Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 19:48:59 GMT -1
So, it's started. The Westminster Tories are giving it notions that they might just introduce a £10 fee for visiting your GP. Start of a very slippery slope into privatisation of the NHS, if you ask me. Is that not just going to prevent people who're a bit strapped for cash visiting their GP? Until their illnesses get SO bad they (or more importantly, their children) not only suffer more in the interim but the cost of treating advanced illnesses rises exponentially? And how much would it save to means-test? (I suspect it'd cost more in the end but hey...call me old-fashioned : Scotland's NHS is devolved to Holyrood and as far as I know, there's no intention whatsoever to implement such brutal measures here. That said, what I would like to see in Scotland is a "three strikes and you're out" policy for people that make appointments then don't show and don't bother their arse to cancel. Our surgery publicises the no-shows on a monthly basis. In October there, 131 people wasted everyone's time. That's 40+ appointments a week that could have gone to others. And another thing! If they go ahead with this in England, who's betting that instead of paying £10 for an appointment, hordes of folks would just pitch up at already beleaguered A&E departments instead? This idea has BOLLOCKS written all over it.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Nov 19, 2013 21:05:31 GMT -1
Why???
You have just about described our system. If you genuinely cant afford it you get a "health" card and the service is free.
Why should poor taxpayer subsidise those that can afford to pay?
The doctor doesnt know whether you are on health card or not till its time to pay so the treatment is exactly the same. Standard consultation fee is $70 of which $35 is reimbursed by Government
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 21:28:02 GMT -1
Can I ask, Oz, what's the judgement system over there re who can and can't afford to pay?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Nov 19, 2013 21:59:08 GMT -1
Why??? You have just about described our system. If you genuinely cant afford it you get a "health" card and the service is free. Why should poor taxpayer subsidise those that can afford to pay? The doctor doesnt know whether you are on health card or not till its time to pay so the treatment is exactly the same. Standard consultation fee is $70 of which $35 is reimbursed by Government The over arching ethos of the NHS is that it is free at the point of need, this remains the case in Scotland. Another way of looking at it is, that it isn't free, its paid or from our taxes. In Scotland optical and dentist check ups were free, the take up was good. Then the Tories started Harding for those checkups, the take up went down, went further down every time they or the LIEBOOR party put the prices up, this then resulted in the number of late diagnosis of sight and oral problems going up, costing the NHS more in the long run. But alas the dogma driven Tories and LIEBOOR still don't get it. They are now looking at putting prescriptions in engerlandshire up to a tenner per item, to raise more money. It isn't cost effective because people can't afford the item costs. They ask the pharmacist what the most important thing is and only take that. This then leads to people not getting better and hence costing the NHS more in the long run. In Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland prescriptions are free, it is cheaper to not charge rather than pay the admin costs of collection and means testing - not exactly rocket science but still the government in engerlandshire plus the LIEBOOR scum in Scotland think we should charge anyways -sheer stupidity. The cut off point for paying for your prescription in engerlandshire is @ £ 16000 earnings in salary, not a huge amount of money, imagine having to pay £50 a month for medicine out of that, when you have everything else to worry about too, Get sick, can't afford medicine, get sicker, can't work, paid off, now you can get medicine for free, pity its to late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 22:36:02 GMT -1
Too right Nota couldn't agree more. The cost of means-testing is ALWAYS gonna amount to more than what's actually saved. It hardly takes a degree in maths to understand how, if you charge punitively at the point of need, the eventual costs from people not shelling out is gonna cost SO much more exponentially, not just in cash--- but in suffering. Healthcare should NOT be about the ability to pay, just as education should not be. It's a basic principle we Scots live by. But what these Westminster bastards are about is nothing to do with such basic economics or even humanity By putting people off from seeking medical help they're on some survival of the fittest class war. Quite happy to see ordinary folks die off early......saves paying out on welfare. Cynical..moi?
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Nov 20, 2013 3:30:16 GMT -1
Can I ask, Oz, what's the judgement system over there re who can and can't afford to pay? First of all a very different philosophy of life, Not better not worse just different. We reckon we should stand on own 2 feet without government interference for example the only government body I deal with is tax office . I just dont need them (welfare) I can look after my self, leave me alone & I will leave you alone.. This is the prevalent attitude here. An example is the generosity of people giving to bush fire victims. The charities are having problems giving stuff away. Deserving people stay away reckoning that others need it more than them. We know people will need help for all sorts of things so we have a central "welfare" body called Centrelink. If government help is required for anything from Child allowance to old age pension, medical help, education expenses, unemployment, travel expenses the lot you go and see them . They genuinely try to help, your income and assets are reviewed and levels of help needed are assessed. If you disagree with any decision you go to the review panel where decisions are reviewed. NO LAWYERS allowed. Most decisoins are accepted and people get enough to get by. If you are caught seriously rorting the system you get a nice long government paid holiday. A poor old person for example can get old age pension & supplement, reduced rent & power bills, free medical & mediciines, free travel, free driving licence and car registration. As your income increases the $$ from government decreases till at $X you get nothing. Not quite sure of cut off point and of course vice versa As I say different attitudes to life.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Nov 20, 2013 18:04:01 GMT -1
Can I ask, Oz, what's the judgement system over there re who can and can't afford to pay? First of all a very different philosophy of life, Not better not worse just different. We reckon we should stand on own 2 feet without government interference for example the only government body I deal with is tax office . I just dont need them (welfare) I can look after my self, leave me alone & I will leave you alone.. This is the prevalent attitude here. An example is the generosity of people giving to bush fire victims. The charities are having problems giving stuff away. Deserving people stay away reckoning that others need it more than them. We know people will need help for all sorts of things so we have a central "welfare" body called Centrelink. If government help is required for anything from Child allowance to old age pension, medical help, education expenses, unemployment, travel expenses the lot you go and see them . They genuinely try to help, your income and assets are reviewed and levels of help needed are assessed. If you disagree with any decision you go to the review panel where decisions are reviewed. NO LAWYERS allowed. Most decisoins are accepted and people get enough to get by. If you are caught seriously rorting the system you get a nice long government paid holiday. A poor old person for example can get old age pension & supplement, reduced rent & power bills, free medical & mediciines, free travel, free driving licence and car registration. As your income increases the $$ from government decreases till at $X you get nothing. Not quite sure of cut off point and of course vice versa As I say different attitudes to life. What you've described is what we pay tax and national insurance for. The national insurance part was originally implemented to pay for nhs, pensions, welfare etc. If you pay people shite wages, then they can't afford all the things you described, you pay for yourself. The problem in the UK , especially souf of the border, is that they know the price of everything but the value of nothing -as ma grannie used tae say. They would rather spend the money collected in national insurance on th likes of nuclear weapons, tax cuts for the very wealthy, unaffordable vanity projects like Olympics, HS2, and other such nonsense. Whilst people are starving, unable to afford utilities etc etc. It's a mark of the quality of your society in how you look after those who ave fallen on hard times, Westminster is proving to believe a low quality society is the way. The Tories ( blue, red and yellow) believe that not taxing the rich leads to them filtering down the money to the poorest, it was a keystone of Reaganomics, but like that twat it was a complete failure, wasn't worth the paper it was printed on, so to speak. The money never filtered down.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Nov 20, 2013 19:12:46 GMT -1
We pay 1.5% of income for medical and employer pays 9% of salary into Superannuation (obviously out of salary).
I pay about £720.00 a year for private health cover for which the government gives me £240.00 tax break. I have chosen to have an excess of £200.00 on hospital to keep contributions down.
For Bormes ex-servicemen get a "gold" car which gives them a lot of privileges including free health
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Nov 20, 2013 19:20:25 GMT -1
We pay 1.5% of income for medical and employer pays 9% of salary into Superannuation (obviously out of salary). I pay about £720.00 a year for private health cover for which the government gives me £240.00 tax break. I have chosen to have an excess of £200.00 on hospital to keep contributions down. For Bormes ex-servicemen get a "gold" car which gives them a lot of privileges including free health we have income tax then national insurance which is around 12 - 14% from the employee and @ 13% from the employer The UK state pension is paid from the operating budget - they didn't bother using the NI money or a part of it even to build a pension fund/sovereign wealth fund - so now when costs are high they are running short ( or so they say) £720 for private insurance is very good, does that cover you and mrs oz? What do you get for that money?
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Nov 20, 2013 20:37:10 GMT -1
the £720 is each. (quick calc $100pm x 0.6 x 12)
It covers a private hospital generally in a single room, all hospital costs, surgeon of my choice (some surgeons charge more than than the fund pays so can be extra cost there), nursing, xrays, all drugs in fact just about everything. Food varies from good to bloody awful depending on hospital.
It does not cover GP or chemist. Prescriptions are usually subsidised by government
I have opted out of dentist, optical and other peripheries and settled for top hospital cover . Worked out it would be cheaper to pay as I go than include them (Scots instinct kicking in there)
Optician, eye test is free but glasses cost about $400.00 (£240.00)
Dentist cant remember. Rest I havent had .
Super is tax free and not included in income for tax purposes
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Nov 20, 2013 20:49:06 GMT -1
the £720 is each. (quick calc $100pm x 0.6 x 12) It covers a private hospital generally in a single room, all hospital costs, surgeon of my choice (some surgeons charge more than than the fund pays so can be extra cost there), nursing, xrays, all drugs in fact just about everything. Food varies from good to bloody awful depending on hospital. It does not cover GP or chemist. Prescriptions are usually subsidised by government I have opted out of dentist, optical and other peripheries and settled for top hospital cover . Worked out it would be cheaper to pay as I go than include them (Scots instinct kicking in there) Optician, eye test is free but glasses cost about $400.00 (£240.00) Dentist cant remember. Rest I havent had . Ah I see, then that is now a similar cost to here for cover. Opticians, in Scotland eye test is free for everyone, NHS only help pay for or give free glasses to those on benefits My specs cost me @£450 but I go for zeiss lenses which are ultra thin, well they would be if if I had a weaker prescription Dentist, again checkup is free on NHS, treatment I think, if memory serves is a maximum of @£250 may have increased though, I've paid that for four crowns etc. Implants or real cosmetic dentistry isn't covered. People on benefits get it all free Private hospitals here tend to be a bit on the plush side but the doctors are just the NHS ones moonlighting Private hospitals rely on the NHS if things go wrong during ops etc, they just take you to an NHS hospital for them to sort
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Nov 21, 2013 2:47:22 GMT -1
bit of difference some of our private hospitals are world class. It is not unusual for an urgent operation on a public patient to be done in a private hospital when the facilities are not available in a Public Hospital.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Nov 21, 2013 14:49:28 GMT -1
bit of difference some of our private hospitals are world class. It is not unusual for an urgent operation on a public patient to be done in a private hospital when the facilities are not available in a Public Hospital. NHS do use private hospitals here at times too, to alleviate queues - but most arent geared up for high dependency stuff or intensive care
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2013 21:08:54 GMT -1
Can I ask, Oz, what's the judgement system over there re who can and can't afford to pay? First of all a very different philosophy of life, Not better not worse just different. We reckon we should stand on own 2 feet without government interference for example the only government body I deal with is tax office . I just dont need them (welfare) I can look after my self, leave me alone & I will leave you alone.. This is the prevalent attitude here. An example is the generosity of people giving to bush fire victims. The charities are having problems giving stuff away. Deserving people stay away reckoning that others need it more than them. We know people will need help for all sorts of things so we have a central "welfare" body called Centrelink. If government help is required for anything from Child allowance to old age pension, medical help, education expenses, unemployment, travel expenses the lot you go and see them . They genuinely try to help, your income and assets are reviewed and levels of help needed are assessed. If you disagree with any decision you go to the review panel where decisions are reviewed. NO LAWYERS allowed. Most decisoins are accepted and people get enough to get by. If you are caught seriously rorting the system you get a nice long government paid holiday. A poor old person for example can get old age pension & supplement, reduced rent & power bills, free medical & mediciines, free travel, free driving licence and car registration. As your income increases the $$ from government decreases till at $X you get nothing. Not quite sure of cut off point and of course vice versa As I say different attitudes to life. For starters, Oz, I don't think there IS a fundamentally different attitude to life between here and Aus in this regard. (Others may disagree) I think the vast majority of Scots want to stand on their own two feet and be independent of government 'interference'. However, there's a cultural difference I guess, in that here, in recent years, people who are working and TRYING to stand on their own two, are actually finding themselves worse off, PENALISED if you like, than the other two extremes, being 1) the extremely wealthy and 2) people on welfare. Re charity donations; the Scots outperform every other part of the UKE per capita, despite being 'relatively' poorer. Re benefit claimants, yes, here SO many people don't take up their entitlement. Many of them deserving, but believe others more needy should have first shout. What I would report (and again others might disagree) is that those who've striven to stand on their own 2 are penalised. While those who have spent every penny, not planned for their old age or for having large families, appear to get everything for nothing. Not a good message. And it's been the message of the Labour party for decades. In exchange for votes. But that's NOT where Scotland is now. In brief what we want is for people to contribute, as and where they can, while we collectively take care of the most vulnerable. For too long people have been told what they can't do, rather than what they can. Big sticks get nowhere, change of mindset gets EVERYWHERE, I do believe that.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Nov 21, 2013 21:43:04 GMT -1
yeah semantics apart you have just highlighted the differences
|
|