Will the chancellor cane house owners in the budget?

Page 8 of 16  
says...

You clearly have no idea about how the world works.
A tax break would reduce strain but would not be attractive enough for everyone to leave the NHS.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
< snip drivel >
Please use some logic.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Cite when I did not?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

around
I did.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:54:44 -0000, Sausage King

Obviously not enough to entice more into the profession.

Private medical care is a misnomer. The correct term is: Let us balls up the simplest operation because we know the NHS will bail us out as the hozzie of last resort.

Because that is what striking is all about - to improve one's lot when all other negotiations have failed. Would you make strikes illegal? Maggie Thatcher tried very hard to do so and look where it got her! If you don't want to make strikes illegal, then logically you must support striking workers.

Good. That includes the freedom NOT to work, yes?

Well, stap me if I don't roll about laughing, but could that be because they were not being offered high-paid jobs at higher pay?

Big of you!

...ah, slavery! Let's shed a tear.

Can you spell g-r-e-e-d? Can you understand f-a-i-r p-l-a-y? Just what added value does one man bring to the business by earning fifty, yes FIFTY times the rate of the low-paid worker? Doesn't that strike you as a massive imbalance which is completely unfair and foments digust and loathing in the workforce, which inevitably will eventually go out on strike to get the fair play it deserves? And who picks up the tab for the income support which helps low-paid families to get by when they are faced with the excessive rises in stealth taxes? That's right, the people earning just a bit more. Certainly not upper management. Do you think that people like Crozier would leave the country if they had to pay just a little bit more tax on their vast earnings? Do you think if they did that Britain would have no other fairer-minded managers willing to occupy key posts for less?

So if it's not wrong, why the pejorative "typical"? Sounds like you're on the right, but I won't hold that against you.

It's not a free market! It is rigged in favour of the big corporations. What is free about Tesco, ADSA, and Sainsbury's to decimate the High Streets of Britain, force nearly all food shopping to be undertaken by car, lobby for Sunday opening and ruin the one day off a week, and turn Britain into a 24/7 consumer society? Anyone in their right mind would see that British society has become more hectic and less caring over the past ten years, and that is because we work the longest hours in Europe often for a pittance. The corporations, aided and abetted by their Government lackeys, are to blame for the sorry state in which we live.

I'm not anything except an ordinary member of the public who likes some things from Labour, others from the Tories, but will vote Liberal Democrat. If you had a referendum tomorrow, what do you think the proportion would be of those supporting a reduction in high earnings to benefit low-paid workers or employ more midwives?

How else will any advance be achieved? You must think that employers, the Government, big corporations will suddenly be assailed by an attack of guilt! How do you negotiate an advance from Ł9,000 to, say, Ł12,000 (a minmally reasonable wage) if the employer simply tells you to eff off? Employers are cheating the better paid by relying on their tax take to pay for income support, whereas if the employers could only, just possibly, stop feathering their own nests quite so luxuriously, there'd be more to pay the low-paid workers and less income support required. So it comes down to greed, pure and simple, on the part of corporations, mainly the larger ones. Family businesses are somewhat different because the boss knows the workers personally and he, the boss, has a local reputation to maintain. But once coporations get so large that the management starts occupying the ivory towers, any connection to the actual workforce, without which the whole business would be screwed, is lost.

Well, I do. I am 58 and I'm still waiting for Britain to become anything like a decent country, having lived for many years abroad.

Apathy. Wait until the vast mountains of personal debt, encouraged by the big four banks, come crashing down and you will see the public in revolt that will make the poll tax seem like a vicar's tea party. Ordinary people don't seem to realise that they are going to LOSE THEIR HOUSES! In their thousands. But that's okay if one's been "earning" Ł500 grand and managed to save a few bob.
MM
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:51:15 +0000, Mike Mitchell

Only in your mind

That's a strange idea and is a long way from the truth.
Over the past five years I've had occasion to need to use secondary healthcare with respect to four different issues. None of them would have been regarded as immediately life threatening in the acute sense, although one would be if untreated in the long term and two required surgery. None would be regarded as elective or cosmetic conditions either, all resulting in some impact on quality of life.
I would not have been able to obtain a consultation for any of them, let alone treatment in under a year by using the NHS, for two of them almost two years. Appointments couldn't even be scheduled until 3 months ahead of the available dates.
I was able to obtain private consultation and treatment and follow up in 4 weeks for three of the cases and 8 weeks for the other two - that was simply because time needed to elapse before the follow up. Appointments were scheduled when the physican was available of course, but there was a lot of flexibility. I was able to make changes on two occasions and only slip a week before the next available appointment. The facilities, equipment, staff and treatment were beyond reproach - all of the latest medical equipment etc.
In all of the cases, the consultants carry out both private and NHS work, so it is not correct to say that one sector is robbing the other. All of them said that the main limiting factor is availability of supporting services, not consultant time.
I checked out the credentials of all of the consultants and surgeons that I saw. It is reasonably easy to do so from the GMC web site and then a search for the individual in terms of research papers and clinical work that they have done. Each had published at least two peer reviewed papers.
When one considered the hurdles to achieve accreditation to work at this level, it is frankly amazing that people stay the course, but they do. I talked to every single consultant and surgeon that I met about this. All of them felt that it was important to make their skills available to the public health service but they were too frustrated by its limitations and bureaucracy to allow it to be their sole source of work and income. In effect, most viewed the private sector as a means to bring their income to an acceptable level and to maintain their sanity. Sad but true.
If we look at the economics, again taking a personal example. I don't mind commenting that I am reasonably well remunerated as represented by what I can contribute to my company's business. As a result, I contribute a lot into the state system by virtue of my taxes, NI contributions and my employer NI contributions. These are certainly a great deal more than I would take from the system, even if I were using it. To a point I don't have a problem with that. In a civilised society, I think it's reasonable to contribute for the needs of others and perhaps for one's own needs in later life.
In order to achieve an acceptable level of service for healthcare I turn to the private sector to provide it. The public sector could do something but not in a timescale that is acceptable or useful. To address that, my employer pays for health insurance. This is hardly cheap at several Łk per annum. From the financial perspective, this is treated as further income and so the full gamut of tax, employee and employer NI are addeed to it. In effect I have to pay for about half of the cost out of net income. On top of this there is insurance tax of another 5% IIRC.
So adding this all up, I am unburdening NHS facilities, I am providing funding to a source of income for highly skilled clinicians who are not able to derive an acceptable income from the NHS. Yet I get penalised either deliberately or accidentally by the tax system.
I have no problem with contributing "over the odds" for the benefit of others. However, I would like to see a return to me that is equal to the value of a treatment under the NHS. In other words, if a particular piece of treatment costs Ł3000 through the NHS, then I should receive a voucher for that, or a substantial part of it which I can either "spend" at an NHS facility or at a private one, supplemented by insurance or cash..
For people who can't or don't wish to supplement their healthcare, the state sector would then have more resources to provide treatment because more of the population would be able to afford to seek treatment part funded by themselves if they need it. In terms of prioritisation of public sector services, those with life threatening or seriously debilitating conditions would have more resource available.
The problem comes in the present outdated notion of free treatment at the point of delivery and trying to create a one size fits all service. It doesn't work. The best that can be achieved is mediochre treatment. Those who want healthcare faster and on a more convenient basis are penalised, and those who are unable or don't wish to pay for it draw a short straw as well.
It would be far more effecitve if a more open market were created and people could choose what they want to spend on healthcare vs. other things. The current notion of over management of the available resources to make sure that nobody gets more of the state pie than the next man misses the point completely.
Resource should not go into the equipment for the groundsman to create a level playing field but into the quality of the players and the involvement in the game for the supporters.
The current NHS system is rotten to the core in terms of what is meant to be a service for all. You can always tell how an organisation wants to be viewed by its PR and marketing.
With respect to the NHS, two things spring immediately to mind.
- A series of radio commercials to entice nursing staff back to work for them. The premise was that the person was grateful to the NHS for providing care for her ageing mother. What a crock. For something that is meant to be a public sector service, it is audacity in the extreme to suggest that people should be grateful for what they get
- Illuninated signs on the sides of cranes on construction sites. What do they think they are doing spending money on that type of nonsense? The only explanation is political humbug and correctness. It certainly doesn't benefit any patients.
That is why I have no problem in making the proposition that the current system and notion of it should be shut down and replaced with something that addresses patient requirements rather than outmoded dogma
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:48:19 +0000, Mike Mitchell

Administration in the public services as opposed to the "sharp end" should be pared back. Severely. I would do so much more agressively than Letwin is suggesting,.

Investment should be related to the service being delivered, (as it were) not the administration of it.

It should be shut down and replaced with a system appropriate for the 21st century, not one suited to the idealism of the mid 20th.

In effect the taxpayer is the customer of all of this. The question becomes one of do we want to spend more money protecting jobs which can be automated or outsourced to other countries more cheaply or do we want to pay more in tax towards propping up or even increasing the public share of GDP to fund what is ultimately untenable?
To me the answer to that is abundantly clear.

If Royal Mail were working properly then that would be justified. In general I see no reason why senior executives should not receive remuneration at the level that they do. If the shareholders disagree then they can vote accordingly. It really isn't anybody's business what people earn anyway except in so far that director's remuneration goes into annual reports and so forth anyway.

Why? This is a matter between employer, employee and shareholders. It isn't anybody else's business.

The NHS isn't vital at all. It's outmoded and should be replaced by a mixed system of public and private provision. People should contribute to a state fund via tax of some sort and receive healthcare vouchers in return. These could then be spent at state run facilities or topped up with private insurance or payment if the patient wishes private care or earlier treatment.

That's almost certainly true.

.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And replaced with what? Loons like this always criticise yet never come up with a real solution. They see life from a narrow middle classy perspective.

We could farm everything out to India, and then the cost would be even more to the country in social payments, crime, broken homes etc. No one ever looks at the big picture.

Golden parachutes should be outlawed. They are just despicable.

< snip drivel >
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A system of public healthcare and a private one where users of it are not penalised for doing so. As it is, huge sums are wasted on admin in the public sector and people wishing to buy their own healthcare, thus unburdening the state system are penalised for doing so, several times over.
As you say, nobody looks at the big picture

The right thing to do would be to spend some of the money saved in retraining and reskilling those affected by such outsourcing. There is nothing new in the notion of jobs in certain sectors moving to lower cost production areas. Ultimately, attempting to control that by artificial means and props doesn't work. It would be far better to accept that that is the way that the market is going and dealing with it positively.

They are nobody's business apart from the parties involved.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

< snip drivel >
A recent TV programme. highlighted the health service on the Spanish Costa's. They do operations, amputate needlessly, etc, because they MAKE MORE MONEY, doing that. Putting health into the market place is stupidity. The standards are always lowered.

more
It does. You have to slowly introduce outsourcing, so skills and re-trained.

They are! Through the drugs I buy, prescribed by the NHS, I pay fro SKB parachutes.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So it must be right.

No it isn't. It's called choice.

Not in my personal experience.

That begins by accepting that outsourcing is going to happen rather than wasting time trying to protect untenable situations.

So complain to the NHS. They don't have to buy drugs from SKB.
Equally you don't have to have drugs prescribed by the NHS in the first place.
SKB is a commercial enterprise, not a charity. If it wishes to handle its executive remuneration in a particular way that is up to it and its shareholders. In the context of its overall balance sheet, this is a tiny amount anyway. its customers are at liberty to buy elsewhere if they don't like it.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It was right.

stupidity.
< snip drivel >
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Presumably when you realise that your left rubbish doesn't hold any water you decide to "snip drivel" because you have no counter arguement.
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Brainwashed illogical drivel, is drivel and worth of taking stock of. Just like what you come out with.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

There is no country in the world where extreme left has worked
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

arguement.
Just
I disagree. I have actually been to Cuba. It does well considering the needless economic embargo the USA puts on it. If it was left alone it would be the shining light all other third world countries would follow.
There is nowhere extreme right has ever worked, that is for sure.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly. Extreme anything fails because it is forcing situations artificially.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Cuba has some of the highest crime rates ever recorded. It has been a failure there too.

But I'm not proposing the extreme right only some more private intervention.
Next you'll be suggesting that it should be from each according to his ability to each according to his need?
--
http://www.sausagefans.com
Register for the mailing list to win
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

would
Havana is a very safe city. Any crime is due to the needless economic sanctions by the USA.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And they all drive ladas - a real crime, and a sure sign of a failed economy.

--
Andrew

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.