THE Prepping thread - a new beginning :)

GreyQueen

My attitude to spending is that unless I'm trying to buy illegal substances, it's not the state's business what I buy and where I buy it from. Hence one of my reasons for using cash. The other is the very real fear that us cash-holdouts are the only ones protecting the gullible non-cash users from sucking the rest of us into a dystopian future where every move is monitored and every purchase controlled. And would you really want to be operating cash-free if it meant each time you sold unwanted household goods, the tax man took an interest? Imagine carboot sales with card-readers, FGS.

And yes, having all one's funds, including whatever money one has acquired in respect of life savings, in banks where they can be held hostage, given a Cyprus-style haircut or witheld on grounds of bank insolvency isn't a good idea in my book. Our currency is also losing its purchasing power at a rate of knots.

When my parents got engaged in the early 1960s, Dad in a blue-collar labouring job earned £17 a week and that bought a modest diamond-and-sapphire engagement ring for Mum. 55 years later, I earn £17 in two hours, but you sure as hell can't buy very much with it.

So, I'll continue to be a cash user and hope the ninnies with their contactless debit cards etc etc don't drag me down with them.

moneyistooshorttomention

Though, unfortunately, whatever way we access our money it's subject to inflation:( and our income doesn't necessarily keep up with that.

...and, on that topic, there do seem to be rather a lot more "mutterings" going on about "negative interest rates" (aka charging you for keeping your own money in an interest-bearing savings account - well it should be interest-bearing:cool:). I remember the days of getting "real" interest on savings....

mrs-moneypenny

Morning all
Harvested the last of the potatoes yesterday, think I have enough to last the week. It's the first year I've grown them so was quite pleased to the result. Is it too late to plant more a have some seed pots in the shed that didnt get plants that are covered in shoots. The runner beans are just starting to produce harvestable crops.
Have a good day all.

moneyistooshorttomention

....and, on another topic, prepping for an increasingly more likely event - ie "where there are no doctors" and you're still in our own country.....

We can all see many doctors are getting near retirement age and some are retiring early (ie because of the sheer pressure of work), etc.

So - what do you do where-there-are-no-doctors?

Do you head however far it is to the nearest Casualty dept (and what things do you take with you for refreshment/keep yourselves occupied whilst you wait and wait and wait)?

Do you find a private doctor - if you can....

I've been watching the way the NHS is deteriorating with horror over last few years.

My own plans consist of:

- I've got a very good collection by now of alternative health care books (always got my eyes open for the most out-of-date/obscure/etc ones I can find - just in case they say how to get rid of just one illness conventional medicine says you have to "live with")

- I'm taking down the contact details for every way to access a private doctor I can find (grrr....as I cant afford it...but if needs must...)
- etc

Is it time (I rather think it is) to make hard decisions and start charging to see the doctor (a token £5 per visit) in order to discourage those who really don't need one (eg asking for antibiotics for a cold:cool:). Say £100 for those visiting A & E with drink/drug related injuries. Those not paying/being credited with NI stamps (as they dont live in this country) being told "It's cash up front for the bill before we treat you". Those on the Dole to still get in for free of course. I reluctantly think it's time to have that discussion. What do others think?

Cappella

Morning.

Waving white flag and peeping over the parapet here.

Mila - I use cash mostly, credit card for online purchases paid off immediately. I take a fixed sum out monthly and that way always have a cash float in the house for the month (I also keep an extra two months housekeeping in a very safe place for emergencie so that given a meltdown we'd be slightly better prepared?) It's partly a privacy issue but it's also because if I take a fixed amount of cash out with me weekly it's much easier to resist impulse buys and stick to a rigid budget. I think it's my age, but I find that using coins and notes gives me a quicker, clearer immediate picture of exactly what I'm spending. Flashing the plastic cards is just too easy a method of payment and having fallen victim to card cloning in the past I find it's much easier to note suspicious purchases when I only use the debit card once a month instead of several times a week!
I check my bank account daily online though, better safe than sorry.

MrsMoneypenny - yes you can plant them, you might not get a heavy crop but you should get some, waste not want not!

princesstippytoes

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

....

Is it time (I rather think it is) to make hard decisions and start charging to see the doctor (a token £5 per visit) in order to discourage those who really don't need one (eg asking for antibiotics for a cold:cool:). Say £100 for those visiting A & E with drink/drug related injuries. Those not paying/being credited with NI stamps (as they dont live in this country) being told "It's cash up front for the bill before we treat you". Those on the Dole to still get in for free of course. I reluctantly think it's time to have that discussion. What do others think?

So where does the line get drawn then?

Even a "token £5" to visit the doctor will see many people unable to attend at all as that will be £5 less food money for people below the poverty line. Or irresponsible parents neglecting to take their child to a doctor because they prioritise their money elsewhere.

Why just drink and drug related injuries incurring a £100 charge? I presume you mean that the injuries would be seen as self inflicted. So does a stupid person get fined for having an accident that was their own fault. What about cyclists that don't wear a helmet? What about obese people who have weight related illnesses?

And you are going to demand up front payment from people who don't live in this country? Even if they are poor and in genuine need?

What if the accident was someone else's fault. Do you have to find them to get them to pay before you can be treated?

Also why then preclude people on "the dole" from paying? We all know someone who's playing the benefits system so why give them another freebie automatically.

Apart from anything else the cost of the buerocracy involved in your ideas would bring an already struggling NHS to its knees.

jk0

They charge to see the doctor where I was brought up in Jersey. It seems fair enough to me. This is the price list for my old doctors: http://www.listersurgeryjersey.co.uk/making-appointments.aspx

VJsmum

Or sports injuries. Or car accidents. Or pregnancy. Inoculationso for the kids you chose to have?

Doveling

This would sort of bring us back to the debate on the deserving and undeserving poor wouldn't it but instead it's the deserving ill and the undeserving ill.

I feel that the NHS should remain free at point of care for everyone

However, due to science and medical advances, people's expectations of the NHS are a lot higher. But finances are finite.

Plus there is a very fine line between NHS and social care for the elderly nowadays. The care my father is receiving from both sectors is fantastic

But, it all has to be paid for. The only way I can see our world renowned and envied service being maintained is a rise in taxation for more money to go specifically to the NHS.

But I am a bear of little brain and also biased :rotfl:

moneyistooshorttomention

VJsmum wrote: »

Or sports injuries. Or car accidents. Or pregnancy. Inoculationso for the kids you chose to have?

My first thought was to state "obviously not for car accidents" - but I guess even that could be billed (ie to the insurer of the "guilty party" car). The bill would obviously have to be sent direct to the insurers and the injured person/people treated immediately as usual. In the case of the "guilty party" being uninsured - then...the State (ie the rest of us) would be left picking up that bill I guess - unless the car insurers had a scheme whereby they would divide that cost up between themselves.

Everything else on that list is basically voluntary. Well - sports injuries aren't - but I guess sportsmen/women know injury is a risk they take if going in for sports as well and the other things are definitely choices at the outset.

Food for thought on jko's "pricelist" for that surgery. Whew - the price of a consultation for an adult is quite high! But if appointments were on time/one didnt feel "hurried out" (I've even heard of people being told to get out by the doctor before they had finished saying what they came for!!!!) after a few minutes and knew you'd just paid for 15 minutes (so you were going to get 15 minutes) then it would be worth it. The price is rather high as well for a home visit - but home visits are something that seem to be extremely rare these days - so it would be good to know there was a guarantee of getting one if needed.

There are hard choices to be made and if its a choice between people paying for things that are voluntary or someone being lied to and told they dont need cataract surgery on their 2nd eye (for instance) when they DO actually need it - then whatyagonnachoose? Personally I'd rather not see people being lied to by medics in an attempt to deny them treatment for something that definitely isn't voluntary.

But - back to personal level - and what do people do if they need a doctor and there simply isnt one?

EDIT; Just noticed the £100 charge for "minor surgery" on jko's list. Whew! But I've recently probably paid not much less than that for minor surgery I needed - because the local doctors practices said they dont do it and its exactly the sort of thing I've had done by doctors before now...but they are rationing their time because there are fewer of them and more of us.