Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

atush

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

I would be interested to hear the doctor's side of the story. There must be a reason why they decided not to operate and I'm sure that age was the main factor. At the end of the day a 95 year old has a very short life expectancy and the NHS need to decide whether it is worth the cost to go through this process for a person already at the end of their natural life. Palliative treatment is normally the most humane way to deal with such patients and if this was not administered properly then you have grounds for complaining, but not otherwise.

Why not consult the newspapers and public enquiries. She live in Staffordshire where the hospitals have been much in the news for this sort of malfesance and other things.

The Doctor didn't want to operate as direct quote "She is is too old and might die during the operation". Which is a risk, I grant you. But no one recovers from a strangualted hernia, and infection is always an outcome.

Since this all happened, the hospital and trust have been under investigation.

SwissChris

I feel sure that Mr. Brown is highly delighted at being called Tory scum as it was during his time in power that the idea of raising retirement age was brought up. I feel that the Tories are equally delighted at having Mr Brown as a member of their party.

zagfles

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You are splitting hairs here. Pension credit is a pension.

No it isn't. It's a means tested benefit. It would stop if (eg) the pensioner won the lottery.

Paul_Herring

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

I never said Labour was blameless, but the difference is that the Tories have an ideological obsession with cutting public spending regardless of the economic circumstances.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Perhaps if the government (of whatever colour) wasn't so intent on spending the private sector's wages on things such as Cultural Diversity Officers, FakeCharities and courses on the Politics of Harry Potter Through the Medium of Interpretive Dance, then perhaps it wouldn't be taking so much of the private sector's wages as tax, so people could all fund their own pensions from whatever age they want to retire.

But I'm sure you'll find something against this idea.

Gracchus_Babeuf

zagfles wrote: »

No it isn't. It's a means tested benefit. It would stop if (eg) the pensioner won the lottery.

Yeah, and how likely is that? :rotfl:

noh

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Yeah, and how likely is that? :rotfl:

1 in 14 million

peterg1965

browniej wrote: »

If the Scots hold a referendum that shows that the majority wants independence, I doubt that any Westminster government would seriously oppose it.

Sorry to digress slightly. Salmond will not win a referendum for outright independance. Scotland is sitting on a fiscal timebomb and the SNP are rapidly running out of time. All the freebies on offer north of the border have to be paid long term, the timebomb will explode and Salmond will be exposed.

browniej

peterg1965 wrote: »

Sorry to digress slightly. Salmond will not win a referendum for outright independance.

In which case the Scottish people have spoken. However it's not up to a UK Parliament to decide.

All the freebies on offer north of the border have to be paid long term, the timebomb will explode and Salmond will be exposed.

May well be the case - only hindsight will tell.

Which freebies are you particularly referring to?

zagfles

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Yeah, and how likely is that? :rotfl:

:rotfl:It was an example! Or came into an inheritance. Or came into any significant capital or income by any means.

Pension credit is not a pension. It's a means tested benefit. And like with any means tested benefit it stops being paid if your means improve.

Admit you're wrong and move on. I CBA with you anymore. Ta ta.

Loughton_Monkey

State Pension is a form of Social Security - much like other forms. As for any social security, what is paid today is paid by today's taxpayer.

In addition, as anyone would expect, any form of social security has 'rules' which dictate the amount and/or its existence. These rules can, and do, change to reflect different circumstances at different times.

The amount being [legally] claimed for this particular benefit (State Pension) has become astronomical and absolutely untenable. This is due primarily to (a) the 'boom' in numbers claiming it compared to the number of taxpayers in the younger generations, and (b) the vastly increased longevity. Anyone who does not accept this is probably too stupid to accept any argument anyway.

So, to coin a phrase, 'something must be done'.

They can either reduce the amount paid, or raise the age at which it is paid. Actually they have done both. The first by reducing the indexation from RPI to CPI, the second by announcing the thrust of the changes well in advance. I simply do no know what else they could have done - other than be even more 'realistic' and put the age up a bit sooner (less notice) and also up to age 70.

The government has also largely prevented the situation that allows 65 year olds (60 year old women) being compulsoraly terminated from work.

Most sensible people save for their own retirement.