The NHS is a fantastic service. Go to other countries and you will pay through the neck for even basic healthcare.
The idea that Brexit or Donald Trump trade deals could effect the NHS , that is scary
EU Membership Referendum (Brexit)
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 10473
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
Regular tax payers pay quite a bit for the NHS via NI, probably more than a BUPA plan. The fact that everything from schools to defence comes scot free to our profession makes that easy to forget.
-
firlandsfarm
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
-
firlandsfarm
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
Yep, everything has to be paid for the only difference if the funding route. People see the NHS as free, it's not ... it's free at the point of delivery. It's actually an insured scheme but don't tell Corbyn and co. We all pay our 'insurance premium' through NIC's and other taxes regardless of whether we make a claim (visit the doctor or go to hospital) ... that's an insurance policy!ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:41 pmRegular tax payers pay quite a bit for the NHS via NI, probably more than a BUPA plan. The fact that everything from schools to defence comes scot free to our profession makes that easy to forget.
I always find it strange that it doesn't cover dental costs at point of delivery. unhealthy teeth and gums can lead to further health complications, some of which are pretty serious.firlandsfarm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:52 pmYep, everything has to be paid for the only difference if the funding route. People see the NHS as free, it's not ... it's free at the point of delivery. It's actually an insured scheme but don't tell Corbyn and co. We all pay our 'insurance premium' through NIC's and other taxes regardless of whether we make a claim (visit the doctor or go to hospital) ... that's an insurance policy!ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:41 pmRegular tax payers pay quite a bit for the NHS via NI, probably more than a BUPA plan. The fact that everything from schools to defence comes scot free to our profession makes that easy to forget.
As far as i know the US health system is wildly inefficient. Huge revenue, without huge health benefits. Plastic surgery isn't usually about health.firlandsfarm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:52 pmYep, everything has to be paid for the only difference if the funding route. People see the NHS as free, it's not ... it's free at the point of delivery. It's actually an insured scheme but don't tell Corbyn and co. We all pay our 'insurance premium' through NIC's and other taxes regardless of whether we make a claim (visit the doctor or go to hospital) ... that's an insurance policy!ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:41 pmRegular tax payers pay quite a bit for the NHS via NI, probably more than a BUPA plan. The fact that everything from schools to defence comes scot free to our profession makes that easy to forget.
But firlandssfarm is right. It's not how big a budget you've got, it's how you spend it. That's always the dilemma with Govt running organisations. They're really pretty crap at it. But would I support a privatised health system? Categorically not. Health is fundamental to a civilised society.
Maybe introduce a premium service which would mean more money for the NHS or some variant thereof.
Having experienced the US healthcare system I can confirm that's not the route to go. But perhaps having means tested access to certain services or some way of getting the NHS to add more revenue to the coffers.
One of the biggest problems is that a pack of fags has cost the NHS a fortune to treat, but alcohol abuse and obesity are by far worse. A massive burden on the system.
The problem with public versus private is that if things go tits up for the private sector they go bust. So there is a huge incentive to not go there. In the public sector there is an incentive to not take risk and to let failed systems maintain themselves. Harsh realities have to be faced, but it's difficult to change a lumbering beast.
Large organisations are built for continuity, not for progressing. That's why they are so hard to change, bits need to fail for change to sweep over them.
Having experienced the US healthcare system I can confirm that's not the route to go. But perhaps having means tested access to certain services or some way of getting the NHS to add more revenue to the coffers.
One of the biggest problems is that a pack of fags has cost the NHS a fortune to treat, but alcohol abuse and obesity are by far worse. A massive burden on the system.
The problem with public versus private is that if things go tits up for the private sector they go bust. So there is a huge incentive to not go there. In the public sector there is an incentive to not take risk and to let failed systems maintain themselves. Harsh realities have to be faced, but it's difficult to change a lumbering beast.
Large organisations are built for continuity, not for progressing. That's why they are so hard to change, bits need to fail for change to sweep over them.
It's interesting to see how, what looks like postering to me, is being played out in the media.
BoJo probably knows that if he goes to the EU with a weak hand there will be no concessions, but if he goes with a real threat to leave without a deal they may listen.
This is what it looks like to me, but you would think from the press that the EU's best allies are most of the UK parliament.
It just looks like a negotiating tactic to me?
BoJo probably knows that if he goes to the EU with a weak hand there will be no concessions, but if he goes with a real threat to leave without a deal they may listen.
This is what it looks like to me, but you would think from the press that the EU's best allies are most of the UK parliament.
It just looks like a negotiating tactic to me?
-
wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3559
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Yes, and to make the EU realise that the "withdrawal agreement" is no longer an option.Euler wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:32 amIt's interesting to see how, what looks like postering to me, is being played out in the media.
BoJo probably knows that if he goes to the EU with a weak hand there will be no concessions, but if he goes with a real threat to leave without a deal they may listen.
This is what it looks like to me, but you would think from the press that the EU's best allies are most of the UK parliament.
It just looks like a negotiating tactic to me?
Politics has certainly got more interesting in the last couple of years. Both the House of Lords/Commons has shown they're not fit for purpose in current times and need an overhaul.
So this is what "taking back control" looks like...
In Brussels, they will sit tight and watch. This fight is in Westminster, and then, probably, across the UK. In truth, it has been coming for months. Only once it is resolved will the Brexit deal-making resume, as all the while, the no-deal clock ticks louder and louder.
In Brussels, they will sit tight and watch. This fight is in Westminster, and then, probably, across the UK. In truth, it has been coming for months. Only once it is resolved will the Brexit deal-making resume, as all the while, the no-deal clock ticks louder and louder.
Seems BJ believes with a 2 week Parliament the EU will just cave in. Unfortunately I believe the EU is well aware of the timing here.
Alternatively, BJ is deliberately leaving Parliament short of time to avoid no-deal. That, I think, is anti-democratic. Not leaving is also anti-democratic.
And UK-centric companies took a hit to their share price.
As Maggie said ' You can't buck the market'.
Alternatively, BJ is deliberately leaving Parliament short of time to avoid no-deal. That, I think, is anti-democratic. Not leaving is also anti-democratic.
And UK-centric companies took a hit to their share price.
As Maggie said ' You can't buck the market'.
I think it was pretty obvious that Boris was going to-do this weeks ago.
Kinda made Corbyn, Lucas, Swinson and that Scot look very silly as they thought lastnight that they had the upper hand etc.
If the rumours are true then maybe Boris got the legal OK from former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption.
Kinda made Corbyn, Lucas, Swinson and that Scot look very silly as they thought lastnight that they had the upper hand etc.
If the rumours are true then maybe Boris got the legal OK from former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption.
-
firlandsfarm
- Posts: 3323
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
Agreed, and why not dementia care? My mother was diagnosed with dementia for the last 3 years of her life ... 12 months after diagnosis she could have set fire to the block of warden assisted accommodation she lived in, her dementia caused her to start a fire but thankfully it was extinguished before it could spread beyond the kitchen. She was declared a risk to the building and had to be moved into care but we/she received no assistance and I had to pay £1,000pw for her care (the local authority couldn't find a place for her so she had to go private, had they found a place for her it would still have been £550pw!). Dementia is no less a medical matter than a broken leg but a broken leg is physically visible. She was 99 years 349 days old when she died, did her bit in WW2, always worked and the only State Benefit she ever claimed (other than care visitors to make sure she remembered to take her medicines) was the OAP. She had less than £20,000 of investments but that didn't stop the LA from trying to claim back the cost of her care visitors from her estate on a technicality that I successfully fought. She didn't deserve to be abandoned by the country for her last 2 years.