BoxRec

JohnShep wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:

*Alex* wrote: And what about those who can't afford private health care? It ain't perfect, but the NHS is one of the best things about living in Britain... it ensures EVERYONE gets treatment should they need it.

Those who can't afford private healthcare have a low rate of private health insurance. i.e. these low income groups (who "mysteriously can afford to smoke 60 fags per day) pay an affordable amount relative to their income in insurance. Then if they need anything doing they go to a private hospital and the insurance company pays.

Quite simple really...

So the country can't afford to pay for a good health care system but we can afford to pay for a good health care system plus pay for a health insurance system plus pay dividends to the share holders of the private hospitals, simple really

Eh? No. there wouldn't be an NHS to pay for. Just think what a relief on the current tax burden that would be. If private hospitals are private, with shareholders, so what? I have never been to hospital in my adult life for a thing but that doesn't stop me paying for it in my taxes so some fat, cream-cake consuming, chain-smoking asshole can have a triple heart bypass. If he needs one...he should pay for it. not "the nation" pay for it.

If he can't afford to pay for it, then his insurance would cover it. some miniscule annual premium he would have been paying each year. It works in other countries John... and the NHS is a joke... so it's the only way forward.

It's a strange irony that probably the only public service we SHOULD have privatised is the one we didn't.....

How much of your income is taken out for health care?

Tantum wrote:How much of your income is taken out for health care?

A good chunk of your National Insurance contributions.

In currency, not %.

In America if you're in a car crash, are shot, stabbed, or eat something nasty the first thing any paramedic will say to you is not 'where does it hurt?' but 'are you insured!?' and if you're not you may as well dig your own grave there and then (if you can move!). Paying for healthcare is fine for those that can afford it but not so for those that can't and many can't.
I think if the government can afford to wage wars against people for oil and a crackpot from Texas they should be able to support the NHS!!! :x .

Actually, in the scenario you just gave, they'd patch them up, and kick them out.

Anything short of life threatening though, and you're on your own.

J wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I was just about to ask the same question. Perhaps he remembered he had a life outside of this forum, something I could probably do with recalling. 6300 posts is a bit much....

YOU KNOW.

Do I? If I do i cannot remember.

Showing my socialism here, but I agree: if we can support imperialistic conquest of the Third World -- even if tacitly, by our inertia or apathy -- then the least the bastards can try and look after it's citizens. The hegemony has to keep us drones happy, no? What's the point of being a citizen of the Empire if they don't look out for you when you fall ill?

Sorry, wrong meeting. That one's tomorrow night, right, at the docks?

Ahem. So, yeah. Yay for measures which provide a social safety net for the public. It's one of the best ideas to crawl out of the cesspool of British politics for oh, I don't know. A long bloody time. If more of my tax money went into paying for infrastructure and social care programmes (feeding and clothing the homeless, anyone?) instead of stupid fornicating crusades, well, I know they'd still be mounting stupid fornicating crusades, but they might be less ambitious and well-equipped in the death-dealing department. They might choose to invade, say, Jersey or something. Liberate it for Democracy.

Loftgroov wrote:

*Alex* wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:Hopefully they scrap the NHS soon and have private healthcare requiring everyone to have insurance like they do in the USA. Look how good their hospitals are by comparison. Evidently the NHS is under too much pressure to work any longer. Why keep subbing it with public funds….

And what about those who can't afford private health care? It ain't perfect, but the NHS is one of the best things about living in Britain... it ensures EVERYONE gets treatment should they need it.

Those who can't afford private healthcare have a low rate of private health insurance. i.e. these low income groups (who "mysteriously can afford to smoke 60 fags per day) pay an affordable amount relative to their income in insurance. Then if they need anything doing they go to a private hospital and the insurance company pays.

Quite simple really...

So low income groups pay less, but it is optional. What about those who opt against the insurance, then one day find they require expensive healthcare which they can't afford? And how about the homeless or those bordering on poverty? I know some people would take the attitude "tough it's their own bloody fault", but i'm not one of them and a system where everybody is forced to contribute a percentage of their earnings, to ensure society as a whole is protected is by far the soundest in my book. Those who earn enough and want a higher quality of health care still have the option of paying for it.

God this topic has wandered :) I am starting to miss bennie too though :(

*Alex* wrote:

Loftgroov wrote:

*Alex* wrote: And what about those who can't afford private health care? It ain't perfect, but the NHS is one of the best things about living in Britain... it ensures EVERYONE gets treatment should they need it.

Those who can't afford private healthcare have a low rate of private health insurance. i.e. these low income groups (who "mysteriously can afford to smoke 60 fags per day) pay an affordable amount relative to their income in insurance. Then if they need anything doing they go to a private hospital and the insurance company pays.

Quite simple really...

So low income groups pay less, but it is optional. What about those who opt against the insurance, then one day find they require expensive healthcare which they can't afford?

Then tough!

If your house burns down and you don't have home insurance, does some government body turn round and say... "ahhh no worries mate..you opted out of paying home insurance but we'll just build you a spanking new home to live in anyway..!"

Of coruse not. If you are frankly idiotic enough not to have it then tough if you need an operation. The other option is to make health insurance mandatory e.g. like car insurance. You can't "choose" whether or not to have it...you HAVE to have it. The state could pay the insurance for you if you legitimately couldn't afford it.

Oh god, this is frightening. Do you really want this country to end up like America, if you like their system so much, why not just go and move there if you think it's such a perfect system.

Despite the problems of our health service, it's still something to be incredibly proud of. It's not as well funded as France or Germany these days, but it's still a fantastic achievement, and at one time was the envy of the civilised world.

I think governments should just be honest and say 'are you prepared to pay more tax for the health service.' Those who already have private health insurance could be given tax breaks, as they are effectively already paying.

What about the fact that a lot of people cannot afford health insurance, or the fact that private health companies are profiteering pudenda. I know a friend of mine who was recently refused an operation by Bupa, as they said the condition was pre-existing at the time he signed up. That is not something you have to face in the health service. Insurance companies are by their nature pudenda, and they try and chisel their way out of paying for anything if they can.

People in this country want everything. They want a great health service. They also complain about high taxes. I agree the government should be honest and say 'are you prepared to pay more tax for a better health service'. Most people will say 'No' then complain about the next time they have to wait 5 hours at A and E for a fornicating cut finger.

Personally, I don't want higher taxes. I also won't complain about the NHS being in the state it is. Whenever there's a PM questions involving the public, there's always some pudendum who thinks she's being clever and controversial by laying into the PM about high taxes and bad NHS. She always gets shown up by the simple response:

'We must invest in the services like the tories never did! Things aren't perfect, but continued investment will make a difference'

Yes, I agree. The fact of the matter is whatever way you choose to invest the public's money, they aren't going to be happy. People always resent paying taxes, but want the best services money can buy. It's a shame that people aren't prepared to pay higher taxes for better services overall.

The fact is, you cannot run a nation of 60 million people on the back of individual pursuit, with everyone just looking out for themselves. You would just end up with crime spiralling out of control, and more and more money having to be spent on the police to control things.

We have a worrying trend in this country, with more and more people slipping through the net, trapped in a cash economy from which it is very hard to escape. Access to credit and finance is becoming ever more important to get ahead in life, and more and more people simply cannot do so, whilst at the top end, people are getting more and more rich.

The health service and public transport systems in this country were underfunded for about 20 years, and people expect a government to be able to fix all the problems within two terms of office, which just isn't reasonable.

yeah, plus most people in this country, in the current climate of credit and loans and shit, think they're worth more than they are. they spend a stupid amount of money on material goods then complain about being in debt. They don't know the value of money.

Stupid nation of people who want it all but aren't worth it.

Riddick Blowe wrote:yeah, plus most people in this country, in the current climate of credit and loans and shit, think they're worth more than they are. they spend a stupid amount of money on material goods then complain about being in debt. They don't know the value of money.

Stupid nation of people who want it all but aren't worth it.

What people forget is that the average person in this country is not particularly intelligent.

Al they want to do is wear burberry clothes, drive a german motor they paid over the odds for and generally do whatever the gossip magazines tell them to do.

4 million people in this country read the sun. That says it all.

that's a scary statistic, which suggests either that chavs are truly taking over the country, or normal people are lowering themselves to the level of chavs.

The Sun is good for a lighthearted laugh and healthy patriarchal perv of page 3, my house full o students has been known to dabble in the tabloid (whilst making sure to buy the times to balance the equation) However, many more people view it as an actual newspaper, rather than a product of 'ironic' discourse, and that is depressing

with his history, he might be on rule 43 again!

Riddick Blowe wrote:The Sun is good for a lighthearted laugh and healthy patriarchal perv of page 3, my house full o students has been known to dabble in the tabloid (whilst making sure to buy the times to balance the equation) However, many more people view it as an actual newspaper, rather than a product of 'ironic' discourse, and that is depressing

Wouldn't say The Times balances the equation mate, at the end of the day they are both filthy Murdoch rags that should be read with a cutting eye.

One gets it's message across in the vernacular, the other in the verbose. Chav mugs, or 'ordinary people', fall for one while pseudointellectuals fall for the other. They are both putrid pieces of shit in my view.

nah, the times is good read, I've read it all my life, good read. I am a putrid piece of shit though.

the Guardian, now there's a rag. Unless you're a feminist social worker.

In my view the problem with Loftgroov’s outlook is the where it will inevitably lead; the way the privileged few live in South Africa or even some parts of America in gated communities.
Oases of plenty protected by private armed security companies to keep the scary underclass out.

I think once a country reaches the certain level of comfortable living for the majority it’s the civilised thing to do to extend goodwill to your fellow countrymen, rather than forsake that for the extra luxury goods the extra few tax quid could buy you.

I’d prefer taxes to be high enough to provide decent public transport, schools and healthcare and I think that would improve the character of the country no end and make this a much nicer place to live.

Viva the British politics forum!

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The fact is, you cannot run a nation of 60 million people on the back of individual pursuit, with everyone just looking out for themselves. You would just end up with crime spiralling out of control, and more and more money having to be spent on the police to control things.

Hey, sounds like here.... (To a lessened extent :P )

Shirow wrote:In my view the problem with Loftgroov’s outlook is the where it will inevitably lead; the way the privileged few live in South Africa or even some parts of America in gated communities.
Oases of plenty protected by private armed security companies to keep the scary underclass out.

I think once a country reaches the certain level of comfortable living for the majority it’s the civilised thing to do to extend goodwill to your fellow countrymen, rather than forsake that for the extra luxury goods the extra few tax quid could buy you.

I’d prefer taxes to be high enough to provide decent public transport, schools and healthcare and I think that would improve the character of the country no end and make this a much nicer place to live.

Viva the British politics forum!

Well, I’m not actually suggesting that goodwill isn’t extended to my fellow countrymen, it’s just the way it is done. There is also a big difference between the “well off” and the “perceived well off”. I am the latter (in the eyes of the government) but I am certainly not the former.

So I don’t actually have money, but the government thinks I do, so they take it off me in the form of taxes and hand it to the ‘have-nots’ who don’t. But there is a social equity point here aside from the redistribution of income role the government performs…and that is I have what I have because I’ve worked for it. I haven’t been magically bestowed with some obscene amount of wealth. I just work hard and therefore deserve stuff.

But the system you advocate essentially (at the end of the day) means that if you can’t be arsed it really doesn’t matter…because those who can be arsed are being taxed at a sufficiently high rate to ensure the public services (healthcare, education, public transport subsidies, and so on) all run at a high level and can accommodate you.

A high tax, high benefits system just prompts apathy amongst the employed and an ear-to-ear grin amongst the unemployed.

I hear what you’re saying maybe my view is a touch utopian. Apathy is a serious problem and I don’t know where this huge wave has come from or how to get rid of it. Maybe it’s just a symptom of a country which is comfortable for the majority (it’s a big problem in Japan where youngsters should be entering the workforce, but they tend to sponge off parents rather than the state).
I’m plenty frustrated when I think of dole-cheating scumbags sponging off the taxes provided from my sweat.

The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net but it seems plenty are happy to use it like a hammock. If a hard working decent type is made redundant and can’t find work for 3 months it’s right that something should be in place so his life doesn’t go down the toilet. But I suppose wherever a kindness is offered advantage can be taken.

I can’t believe anyone can live what I would consider a satisfying life on the levels of handouts that are available, they should keep you fed and housed and very little else. The fact that many seem to doesn’t necessarily indicate that the handouts are too high but that expectations are too low. That is the bigger problem.

Shirow wrote:The welfare state is supposed to be a safety net but it seems plenty are happy to use it like a hammock. If a hard working decent type is made redundant and can’t find work for 3 months it’s right that something should be in place so his life doesn’t go down the toilet. But I suppose wherever a kindness is offered advantage can be taken

I agree totally.

Advantages can be taken and ARE taken on a VERY regular basis all over the UK.