£10 Membership for NHS
31 March 2014, 04:15 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
£10 Membership for NHS
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...r-9224846.html
Is this bloke on crack?
isn't this what our taxes cover amongst other things
Is this bloke on crack?
isn't this what our taxes cover amongst other things
Last edited by Ant; 31 March 2014 at 04:16 PM.
31 March 2014, 06:08 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 14,629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the problem if it ensures a quicker and higher level of service.
The bottom line is that 90% of the people that can't afford £120 year almost certainly smoke, take drugs or drink to excess. Cut back on your vices and you can afford your £10 a month and, as an added bonus, you'll be healthier too (and need the NHS less).
The bottom line is that 90% of the people that can't afford £120 year almost certainly smoke, take drugs or drink to excess. Cut back on your vices and you can afford your £10 a month and, as an added bonus, you'll be healthier too (and need the NHS less).
31 March 2014, 06:10 PM
#6
There needs to be better separation on how the NHS treats emergency (immediately life threatening) and none emergency cases, the latter needs to to be fee based IMHO.
The NHS is struggling, and there will be a time when it will not be able to provide when I need it the most (in an emergency).
The NHS is struggling, and there will be a time when it will not be able to provide when I need it the most (in an emergency).
31 March 2014, 06:31 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ....
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've lifted this from another forum - exactly my thoughts -
Sounds like the top of a slippery slope, initial £10 monthly fee comes in.
"That's regressive" say the left so it gets scaled by income, those who earn less than X don't pay, those above do.
"That's still too regressive" say the left, so those at £X - £Y get a discount on the fee.
"Oh there's not enough cash" cry the government, so those at £Y+ get an increased fee based on their income
"That's a bit better, but the rich still get off lightly" claim the left - so those above £Z have to pay multiples of the fee
And after this whole farce some economic students note the hundreds of millions lost due to this stupid scheme and if the cash was so badly needed it should have just come out of general taxation which was already in place.
Sounds like the top of a slippery slope, initial £10 monthly fee comes in.
"That's regressive" say the left so it gets scaled by income, those who earn less than X don't pay, those above do.
"That's still too regressive" say the left, so those at £X - £Y get a discount on the fee.
"Oh there's not enough cash" cry the government, so those at £Y+ get an increased fee based on their income
"That's a bit better, but the rich still get off lightly" claim the left - so those above £Z have to pay multiples of the fee
And after this whole farce some economic students note the hundreds of millions lost due to this stupid scheme and if the cash was so badly needed it should have just come out of general taxation which was already in place.
Trending Topics
31 March 2014, 07:29 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
So will people on benefits get this membership paid for then?
I don't mind paying but the reason the NHS is mess is down to mismanagement . I recall going to quote for work and if the price was a certain amount the quote got accepted without question the person I was dealing with told me to go just below it even if it was far less than that
I don't mind paying but the reason the NHS is mess is down to mismanagement . I recall going to quote for work and if the price was a certain amount the quote got accepted without question the person I was dealing with told me to go just below it even if it was far less than that
31 March 2014, 07:57 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Those who abuse it are generally the ones who get it for free .... I would charge £10 per appointment.
If you do not attend you lose it.
If the doctors consider you have nothing wrong with you you lose it.
If you are anti-social you lose it.
If you are on benefits you pay too - a packet of **** costs £8 so hard luck! Your choice.
I see the gypsies park up in the dropping down point at our doctors, they leave their untaxed, unisured, non MOT'd, van which is full of stolen diesel there and walk in demanding that a doctor see's their uncle, aunt, mother, father, mate, son, daughter IMMEDIATELY!!
Yet they pay absolutely NOTHING into OUR NHS!!
If you do not attend you lose it.
If the doctors consider you have nothing wrong with you you lose it.
If you are anti-social you lose it.
If you are on benefits you pay too - a packet of **** costs £8 so hard luck! Your choice.
I see the gypsies park up in the dropping down point at our doctors, they leave their untaxed, unisured, non MOT'd, van which is full of stolen diesel there and walk in demanding that a doctor see's their uncle, aunt, mother, father, mate, son, daughter IMMEDIATELY!!
Yet they pay absolutely NOTHING into OUR NHS!!
31 March 2014, 08:30 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£1 for each percentage point you are overweight.
That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Oh, and I'd introduce a higher rate of corporation tax for companies that make unhealthy food.
That would set the cat amongst the pigeons.
Oh, and I'd introduce a higher rate of corporation tax for companies that make unhealthy food.
31 March 2014, 08:55 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31 March 2014, 09:21 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
going by the governments measurements , i should be 13st-14st anything over is overweight , when i weighed that i looked ill.
31 March 2014, 10:13 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 April 2014, 12:26 AM
#23
I mean, what if you use the NHS for something not weight related, do you still have to pay this 'fat tax'?
What about people who suffer from illnesses that could be associated with being overweight, but the patient has the fortune to not actually be fat, 'fat on the inside' so to speak? Do they get off free just because the unhealthy living doesn't show?
01 April 2014, 01:35 AM
#24
Totally agree (for once).
The welfare state model that was established in the late 40s and early 50s was based on a smaller, younger population with a fewer number of less expensive treatments available. Funding for this model cannot ever hope to keep pace with a larger, older population where there are a greater number of more expensive treatments available.
But then it's not a vote winner to simply tell people they are going to have to pay for their consumption of the service that has been perceived to be free for most of their lives (despite them paying for it through taxation).
The welfare state model that was established in the late 40s and early 50s was based on a smaller, younger population with a fewer number of less expensive treatments available. Funding for this model cannot ever hope to keep pace with a larger, older population where there are a greater number of more expensive treatments available.
But then it's not a vote winner to simply tell people they are going to have to pay for their consumption of the service that has been perceived to be free for most of their lives (despite them paying for it through taxation).
01 April 2014, 08:16 AM
#25
I think they need to get rid of the nhs. Obviously it can't happen over night but they need to do something where as of 20xx every child born must be insured. Free health care until 13yrs old then it has to be paid for.
This way all the ones who's cant afford it now still get it free and die off and then eventually everyone will need insurance.
This would prevent missed and unless dry appointments.
I'd like to think that youd be able to collect ncbs too.
This way all the ones who's cant afford it now still get it free and die off and then eventually everyone will need insurance.
This would prevent missed and unless dry appointments.
I'd like to think that youd be able to collect ncbs too.
02 April 2014, 03:50 PM
#28
The NHS, sadly, doesn't help itself.
A year or so ago, I was waiting the 18 weeks for an appointment to have an op done on my lower spine.
I rang and asked if I could get in any sooner, to be told probably not.
I requested putting on an emergency list to be contacted and there within an hour for cancellations, to be told they have no such list and no-one to do it.
Yet all over hospitals there are posters about cancellations and how much money they waste..........
FFS, all it would take would be a spreadsheet and someone with some computer nous......
A year or so ago, I was waiting the 18 weeks for an appointment to have an op done on my lower spine.
I rang and asked if I could get in any sooner, to be told probably not.
I requested putting on an emergency list to be contacted and there within an hour for cancellations, to be told they have no such list and no-one to do it.
Yet all over hospitals there are posters about cancellations and how much money they waste..........
FFS, all it would take would be a spreadsheet and someone with some computer nous......
02 April 2014, 06:22 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UHW here in Cardiff had 76,000 missed appointments in 2011, if you take into account the admin, postage, doctors and nurses time it must come to millions. What a waste.
02 April 2014, 06:25 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would sort them out. With mobile phones, no excuse at all. Everyone can send a text.