There is nothing special about the nhs

lisyloo

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I said ELECTIVE cosmetic surgery - i.e the patient has elected to have it just because they can (boob enhancements, nose jobs etc)..

That is not the definition of elective.

I don’t think boob enhancements, nose jobs for purely cosmetic preferences have ever been available on the NHS.

They are only available on the NHS if there is a health issue (physical or mental).

I would not include the people you have mentioned in that; they of course should continue to have it on the NHS.

Then you are using the word wrongly.
(I hate pedantry but it’s affecting the meaning of your point in this case).
A burns victim could chose not to have surgery (and some do), so that is elective surgery and not necessary for health/survival.

I’m not clear on your point as you have never been able to just request bigger boobs on the NHS. (A “boob job” might be done where there were serious back issues or a “nose job” where there were breathing issue)

Mistermeaner

People can get elective cosmetic surgery by claiming psychological impact - several women I know had boobs jobs / tummy tucks on NHS after pregnancy

Mistermeaner

tacpot12 wrote: »

I've never paid that much per month in NI contributions, and neither will 99% of the UK population. I think the NHS offers great value for money.

of course anyone who is paying in far less than the benefit they get out will think it's great value for money

I doubt 99% of the population are fortunate enough not to pay that amount (otherwise this implies just 1% are covering the true costs)

I know that my monthly deductions (tax and NI) are in excess of £3k so from my perspective it would be much better for me to pay by the USA charges you mention.

lisyloo

Mistermeaner wrote: »

People can get elective cosmetic surgery by claiming psychological impact - several women I know had boobs jobs / tummy tucks on NHS after pregnancy

Yes psycological impacts are treated by the NHS (not on just a claim or request but when verified by a health professional).
That’s not the same as cosmetic preferences.

Are you claiming that (for example) horrific burns don’t have a physcological impact or that it simply shouldn’t be funded?

If you had a daughter with a deformed boob or burnt face which affected her physiologically are you saying that treatment should not be funded?

I agree that bigger boobs and nose straightening for vanity reasons should not be funded (and isn’t), but shouldn’t physical or mental suffering be treated? Or is there a prejudice against mental health here?

There does seem to be an element of nastiness to this thread in that people aren’t trying to rally against those who’ve done well (increased taxes) but against those who are actually suffering.

lisyloo

Mistermeaner wrote: »

of course anyone who is paying in far less than the benefit they get out will think it's great value for money

I doubt 99% of the population are fortunate enough not to pay that amount (otherwise this implies just 1% are covering the true costs)

I know that my monthly deductions (tax and NI) are in excess of £3k so from my perspective it would be much better for me to pay by the USA charges you mention.

It’s commonly thought to be 60% who are NET takers (yes there are various links for that).

Some people will never be able to contribute enough or better themselves. Specific example I’m thinking of is supermarket worker, living until 91 and taking from nhs, district nurses, social services and eventually long term care). That person did work from 14-72 but never earned a lot and wasn’t capable of self improvement.

I think this comes down to:
Do you think we should put such people out on the streets when they. Can no longer care for themselves? (And this is 60% so the majority)
Or do you think the richer 40% should support the other 60%?

In practical terms bear in mind that if you don’t support people then they will turn to crime so you’ll need to live in a gated community.

Tromking

The NHS is not perfect and like most UK citizens I suppose I could afford a European style insurance payment that may or not improve healthcare provision.
However I love the fact that any of my UK fellow citizens can waltz into a GP surgery or an NHS hospital and money is simply not part of the equasion.
God forbid we ever get to a situation where like Ireland a simple visit to the GP or an A&E warrants a £80 one off charge.

lisyloo

Haha I love the phrase “waltz” right in.
I tend to book my routine appointments 28 days in advance to get the time I want.
Others I know have to give 3 weeks notice when they need to be seen straightaway or ring up first thing, which isn’t great for anyone that commutes.

I agree it’s great that it’s free but access in many areas is a long way from just waltzing in.

Mistermeaner

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes psycological impacts are treated by the NHS (not on just a claim or request but when verified by a health professional).
That’s not the same as cosmetic preferences.

Are you claiming that (for example) horrific burns don’t have a physcological impact or that it simply shouldn’t be funded?

There are 2 questions there.
- No to the 1st (I believe there can be a psychological impact from physical manifestations
- Re the 2nd I was replying in the context of elective surgery with some anecdotal observations and made no such assertion regards funding in this specific instance. I started the thread regards funding in general.

lisyloo wrote: »

If you had a daughter with a deformed boob or burnt face which affected her physiologically are you saying that treatment should not be funded?

I started the thread to question about funding of the NHS generally. To answer your specific question as best I can - with the current funding model I would expect such circumstances to be funded.

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree that bigger boobs and nose straightening for vanity reasons should not be funded (and isn’t), but shouldn’t physical or mental suffering be treated? Or is there a prejudice against mental health here?

No prejudice against mental health; I would question the funding of all treatment (mental and physical)

Anecdotal I know but 2 sisters I know have talked openly about being surprised to be able to get their boobs done on the NHS, boastiung about how they claimed PND to get 'free boob jobs' - potentially isolated incidents I am sure but where you have a free at point of use comprehensive service like the NHS it will always be open for misuse and exploitation

lisyloo wrote: »

There does seem to be an element of nastiness to this thread in that people aren’t trying to rally against those who’ve done well (increased taxes) but against those who are actually suffering.

Nothing nasty here as far as I can see - quite a valid discussion and exchange of views.

I could flip the assertion round and ask why (some) people think its OK to demonise those who have done well for themselves in wanting to keep as much of their hard earned wealth to spend as they see fit, rather than having it forceably taken off them and spent in ways others deem more worthy.

Mistermeaner

lisyloo wrote: »

It’s commonly thought to be 60% who are NET takers (yes there are various links for that).

Some people will never be able to contribute enough or better themselves. Specific example I’m thinking of is supermarket worker, living until 91 and taking from nhs, district nurses, social services and eventually long term care). That person did work from 14-72 but never earned a lot and wasn’t capable of self improvement.

I think this comes down to:
Do you think we should put such people out on the streets when they. Can no longer care for themselves? (And this is 60% so the majority)
Or do you think the richer 40% should support the other 60%?

In practical terms bear in mind that if you don’t support people then they will turn to crime so you’ll need to live in a gated community.

I think there is probably a middle ground somewhere between todays system and throwing the hoards onto the streets

Not easy to address but I do think we need to face up to the reality that prolongation of life isn't necessarily a good thing or indeed sustainable. Cue lots of logans' run comments but where will the money keep coming from?

If you look at todays situation the govt has tentatively started raiding older peoples assets to pay for their care; in 30 years there will be alot of pensioners without pensions who will have sold their homes (should they happen to have one) to fund their retirement - there will be nothing for the govt to take and sell.

My view is that the current healthcare system, state pension and general welfare state divorces individuals from the realities and costs of life leading to poor decision making (spend spend spend today safe in the knowledge the safety net is always there)

I would encourage and incentivise far more personal responsibility through removal of the safety nets (and as a result of cost reductions reduce taxes for all)

In the example of your supermarket worker working for 58 years their ability to accumulate wealth was in part restricted due to tax etc they will have paid but also because there spending power was greatly reduced when having to compete for housing with e.g. all of the folk on housing benefit - in other words the benefit of her working all those years was greatly reduced because others who did nothing as productive during that whole time ended up with similar outcomes.

badgerhead

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I would encourage and incentivise far more personal responsibility through removal of the safety nets (and as a result of cost reductions reduce taxes for all)

.

The neo-liberal wet dream.