Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

UKIP's Steven Woofe in hospital after a fight...



Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,399
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
bashlsdir said:
We probably do spend a lot less, but then how much do the general public contribute to these services? I read somewhere that in France you need Health Insurance and the government pays 70%.
Click to expand...

They do, but the service is brilliant. If you have an xray, you keep it. There's none of this going for your next appointment, and nobody can find them, as you take them with you.
If you need an operation, it's 'when would you like it'?
 




D

Deleted member 22389

Guest
marshy68 said:
Completely agree. Put a 1p on income tax and you raise 5.5 billion quid. I would happily pay 3-4p more if it was ring fenced for NHS and Education. I don't earn a big salary but its a no brainer for me. Successive govts had tried to cut income tax and use stealth taxes. It just doesn't work. You want a decent Health Sevice, Education, roads etc you have to pay for it
Click to expand...

I'm happy to pay more, the NHS needs our money. People can go on blaming x,y,z but we need to be realistic.
 






drew

drew

Drew
Oct 3, 2006
23,043
Burgess Hill
bashlsdir said:
We probably do spend a lot less, but then how much do the general public contribute to these services? I read somewhere that in France you need Health Insurance and the government pays 70%.
Click to expand...

Does that really matter? The money that the Government spends comes from the taxpayer in the first place.
 












H

Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
T.G said:
I think this is completely missing the point. They do a great good despite the underfunding. The funding is also a political choice. Rather than spend the money on the NHS the Tory government's first priority was to give the wealthy 1% a nice little tax cut. To then ask the less well off to pay for they NHS is rubbing the country's face in their sh@t. This made the lie to fund the NHS by £350 million saved from leaving the EU and even bigger joke. We are so gullible its almost laughable.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is what tends to happen when the NHS is discussed. Political fanatics with a very narrow agenda get on board and skew any arguments. As if only the less well-off pay for the NHS!
 


H

Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
bashlsdir said:
I would happily pay more, just to stop the moaning. That's all it takes is a bit more money a little bit more organisation. My mum is also in her eighties too and has had great help. People need to be a bit more positive about the NHS.
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt your personal sincerity for one minute, this is what most folk say, when it is easy to trot out such statements. I suspect that when it comes down to it, the reality might be rather different. Lets be honest, the vast majority of us would dodge paying taxes if we thought we could get away with it and still expect the ambulance to be there in 8 minutes.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
59,467
The Fatherland
bashlsdir said:
We probably do spend a lot less, but then how much do the general public contribute to these services? I read somewhere that in France you need Health Insurance and the government pays 70%.
Click to expand...

Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

Besides the "Statutory Health Insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) covering the vast majority of residents, the better off with a yearly income above almost €50,000 (US$56,497), students and civil servants for complementary coverage can opt for private health insurance (about 11% of the population).
 




T

T.G

Well-known member
Mar 30, 2011
620
Shoreham-by-Sea
Hastings gull said:
Sadly, this is what tends to happen when the NHS is discussed. Political fanatics with a very narrow agenda get on board and skew any arguments. As if only the less well-off pay for the NHS!
Click to expand...

I'm hardly a fanatic but just able to see things for what they are. I was arguing that the wealthiest do not pay proportionately what they should, didn't ever mention that they don't contribute. The point I'm trying to make is that the NHS is a political decision. The Tory have fought to peel back they welfare state since 1945 and so by under funding the NHS (Spending money on tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations) the are making an ideological decision, which only impacts greatly on the less well off.
 


LlcoolJ

LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
catfish said:
To be fair he was defending himself against that tosser from the c*ntryside alliance.
Click to expand...

Yeah he'd chucked an egg at him from about 1 foot away. Bet he wasn't expecting this!

480.jpg

:lol:
 


D

Deleted member 22389

Guest
Hastings gull said:
While I don't doubt your personal sincerity for one minute, this is what most folk say, when it is easy to trot out such statements. I suspect that when it comes down to it, the reality might be rather different. Lets be honest, the vast majority of us would dodge paying taxes if we thought we could get away with it and still expect the ambulance to be there in 8 minutes.
Click to expand...

I would never dodge taxes, even when I was earning the money being self employed I wasn't claiming for half the stuff I should have. Now I'm not earning what I used too, but I would still be happy to put money in to some sort of fund every month even though it would stretch me. I can find £40.00 quid a month for my season ticket and tobacco, I could find £5 or £10 towards the NHS.
 






H

Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
T.G said:
I'm hardly a fanatic but just able to see things for what they are. I was arguing that the wealthiest do not pay proportionately what they should, didn't ever mention that they don't contribute. The point I'm trying to make is that the NHS is a political decision. The Tory have fought to peel back they welfare state since 1945 and so by under funding the NHS (Spending money on tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations) the are making an ideological decision, which only impacts greatly on the less well off.
Click to expand...

Are things as you see them, or as you want to see them? It is rather pompous of you to say that you are able to se things others clearly cannot. I regret that you do come over as someone with rather extreme views. My son in law's dad earns in excess of £100,000 a year, which I am sure you would agree makes him by any standards wealthy. He elects to go private, but still pays taxes for the NHS, which he does not use - in other words he is paying for you and me as well as his family. Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that tax cuts here and there mean that the NHS is under-funded - the two points you make are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
This morning, yet again at the local pharmacy, and after several reminders at the local hospital treating my mum for Alzheimers, I refused to take out another batch of her tablets, which would last for 4 months and are sent there every month. If I take them out, as you probably know, the chemist will only get rid. If this happens to me, it is presumably happening to thousands of others, and the reaction of the pharmacist confirms this, as he shrugs his shoulders in despair. Irrespective of politicians, if the NHS were to be more efficient, then perhaps we would not be having this debate. It is fashionable to claim that you need more resources, and whilst in many areas this may be true to an extent, it is far easier to moan about lack of cash than tackle staff inefficiencies, wasteful work practices, and the various vested interests.
 


N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
T.G said:
I'm hardly a fanatic but just able to see things for what they are. I was arguing that the wealthiest do not pay proportionately what they should, didn't ever mention that they don't contribute. The point I'm trying to make is that the NHS is a political decision. The Tory have fought to peel back they welfare state since 1945 and so by under funding the NHS (Spending money on tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations) the are making an ideological decision, which only impacts greatly on the less well off.
Click to expand...

I would agree that the Tories are ideologically driven in cutting back on the NHS. Unfortunately special interests such as the BMA hijacked the noble Labour inspired ideology of a publicly funded NHS right from the beginning. In my view it is the very wealthy doctors and their contracts that are as much to blame as the Tories. Take the current furore over the 4 year tie in after being the recipient of a U.K. medical degree. It is not necessary to be right wing to believe that we train doctors to work in our NHS and contribute to society and I would prefer that they didn't take their skills elsewhere. If money is more important perhaps they could become investment bankers.
 


H

Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
bashlsdir said:
I would never dodge taxes, even when I was earning the money being self employed I wasn't claiming for half the stuff I should have. Now I'm not earning what I used too, but I would still be happy to put money in to some sort of fund every month even though it would stretch me. I can find £40.00 quid a month for my season ticket and tobacco, I could find £5 or £10 towards the NHS.
Click to expand...

As stated, I have read enough of your posts to fully believe you personally, but are you seriously of the view that everyone thinks like this. We had a workman here yesterday who charged us £20.00 less for a cash payment . .I too could afford to pay more for the NHS, and within reason don't begrudge them a few bob extra, but would also like to see evidence that the money would be spent wisely, and in a huge impersonal organisation where they think there is a bottomless pit, I am decidedly unsure that this would be the case. See my experience on post 76.
 




H

Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
Neville's Breakfast said:
I would agree that the Tories are ideologically driven in cutting back on the NHS. Unfortunately special interests such as the BMA hijacked the noble Labour inspired ideology of a publicly funded NHS right from the beginning. In my view it is the very wealthy doctors and their contracts that are as much to blame as the Tories. Take the current furore over the 4 year tie in after being the recipient of a U.K. medical degree. It is not necessary to be right wing to believe that we train doctors to work in our NHS and contribute to society and I would prefer that they didn't take their skills elsewhere. If money is more important perhaps they could become investment bankers.
Click to expand...

During the Junior Doctor's dispute, did not Jeremy Hunt talk of a recoding from Bevan all those years ago bemoaning that fact that the doctors were dead against the idea, as they presumably thought that they could not cash in with private treatment? I did hear a doctor claim that the 4 year rule would be unfair as it would have to be applied to all professionals trained at public expense, and whilst if doctors were singled out, this might seem unfair, the solution would be to insist that if the taxpayer is paying, everyone has to do 4 years worth. Is this practical, wonder, as I am sure that is morally justifiable.
 


N

Neville's Breakfast

Well-known member
May 1, 2016
13,423
Oxton, Birkenhead
Herr Tubthumper said:
Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them.

Besides the "Statutory Health Insurance" (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) covering the vast majority of residents, the better off with a yearly income above almost €50,000 (US$56,497), students and civil servants for complementary coverage can opt for private health insurance (about 11% of the population).
Click to expand...

There is a similar system in Switzerland. It is a private health care system but the monthly premiums payable are set by Government and are identical across insurers. It is also compulsory to take out cover which means it avoids the situation in the American system whereby the poor go uninsured by choice.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here