• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
You can't run large budgets and staff numbers without some high level execs and they cost money - pocket change in comparison to overall budgets.

What we can't say is if they're effective or value for money without a properly competetive market. I can tell you that private health insurance costs less than the proportion of my income tax and NI that goes to the NHS and provides a significantly better level of care.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t if it had to incorporate emergency care (amongst hundreds of other things).
 
scaramanga said:
It wouldn't, but at least I wouldn't be paying twice.
Click to expand...
It may well end up costing you significantly more if your health insurance contributions had to cover emergency services as well and that’s before considering things like prescriptions for expensive drugs (depends how lucky you are with your health I guess)…. And that’s before we even get to the part where the NHS funds almost all of the initial training for the private care medical practitioners.

I take it from this that you agree with the US health system where one’s level of wealth determines the quality of health care that they receive? Works pretty well for those with a high income but works horribly for society as a whole I think, creating a multi tier system that fails the most needy (and I say that as somebody who is probably comfortably in the top 0.5% of earners in the UK). The Average family health insurance in the US is about $22k. The services (and medicines) available to those who are unable to pay the average are considerably poorer than what the NHS provides for our population. Having lived and worked in the US I am glad (and proud) that we still have a health care system that works for the poor as well as the rich. If I have to pay a bit more through taxation to ensure this then I am happy to do so.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It may well end up costing you significantly more if your health insurance contributions had to cover emergency services as well and that’s before considering things like prescriptions for expensive drugs (depends how lucky you are with your health I guess)…. And that’s before we even get to the part where the NHS funds almost all of the initial training for the private care medical practitioners.

I take it from this that you agree with the US health system where one’s level of wealth determines the quality of health care that they receive? Works pretty well for those with a high income but works horribly for society as a whole I think, creating a multi tier system that fails the most needy (and I say that as somebody who is probably comfortably in the top 0.5% of earners in the UK). The Average family health insurance in the US is about $22k. The services (and medicines) available to those who are unable to pay the average are considerably poorer than what the NHS provides for our population. Having lived and worked in the US I am glad (and proud) that we still have a health care system that works for the poor as well as the rich. If I have to pay a bit more through taxation to ensure this then I am happy to do so.
Click to expand...
First and foremost I think there should, at the very least be enough competition in the market to allow both consumer choice and innovative cost reduction.

I don't believe the rich should necessarily get better healthcare than the rest of us, it's not something I ever think about. I do believe in a basic principle of getting what one pays for, so it's probably an inevitable outcome of that.

The best solution would be one like the German system that is insurance based, with the state paying premiums for those that cannot afford it. Those who want better care can pay more but don't pay twice for it.
 
Macron saying he is going to make life extremely difficult for people who don't take the vaccine. Give me an insight to his psyche which confirms what I suspected about his policies to a certain foreign country and neighbour of France.

Petulant little child. Ad poor as Boris is at least he is not Macron.
 
scaramanga said:
First and foremost I think there should, at the very least be enough competition in the market to allow both consumer choice and innovative cost reduction.

I don't believe the rich should necessarily get better healthcare than the rest of us, it's not something I ever think about. I do believe in a basic principle of getting what one pays for, so it's probably an inevitable outcome of that.

The best solution would be one like the German system that is insurance based, with the state paying premiums for those that cannot afford it. Those who want better care can pay more but don't pay twice for it.
Click to expand...
Oh fudge, we agree.
That's annoying.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
Macron saying he is going to make life extremely difficult for people who don't take the vaccine. Give me an insight to his psyche which confirms what I suspected about his policies to a certain foreign country and neighbour of France.

Petulant little child. Ad poor as Boris is at least he is not Macron.
Click to expand...

To be fair, in the negotiations he was just being French. He did exactly what many Brexiteers voted for the UK to be.
He displayed nationalistic
Liberté, equality, fraternité (which apparently is something the EU makes impossible).

With Covid he seems to going full tirany.
The Liberté definitely isn't present.
Equality - definitely not.
Fraternité - if it is, it's certainly not with France....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back