Let's save the country some money.

ILW

dori2o wrote: »

Unhealthy food (including fast food) is already taxed via VAT.

I meant a tax on fat people and their children. Bit like paying a higher road fund licence on big cars.

vivatifosi

dori2o wrote: »

The problem with this is that the ordinary person in the street doesn't have £300 per night to spend. I don't have £300 a month to spend on food and Petrol.

It wouldn't be too bad if Private Healthcare was more openly available, but for someone like me it's a completely pointless exercise as I'm yet to find a HC provider that will accept long term pre existing conditions.

Its something you would take from your emergency savings if you have them. I'm not advocating the removal of free nursing care, just the introduction of other alternatives that could reduce the cost burden. I'm not wealthy by any means but would look to use this if I needed it, and like you I can't go private.

globalds

We could get rid of the monarchy.
That would save us a fortune ..Put a shed load of extra Police back into real work, not to mention the saving the armed forces would make.

lynzpower

Every scrap of government owned land should be turned into council accommodation asap where there is areas of high demand.

government is sitting on vacant sites from barracks, to closed down care homes to vacant housing.

The sooner it starts creating jobs then the sooner we can make money on these sites instead of paying for security & all the rest of it.

There should be large fines on developers who do not develop land when they have planning permission. Like a daily rate per unit that is not being built.

Davesnave

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of abused children do attend school to some extent at least. Research does not back up what you say.

As I said a worthless job. Cut backs are hard but it has to be done.;)

I think you'll also find the majority of children attend school, at least to some extent, as well.

Home education is all very fine for folk who do it properly, but it isn't always great 'freedom' for those kids whose parents use it, however well-meaningly, to keep them away from the world.

I have such a family living next door to me. The parents have medical conditions and everything comes by Tesco & home delivery. I'm sure the children have all their material needs met, and they are certainly loved, but there is much evidence of boredom and a lack of educational development. A week can pass, even in clement weather, and they're not seen out of doors. They never go into the world beyond their garden, unless grandma calls, maybe once a month.

I'm sure you are doing a cracking job with your kids, and as a former teacher I understand that schools and parents often have serious shortcomings, but if the EHEOs are doing a 'worthless job,' then maybe we should give them more teeth, if only for the benefit of the children like those next door .

Unlike the children I came across in school, where something at home was not right, they have no one to represent them. You may see such intervention as state interference, but 'disenfranchised' is the word that comes to mind to describe their situation.

jamespir

we could stop sending money abroad to help out countries who get themselves in the number 2

Davesnave

jamespir wrote: »

we could stop sending money abroad to help out countries who get themselves in the number 2

Yes, we could watch while other countries, like China, carry on investing abroad and reaping the rewards, through favourable connections for raw materials, business etc.

Or do you mean baling out countries in the Eurozone?

Or do you mean humanitarian aid?

Anyway, you seem to be starting from the premise that we are not "in the number 2" too.

Maybe not; perhaps only 1.99 eh?

jamespir

Davesnave wrote: »

Yes, we could watch while other countries, like China, carry on investing abroad and reaping the rewards, through favourable connections for raw materials, business etc.

Or do you mean baling out countries in the Eurozone?

Or do you mean humanitarian aid?

Anyway, you seem to be starting from the premise that we are not "in the number 2" too.

Maybe not; perhaps only 1.99 eh?

thats what i mean we have our own problems to deal with and sending billions to greeece and ireland aint gonna help the situation
and the amount we spend on "disaster money "is ridiculous too(obv they do need help some of them but their must be other ways)
and i do know were in the pan

Graham_Devon

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of abused children do attend school to some extent at least. Research does not back up what you say.

I don't need research to back up what I say. Did you miss the fact I've been involved in a case of abuse?

Whether the person homeschooled or not, the abuse would probably have happened.

However, with the fact that the abuse was physical and mental control, homeschooling was the preferable option, and allowed that parent to control the child further. Allowed the parent to control who the child see's and who the child can speak to.

A simple education visit, to the home, would have roused interest, and the case could have been referred. Obviously the adult was completely against this and the rules allowed her, at the time, to stop any contact.

All I'm saying is it allows these things to happen. And why any parent feel's they have the right to stop others checking on their child's welfare / education is beyond me. They may be our children, but they are their own person.

I know the argument is simply that these visits are not looking at welfare, but that's a complete strawman argument. Obviously if someone walks into an obvious dodgy situation, the childs welfare is taken into account.

If all is going as it should, and the child is being educated to the standards set out by the parent, then there is nothing to fear. But there has been cases of real homeschoolers on this forum with 5 year olds who cannot write or talk. Apparently they are using the "let them do it themselves" approach.

That in my view, is abuse and selfishly keeping the children "babies". Of course the only reason that can happen is because of this complete nonsense of homeshcoolers wantnig to block any outside infulence.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm willing to pay extra. I dread going into hospital (thankfully no need at present) but would be glad to pay for my own nursing if I can have my own room. DH has been in a hospital that does this. So you get the op on the NHS but pay for private care, thus saving the NHS the nursing costs. You get a nice clean room with a TV, they get an extra bed that's not allocated. It costs about £300 per night. I'd also happily pay £10 to visit the docs.

I also think drunks who pack A&E over weekends should pay for their treatment.

I think we also need to consider what is free and when. Many people seek GP surgery help for things that are self treatable in the first instance. This is fine if you only need a little help and can afford to cover, say, 50-100 pounds worth of self treatment at home, but if you are riddled with problems this could add up.

It occured to me thayt we pay NI, but don't pay an excess on this, unlike other insurances....perhaps that's a way to consider health care...a small excess....(per person per year, not per condition). This could even be set according to income tax...so free for kids/pensioners, low rate for low earners, higher rate for higher earners.