite high). It is strange, however, that, at a time when errors are being sought (they are denounced by the media - which by now speak of nothing but the coronavirus - ferocious cuts to public health that border on the ''heard to say''), no one dares to mention one of the recent lawsuits of the difficulties encountered today as regards the adequacy of staff.
It is a real silence of communication, which has been an uncritical propagandist of those causes. What were the effects of the yellow-green counter-reforms on pensions (Quota 100 and surroundings)? At the time, many perplexities were expressed about the introduction of measures to bring the retirement age forward because they would have created serious problems in some strategic sectors such as education, justice and above all health care. It was the doctors' unions and specialized publications who sounded the alarm.
Among the latter we recall an article that appeared in "Quotidianosanità.it'' of 15 March 2019 of which we report a significant passage: "There are around 140 healthcare workers employed by the National Health Service who at the end of 2018 had met the requirements for "Quota 100". And of these over 40 (between 22 and 26% for executives and 28 and 35% for non-executive personnel on the basis of our estimates made taking into account the percentage of applications submitted to date out of the total eligible) are among the possible 'retirees' with the new mechanism. The first to signal the danger – continued the article – had been a few weeks ago the doctors who had announced a possible spill of around 4.500 professionals. then thenurses red alert, the most numerous category of the NHS, whose forecasts were for a loss of over 22 thousand units. Assistance more than at risk therefore, especially in the Regions that are worse off, those with recovery plans, where personnel shortages are already serious and weigh on services: over 35% of those who could retire with Quota 100 are in their territories''.
The article, then, was accompanied by the very specific table below for the various professions which, taking into account how many operators had acquired the requisites envisaged by quota 100, hypothesized some estimates of possible exodus both in absolute value and in percentage. It is hardly necessary to underline that the worries existed at the time rebus sic stantibus. When the top trio of the yellow-green government celebrated the conversion of decree law no. 4 of 2019 (Salvini exhibited a sign containing only the indication of the 100 quota to claim paternity and dissociate himself from the basic income) no one imagined that a year later the coronavirus epidemic would break out. But that provision, dictated by demagogic and completely unjustified reasons, weighed on today's difficulties, even if - as they say - retirements. For now, they have been less than expected (in the public sector, the measures came into force on 1 August last year).
However, the wound in the pension system remains open until the end of 2021 (and until the end of 2026 due to the rule that blocks the requirements for access to ordinary anticipated treatment). Therefore it is possible that the need for personnel will become even more serious, since the choice to remain in service, in situations such as the present one, it requires a high civic and professional sense which has certainly been present and decisive up to now, but it is not certain that it will be in the future. Incidentally, we remind you that the right obtained by 31 December 2021 can also be exercised after the aforementioned date and the age requirement is not adequate for increases related to life expectancy.
In conclusion, we hope that this ''viral'' emergency will serve - not only for healthcare personnel - to call into question the wrong social security measures which today take away human and economic resources from situations of absolute priority such as health and the safety of Italians. But it wasn't just Conte 1's social security policy that created difficulties for the NHS as regards personnel. As noted by the Court of Auditors when monitoring public spending, too certain fiscal measures have contributed to favoring the exodus of doctors by public health structures: "However, several factors contribute to making it more difficult to respond to shortcomings: the different existing regimes between private and public structures in the possibility of carrying out work as a freelancer and the raising of the minimum thresholds of the flat-rate regime to 65.000 euro with a flat rate of 15 per cent, which reduces taxes for a doctor with a freelance relationship by almost two thirds compared to an employed doctor, directing the job offer to the detriment of public work. Furthermore, this makes it convenient to opt for the extramoenia regime, compatible with the flat tax within the identified threshold and removes the balance between the activity carried out in the institutional sphere and the activity carried out as a freelancer''.
It is a pity that in many programs on the pandemic and also in meetings with Salvini, I have never heard someone accuse him of the disaster in Lombardy in 2020. A health disaster was foreseeable, because already before the one hundred quota, many doctors and paramedics were missing, in the
public health facilities.
It is certain that the flat tax has encouraged even more to leave the public sector, or to exclude
this possibility even at the beginning of the profession..
We need statisticians, not talkative, incompetent and cynical.
g. sist
X4 TIME SEND WHO PAYS ME A HUNDRED FEE TO ME IF MAN DISIRED ILLNESS AFTER MEDICAL EXAMINATION IN MESTRE NO LONGER SUITABLE FOR EMPLOYMENT DUTIES AFTER 12 YEARS CONTRIBUTIONS PAID AND HAVING LAW 335 OF 95 NEVER APPLIED XME DISIRED ILLNESS FROM COMPANY VERONA CONFORTINI HOSPITAL WHO PAYS ME 65 YEARS MISSING YEARS OLD CONTRIBUTIONS 35 AND THE OTHER X ONE HUNDRED WHO PAYS THEM IS
"all even willing to die of an epidemic in order to defend the 100 quota". On the contrary, one could say that they are all ready to die in order to immediately abolish the 100 quota. Why weren't assumptions immediately made when doctors and nurses joined the 100 quota? Recalling those who are already retired what would be the point since it is a totally unknown virus? And frankly, finally, if these luminaries of the economy always stick to the usual things with numbers and data that they don't even understand, wouldn't it be the time to let them go and maybe hear from someone more informed and less politicized?
But instead of writing "bullshit" to attack this social security measure at all costs, the question is why the public sector has not rejuvenated by hiring more, instead of exploiting the exodus to cut costs.
Cazzola's comment is particularly stupid.
all even willing to die of an epidemic in order to defend the 100 quota
Aren't you a little ashamed to write these pearls of wisdom, Cazzola?
Try telling the government to assume instead of also using the virus to attack this measure.
Dear Cazzola, I am a 61-year-old resuscitator and I will work 68 hours this week. In recent years, spending review policies have decimated the workforce and now you financial geniuses solve everything by asking people over 62 to stay and work shifts and nights instead of hiring young specialists? Compliments !
The impoverishment of health personnel is the result of the policies to reduce public spending that have been in place for years, dear Cazzola. Bringing up Odds 100 is a sign of bad faith. Now that we are in the midst of an epidemic we are starting to assume ….
The impoverishment of health personnel is the result of the reduction policies of the Soesa Pubblica that have been in place for years, dear Cazzola. Bringing up Odds 100 is a sign of bad faith. Now that we're in the midst of an epidemic, let's start hiring... Was it okay before?
The impoverishment of health personnel is the result of the policies to reduce public spending in place for years dear Cazxola. Bringing up Quita 199 is a sign of bad faith.