charities to be significantly worse off

Cleaver

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Good luck because you will never have enough when it matters.

Once you get something difficult the private sector don't really want to know.

In some ways I can fully understand why people want to go private: you're often in plush surroundings, own room, better TV, quieter, quicker etc. etc.

However, picture the scene. You're in for a routine operation in a private hospital. Nothing life threatening, but something they put you under for. Maybe a lump removed from your leg or something. You NHS surgeon is one of the best, and they are doing their one weekly day of private work. But then something happens to you and you react to the anaesthetic. Or, something goes wrong and you start bleeding internally.

If you're in the NHS your theatre is generally next to an A&E full of world class consultants, next to the anaesthetic department full of world class anaesthetists, next to wards full of trained people etc. etc. Bascially, everything is on hand. Your plush private theatre centre? It's 10 miles from all these things. No thank you. But as I say, horses for courses.

grizzly1911

Sapphire wrote: »

Moreover, why does the press so often use the term 'government money', when it is actually 'taxpayers' money' that is being used for benefits, aid to charities, and so on? As a taxpayer for many years, I resent my money being used on the many things labour have squandered it on.

I had to go for an MRI scan at an NHS hospital the other day and was astonished at the luxury decor of the place, which looked like some plush hotel. This was presumably paid for by the taxpayer. Why? How could this have been permitted? What we need as a priority is the very best doctors, nurses, equipment and drugs possible, which are clearly lacking in some places, not plush surroundings, statues by well-known 'artists' and places full of plants. I don't mind paying for the former, but certainly do mind, as a taxpayer, paying for luxury surroundings in a hospital.

Which hospital would that be?

I have known a lot of private hospitals like that and private rooms adjoining NHS hospitals where the private sector "share" the infrastructure. Those with the dosh don't like going through the "poor" entrance. Perhaps the private sector were "mopping up" cases for the NHS too.

I have never been in a main stream NHS hospital I could call plush. Clean, efficient, sterile maybe. I have also been in a number that have been the pits.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

In some ways I can fully understand why people want to go private: you're often in plush surroundings, own room, better TV, quieter, quicker etc. etc.

However, picture the scene. You're in for a routine operation in a private hospital. Nothing life threatening, but something they put you under for. Maybe a lump removed from your leg or something. You NHS surgeon is one of the best, and they are doing their one weekly day of private work. But then something happens to you and you react to the anaesthetic. Or, something goes wrong and you start bleeding internally.

If you're in the NHS your theatre is generally next to an A&E full of world class consultants, next to the anaesthetic department full of world class anaesthetists, next to wards full of trained people etc. etc. Bascially, everything is on hand. Your plush private theatre centre? It's 10 miles from all these things. No thank you. But as I say, horses for courses.

yes to all this. but then picture my scene a few years back...nhs scratching their heads telling dh that they didn't know what was up, then when a friend insisted I saw their doctor immeadiatley being rushed into private hospital scanned and put into a coma because the situation was so dire. Incidentally, when it was pointed out I was running out of money the medical staff cut their own fees in half (and in fact the friend who'd sent me to the doctor picked up the majority of the tab because they are kind and better off than I could ever dream of being).

It was, quite simply, something that saved my life, going private.

Cleaver

lostinrates wrote: »

yes to all this. but then picture my scene a few years back...nhs scratching their heads telling dh that they didn't know what was up, then when a friend insisted I saw their doctor immeadiatley being rushed into private hospital scanned and put into a coma because the situation was so dire. Incidentally, when it was pointed out I was running out of money the medical staff cut their own fees in half (and in fact the friend who'd sent me to the doctor picked up the majority of the tab because they are kind and better off than I could ever dream of being).

It was, quite simply, something that saved my life, going private.

True, and I fully concede that private has many, many advantages over the NHS. I think hospitals are like restaurants - people have good and bad experiences at the same place, swear by some and would never go to others again.

lostinrates

Sapphire wrote: »

Moreover, why does the press so often use the term 'government money', when it is actually 'taxpayers' money' that is being used for benefits, aid to charities, and so on? As a taxpayer for many years, I resent my money being used on the many things labour have squandered it on.

I had to go for an MRI scan at an NHS hospital the other day and was astonished at the luxury decor of the place, which looked like some plush hotel. This was presumably paid for by the taxpayer. Why? How could this have been permitted? What we need as a priority is the very best doctors, nurses, equipment and drugs possible, which are clearly lacking in some places, not plush surroundings, statues by well-known 'artists' and places full of plants. I don't mind paying for the former, but certainly do mind, as a taxpayer, paying for luxury surroundings in a hospital.

Only one I've been to that is anything like that is an outsourced place, all nhs work but actually privately run (ops like knee/hip replacments, the place you get sent or things like x rays and ultrasounds) Majority of medical staff are not brits I think, and all those I've seen (taken mother for three ops there) have been AMAZINGLY good.

grizzly1911

B_Blank wrote: »

I would reduce tax to 30% from 40% but compel people to pick charities to donate the remaining 10% to. Government shouldnt fund charities, but it should do more to make sure people are more generous in their giving.

Maybe a bit like NI was introduced to pay for health care and social needs and pensions before it became a tax again.

Like I have said Governements of all persuasions are as bad as each other but I remember Maggie reducing tax with a fanfare only to put up NI by the same amount result - draw.

I would be happier if corporations that earn their profit in this country paid"full" tax in this country. Loads of them , some Banks too I think.

I think Janet & John on the street pay quite enough.

Take some one on the average wage.

Tax 20%
NI 12%
VAT(50)% 10%
Council Tax 5%

Say50% as the allowances don't add up to much.

THEN DISCRETIONARY TAXES

Alcohol/Fuel/Cigarettes (optional but probably40ish of money spent %) and so on.

Lets just increase that by 20% if you are on over £40K for the remainder.

And in couple of years if you want a degree another tax @ 9% for income over £21000.

I think they should be left to decide whether the eat, keep warm, have some enjoyment with the bit they are allowed to keep. The chance of a Government reducing "actual" tax to the man in the street are zip.

Of course when we give the keys back to the Taliban that might free up some money.

Thrugelmir

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Like I have said Governements of all persuasions are as bad as each other but I remember Maggie reducing tax with a fanfare only to put up NI by the same amount result - draw.

NI isn't paid by pensioners or those living on savings. Merely those that are in work. So should be viewed as a redistribution.

Life expectancy for a man living in the UK has risen by 6 years. Just in this short time period.

So the cost of pension provision is escalating. Along with increased health expenditure. Something will all reap the benefits of if we are lucky enough to survive that long.

grizzly1911

Thrugelmir wrote: »

NI isn't paid by pensioners or those living on savings. Merely those that are in work. So should be viewed as a redistribution.

Life expectancy for a man living in the UK has risen by 6 years. Just in this short time period.

So the cost of pension provision is escalating. Along with increased health expenditure. Something will all reap the benefits of if we are lucky enough to survive that long.

Don't dispute what you say but me don't think that was their main reckoning in the eighties. They had made it a policy to reduce "tax" and it was a headline way of showing it.

In a similar way the starting rate has been increased/is increasing, far too slowly IMO, for political reasons but it has so far been dwarfed by the increase in NI and the pensioners have been left out on the age related bands.

Likewise with child benefit it has just been cut for those with one salary over £40k but two up to £79998 are OK. Couldn't possibly put another tax rate in like they did at 50% to achieve the same net reduction.

Janet & John are easy targets whilst Big Corporations get off light.

To a lesser extent IHT catches the unwary or those "locked" in. IMO a lot of the very wealthy engineer themselves out of it because they can.