I appreciate that my views are strong. Its called caring about people who are ill or starving. Shameful isnt it?
Rationing in the NHS is an everyday fact of life. The basic assumption that the NHS can meet everybody's needs, all the time, free at the point of delivery is flawed, it is an impossibility, yet no politician can say it.
That's correct, the Employer still has to pay NI on the premiums paid on behalf of the employee. The employee does not pay NIC on the premium paid on his behalf though.
I agree that no one should be starving, or homeless, in a land as rich as the UK, the question is how we deliver it. The desire for "equality and fairness" from those on the Left is misguided, it can never happen. What I want is equality of opportunity and a genuine meritocracy.
When I had private ins, used to be a benefit I was taxed on where as now it's one I have to pay for then it's taxed on too, I would never use NHS for anything other than GP. I saw it as my duty, as I was able to, to give the NHS a break and use my find on others. Anything else is simply selfish
Charging for services isn't really the point. The NHS has a limitless capacity to swallow cash and grow ever larger and more difficult to manage without necessarily getting better. The issue is how money is used not finding new ways of pouring more of it into a dysfunctional system. Its true there have been many attempts at reform but none that I can think of have been properly carried through or completed and the problem surely is that the NHS is a relic of old world centralised top-down government pulled simultaneously in different directions by conflicting vested interests. Until that changes "reform" or short-term political tinkering to give the process a more accurate description, amounts to nothing more than deck chair arranging on the Titantic and this creaking leviathan will go on swallowing money like a black hole while at the same time sliding steadily down the international league tables in the quality of care and clinical outcomes.
Correct. You can't legislate misfortune away. In trying to do so the Left confuses "fairness" with uniformity. And despite their best efforts they haven't managed to implement uniform mediocrity or even uniform poverty because there are always those smart enough, energetic enough or just plain lucky enough to navigate the political framework and escape it while others who lack those advantages remain trapped by it. Thus leftist social engineering exacerbates social inequality and never solves it. I don't expect that to change any time soon either.
I have no idea John how to deliver that. I'm not a politician. Also why does it always have to be 'left'? Isnt equality, fairness and decency a universal aspiration? I also do not disagree about equality of opportunity or a meritocracy. They too should be mandatory. I'd just like people to leave a little over for others.
I remember a politician , forget who & which party, bemoaning the fact that too many schools were achieving below average results. How lucky are we to have people with such a wonderful grasp of language running the country ! Anyway, back on topic, it would be lovely all parties would publicly accept that the NHS is not the envy of the world and that it could be much better. Maybe even agree to work together to improve it without saying nasty things about each other. Be handy if they realised that the answer is not to keep throwing money at it but to be more careful with how the money is spent.
There is a fundamental difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Fairness depends upon your point of view, e.g. is it fair that someone on benefits has greater disposable income than someone who is in work ? Likewise decency. Ask most people about outcomes and there would probably be widespread agreement. Ask them how to achieve those outcomes and there would be widespread disagreement. This is the left vs right thing. Personally I think the right generally have better solutions than the left who would drag us all down to the lowest common denominator. The left feeds off the poverty it creates whilst the right feeds off the wealth it creates. I know which I think is the lesser of two evils.
The British NHS was pretty much the envy of the world in the 1950s, but since then many other countries have improved their health systems a great deal and caught up. Each country has its own way of organising and financing healthcare, naturally enough, but the special characteristic of our NHS is that it is so cheap. Most developed countries spend a far higher percentage of GDP on health than we do, and many of them (e.g. USA) produce worse outcomes for more money. The notion that the NHS is a black hole into which far too much money is poured simply does not stand up to analysis.
Would you concede that the NHS, as it stands, is too big, too inefficient, too far down international league tables in terms of outcomes and would consume every last penny that is thrown at it with little benefit to overall performance ? In short, the NHS looks after itself first and it's patients second. Is this not what any organism does ?
Sadly politicians are not very good at allowing things to settle, they much prefer to be seen to be doing something when often the best course of action is to do nothing.
I get the impression though that, like Australia, the Canadian government makes it really rather tricky for "just anyone" to go and live there and use their system. For instance, I was told by an elderly friend that the process of attempting to emigrate there to be closer to a child (who I think had become a Canadian citizen) was exceptionally difficult to get through. Although their system might appear superficially similar to ours, the Wikipedia description of it makes clear that it is radically different: e.g. "mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities"...
Nope. We stop all and sundry coming here, so those that are can be treated and have put into the system. If you follow the two systems above, obviously.
When I spent a year in Australia I had to buy a Medicare health insurance card before I arrived. It was a condition of my visa application. I wouldn't have got through the arrivals lounge without it. It was an inexpensive health insurance scheme intended to cover routine health care costs during my stay. If I wanted to work I had to have a job to go to, I couldn't simple turn up and start looking. And my employer would have been required to sponsor me for either two or three years - I forget which - thereby underwriting all my social welfare needs including the cost of repatriation without burdening the Australian tax-payer in the event of sickness or misfortune. And for a working visa to be granted I had to prove I had sufficient financial means at my disposal to live independently without employment for the duration of that visa, which at the time was a about £19,000 if I remember correctly. If I attempted to work for cash without a valid visa I would be subject to a fine, immediate deportation and a lifetime ban against returning. If employed illegally my employer faced a fine of up to (again if memory serves) $30,000. I cannot see for the life of me what is wrong with any of the above. Australia has a population of 6 people per square mile, one of the strongest economies in the western world and a health care system that works.
As far as I can tell, Australia is run first and foremost for the benefit of its citizens - all of them. This has never been the case in Britain, which exists exclusively to service the needs of its rich and wealthy. Remember, you cannot have an upper class without an under class.
No. Building and running hospitals and clinics cost money, employing doctors and nurses costs money - if you want more of them, you have to spend more money. If the UK spent similar sums to other countries, we could have similar services. There is an inherent dilemma with demand-led public sector services: there is no way of knowing with certainty what the demand will be tomorrow, so there is no way of matching provision precisely to need. The alternatives are: (A) to make sufficient provision for maximum demand, which means that there is often underused capacity (criticised as "inefficiency"); or (B) economise on provision to achieve efficiency, which means that spikes in demand cannot be met (criticised as "ineffectiveness"). In a nutshell, you have to choose between efficiency and effectiveness, but you cannot have both. The same applies to (e.g.) the Fire Service and the Armed Forces - firemen and soldiers are often apparently sitting around doing nothing, but this is essential if they are to be ready and available when the need for them suddenly arises. In the private sector, different considerations apply. If a business is approached by more customers than it has capacity to serve, it can simply turn them away. Public sector providers cannot do this.
