Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Ed Wants To Fund The Nhs So Where Will He Find This?
41 Answers
http://
What the NHS need to do is slim down the grossly overstaffed and inefficient Management structure. Can't see Ed doing that though; too many labour votes, and the Tories seem toothless to tackle the problem whist shacked to the liberals at the moment.
So anyone got any ideas how we find the 8bn?
What the NHS need to do is slim down the grossly overstaffed and inefficient Management structure. Can't see Ed doing that though; too many labour votes, and the Tories seem toothless to tackle the problem whist shacked to the liberals at the moment.
So anyone got any ideas how we find the 8bn?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Coulda been done 3 years ago:
http://
Maybe if we enforced the rules against corporations instead of the little guy all the time there'd be a fairer society. Still, we're all in this together so we'll find a way, won't we?
http://
Maybe if we enforced the rules against corporations instead of the little guy all the time there'd be a fairer society. Still, we're all in this together so we'll find a way, won't we?
Gaius Petronius Arbiter (c. 27 – 66 AD) said:
"“We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”
The labour party did this continually to the NHS, I know because I was working in it at the time.
"“We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we were reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while actually producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.”
The labour party did this continually to the NHS, I know because I was working in it at the time.
The NHS does not need any additional funding. In fact it can manage to do what it currently does with considerably less money. It is overstaffed with administrators many of whom add no value whatsoever to patient care. The primary care service (i.e. GPs) costs a fortune thanks to the previous government's largesse which saw GP salaries virtually double whilst allowing them to abrogate many of their responsibilities towards their patients - responsibilities for which the NHS now has to pay through the nose to see fulfilled. Much of a GP's care consists of "take two asprins and if you're not dead in a fortnight come back and see me and I'll send you to somebody who knows what they're talking about". Now we read they're being paid additional funds to diagnose a particular disease.
Couple this with the fact that tens of thousands of people are arriving in the UK suffering from various ailments - some of them serious - which need addressing and these people have not and will never pay a penny towards the cost of their care. The NHS cannot collect payment from them because they are not geared up to do so (despite virtually every other nation with advanced healthcare systems managing to do so quite easily).
The list of potential savings - upon which I have only touched - is enormous. What the NHS needs is not more cash but a proper focussed management team who will clear out the dead wood and only employ people who add value to the service. Oh, and finally, politicians need to stop interfering with a service they know little or nothing about.
Couple this with the fact that tens of thousands of people are arriving in the UK suffering from various ailments - some of them serious - which need addressing and these people have not and will never pay a penny towards the cost of their care. The NHS cannot collect payment from them because they are not geared up to do so (despite virtually every other nation with advanced healthcare systems managing to do so quite easily).
The list of potential savings - upon which I have only touched - is enormous. What the NHS needs is not more cash but a proper focussed management team who will clear out the dead wood and only employ people who add value to the service. Oh, and finally, politicians need to stop interfering with a service they know little or nothing about.
/nationalising the Lottery/
Hmmm...
Take over a successful private business and hand it over to politicians and civil servants? Sounds like a winner...
How much would you need to pay Camelot for their profitable business?
Or are you suggesting we steal it off them?
Or just spend millions in infrastructure to set up a new Nationalised Lottery with the confidence of knowing that government high tech projects are almost always a disaster?
Hmmm...
Take over a successful private business and hand it over to politicians and civil servants? Sounds like a winner...
How much would you need to pay Camelot for their profitable business?
Or are you suggesting we steal it off them?
Or just spend millions in infrastructure to set up a new Nationalised Lottery with the confidence of knowing that government high tech projects are almost always a disaster?
mikey4444 said:
//On another linked topic, it is now recognised that the care of the elderly, including dementia sufferers, stands to swamp the NHS in the very near future. Does anyone know how the the NHS is going to cope in the future, unless we inject substantially more funds into it ? This is a non-party political issue...even the Tories are pledged to support the NHS. //
Bring back smoking!!!
Or at least do a better job of stopping smuggling by the truckload (often toxin-laden counterfeit products).
//On another linked topic, it is now recognised that the care of the elderly, including dementia sufferers, stands to swamp the NHS in the very near future. Does anyone know how the the NHS is going to cope in the future, unless we inject substantially more funds into it ? This is a non-party political issue...even the Tories are pledged to support the NHS. //
Bring back smoking!!!
Or at least do a better job of stopping smuggling by the truckload (often toxin-laden counterfeit products).
Who are you to decide what LOL means Froggy ? It can mean whatever you want it to mean, as we discussed on another thread a few days ago ( which I can't locate at the moment ! )
Well done for getting in a moan about immigration by the way NJ ! I didn't think it would take long. The cost of the NHS is going to soar over the next few years, not by the addition of some immigrants but the huge increase in life expectancy in Britain. Dementia and other age-related illnesses is going to put a massive strain on our health system, as they will on every other nation on earth.
But guess who will be looking after me, and all the others that get old in the future ? It won't be the unskilled, lazy and feckless native Brits who are content to sit around collecting their benefits all day, and doing nothing in return ! It will be the imported care workers from abroad. The same ones that are doing it now in the private sector. The ones that we are going to need more of, to say nothing about the extra staff needed in our Hospitals to cope with the increase in morbidity due to diabetes, etc.
Be nice to the next immigrant that you bump into...they might be feeding you or wiping your bum in a few years time !
Well done for getting in a moan about immigration by the way NJ ! I didn't think it would take long. The cost of the NHS is going to soar over the next few years, not by the addition of some immigrants but the huge increase in life expectancy in Britain. Dementia and other age-related illnesses is going to put a massive strain on our health system, as they will on every other nation on earth.
But guess who will be looking after me, and all the others that get old in the future ? It won't be the unskilled, lazy and feckless native Brits who are content to sit around collecting their benefits all day, and doing nothing in return ! It will be the imported care workers from abroad. The same ones that are doing it now in the private sector. The ones that we are going to need more of, to say nothing about the extra staff needed in our Hospitals to cope with the increase in morbidity due to diabetes, etc.
Be nice to the next immigrant that you bump into...they might be feeding you or wiping your bum in a few years time !
It's not a moan about immigration, Mikey, it's simply a fact associated with the debate. When discussing why the NHS needs extra funds you have to take into account that the population is increasing enormously and that much of that increase is due to immigration. We can argue over precisely how much of the increase is due to that cause but it doesn't really matter. I think it is generally accepted that the increase due to immigration is substantial.
More people means more healthcare is needed and also to be taken into account is that many of the newcomers are unlikely to be net contributors to the Exchequer's funds. To ignore this aspect is simply irresponsible on the part of those who are supposed to be tackling these problems.
More people means more healthcare is needed and also to be taken into account is that many of the newcomers are unlikely to be net contributors to the Exchequer's funds. To ignore this aspect is simply irresponsible on the part of those who are supposed to be tackling these problems.
If you want the facts on immigration mikey and the undoubted added strain we have year on year, take a look:
http://
Factor in the cost of interpreters and it doesn't get any easier.
Can you hear that noise mikey? It's the sound of the bow and it's creaking......badly.
http://
Factor in the cost of interpreters and it doesn't get any easier.
Can you hear that noise mikey? It's the sound of the bow and it's creaking......badly.
@NJ
//unlikely to be net contributors to the Exchequer's funds.//
Can you clarify why you think this?
a) due to evasion by their people-trafficking slave-drivers?
b) personal evasion by working cash-in-hand?
c) on PAYE but barely breaching the minimum tax threshold?
Personally, I don't think "taking the low paid out of tax altogether" is a good thing. A reduced percentage, sure but they shouldn't be deprived of the right to say "I'm a taxpayer too" and they should generate at least enough revenue to cover their healthcare costs.
After all, they will need to do that if the NHS slides into anything like the US system (as it was pre-Obamacare).
//unlikely to be net contributors to the Exchequer's funds.//
Can you clarify why you think this?
a) due to evasion by their people-trafficking slave-drivers?
b) personal evasion by working cash-in-hand?
c) on PAYE but barely breaching the minimum tax threshold?
Personally, I don't think "taking the low paid out of tax altogether" is a good thing. A reduced percentage, sure but they shouldn't be deprived of the right to say "I'm a taxpayer too" and they should generate at least enough revenue to cover their healthcare costs.
After all, they will need to do that if the NHS slides into anything like the US system (as it was pre-Obamacare).
Zeuhl/whiskeryron
Camelot is given a license by the Government every 10 years to run the lottery. It was last re-newed in 2009, but they have already been given an extension until 2023. I am not saying it is a good idea, but the Government could quite easily not award a contract for the lottery to Camelot. As for being a successful private business, they are running a monopoly.
Camelot is given a license by the Government every 10 years to run the lottery. It was last re-newed in 2009, but they have already been given an extension until 2023. I am not saying it is a good idea, but the Government could quite easily not award a contract for the lottery to Camelot. As for being a successful private business, they are running a monopoly.
Mainly (b) and (c), Hypo.
Many migrants work in businesses where they are paid cash in hand, often below the minimum wage which leads us in to (c).
Many of the jobs taken by migrants either pay very low rates of pay (usually the minimum wage or sometimes less) or involve a low number of hours per week or both. Someone working 30 hours a week at the minimum wage (a fairly typical arrangement) will earn roughly £9,000 pa (depending on how much holiday pay they receive). On this he will pay no income tax. He will pay about £250 NI and his employer will pay about £300 NI. Having paid his £250 he will be entitled to about £780 in working tax credits. He will almost certainly be entitled to Housing Benefit and if he has any children (either here or abroad) at the very least he will be entitled to Child Benefit (£1,066 pa for the first child, £705 pa for each subsequent child). Let's assume he pays about £1,000 in VAT and excise duty on items he buys (this is conservative as he probably sends most of his spare cash "home"). So, contributions of £1,000 (VAT/excise) and £550 (NI) will be offset by £780 working tax credits, making him a contributor to the tune of £770. However, his HB will almost certainly wipe that out entirely, and some. And remember, this is assuming he has no children.
The sums, although rough and ready, are not too unbelievable. Of course this individual, who almost certainly makes no net contribution to the tax pot and is probably a hefty net beneficiary depending on his exact circumstances, will be entitled to all the services the NHS provides. That is why it is essential to consider the effect that mass migration of people doing low skilled low paid jobs has upon funding for the NHS.
Of course it could be argued that somebody who already lives here would produce a similar calculation. That would be a valid argument if there were no people unemployed. But whilst we are importing labour in the form of people who are net beneficiaries of the tax system we are also paying around 2m people to sit at home because they will not do the work the migrants do. And that's why the country's finances are in a state.
It ain’t rocket science. You just need to do a few sums before you blandly accept that mass migration is good for the country.
Many migrants work in businesses where they are paid cash in hand, often below the minimum wage which leads us in to (c).
Many of the jobs taken by migrants either pay very low rates of pay (usually the minimum wage or sometimes less) or involve a low number of hours per week or both. Someone working 30 hours a week at the minimum wage (a fairly typical arrangement) will earn roughly £9,000 pa (depending on how much holiday pay they receive). On this he will pay no income tax. He will pay about £250 NI and his employer will pay about £300 NI. Having paid his £250 he will be entitled to about £780 in working tax credits. He will almost certainly be entitled to Housing Benefit and if he has any children (either here or abroad) at the very least he will be entitled to Child Benefit (£1,066 pa for the first child, £705 pa for each subsequent child). Let's assume he pays about £1,000 in VAT and excise duty on items he buys (this is conservative as he probably sends most of his spare cash "home"). So, contributions of £1,000 (VAT/excise) and £550 (NI) will be offset by £780 working tax credits, making him a contributor to the tune of £770. However, his HB will almost certainly wipe that out entirely, and some. And remember, this is assuming he has no children.
The sums, although rough and ready, are not too unbelievable. Of course this individual, who almost certainly makes no net contribution to the tax pot and is probably a hefty net beneficiary depending on his exact circumstances, will be entitled to all the services the NHS provides. That is why it is essential to consider the effect that mass migration of people doing low skilled low paid jobs has upon funding for the NHS.
Of course it could be argued that somebody who already lives here would produce a similar calculation. That would be a valid argument if there were no people unemployed. But whilst we are importing labour in the form of people who are net beneficiaries of the tax system we are also paying around 2m people to sit at home because they will not do the work the migrants do. And that's why the country's finances are in a state.
It ain’t rocket science. You just need to do a few sums before you blandly accept that mass migration is good for the country.
Latest Posts
More Attacks On Freedom Of Speech
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Crosswords31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.