30/11 Strikes.

Glaucus said:
And why not stop trying to say its not possible.

Private health care is very good, it also works in other countries.

Not that I Think it should be totally private.

But you saying they'll let people die is just BS, license, criminal prosecution, profits and the rest.
Click to expand...

examples of where it works well in other countries ? look at the states for example, that's a 2 tiered system, if you are loaded you get top notch treatment, if you are poor you get to a ****hole where you'd be lucky to come out with less problems that when you went in.

I believe there is scope of privatising many things in today's society in order to get better retursn and value for money, I don't think the health service is one of them as you can't put a price on someones life or how much you are willing to spend on them as a human. Thats why the model fails because effectively a group of people are saying person A is worth x, Person B is worth y. That is incorrect, person A and B are both worth the same and should have equal access to the same level of treatments and care.
 
MagicBoy said:
I'm striking and for one simple reason.

My pension is for my retirement. It's not a tax for deficit reduction.
Click to expand...

Well it is as your pension pot doesn't cover the payments. So that shortfall has to be made up by tax money, therefore it very much is in need of being sorted out.
 
[TW]Fox;20669436 said:
So if a council receives money which it spends on wages for bin men and operating costs for some bin lorrys, it has taken money.

But if Dolph Trash Ltd receives money from the council which it spends on wages for bin men and operating costs for bin lorrys it has earned money?

Excellent.
Click to expand...

No, you've missed a few points...

The rest of the proposal essentially converts taxation into ring-fenced service charges where the end user chooses which company gets the business and has full freedom to change between providers.
 
wildman said:
examples of where it works well in other countries ? look at the states for example, that's a 2 tiered system, if you are loaded you get top notch treatment, if you are poor you get to a ****hole where you'd be lucky to come out with less problems that when you went in.

.
Click to expand...

And you don't think we don't have a two tiered system.
Private hospitals are far better, with short waiting lists and everything else. You can never get rid of two tiered systems.
 
MagicBoy said:
I'm striking and for one simple reason.

My pension is for my retirement. It's not a tax for deficit reduction.
Click to expand...

Your pension contributions have gone to pay pensions of existing pensioners. It's what happens when you involve yourself in a ponzi scheme.

With this in mind, your future pensions must come from future state spending, which means it's very much an economics issue.

You're still getting a very good deal that remains unfair to the taxpayer.
 
wildman said:
examples of where it works well in other countries ? look at the states for example, that's a 2 tiered system, if you are loaded you get top notch treatment, if you are poor you get to a ****hole where you'd be lucky to come out with less problems that when you went in.
Click to expand...
The States is a bad example because it is a terrible system - all the negatives of competition and private competition with all the negatives of public funding.

Look at Germany for a good example of where private provided but publicly funded healthcare and patient choice works, as well as France since their latest reforms. Or Switzerland.
 
Glaucus said:
France has the best health care system.
Where we don't come anywhere near where we should.
Click to expand...
France has one of the best systems, but it wasn't until a few years ago that it was going to bankrupt the country due to a structural niggle in the patient choice setup where patients could access top consultants for whatever they wanted essentially directly, and the bill would be covered.

Since reforming that, the affordability has changed.
 
It is about time that the public sector salaries were transformed into fully funded ones. I pay 6%, my employer pays 6%. The private pension pot is derived from a fund which is finite and if the value goes down one or other of me or my employer or both will need to pick up the difference.

Funding via the taxpayer is wonderful. The available fund suddenly becomes infinite. Executors seem to be under little pressure to maintain the fund in balance therefore a contribution 'contract' 30 years old is still considered adequate and unbreakable.

Strike and be damned.
 
Dolph said:
Your pension contributions have gone to pay pensions of existing pensioners. It's what happens when you involve yourself in a ponzi scheme.

With this in mind, your future pensions must come from future state spending, which means it's very much an economics issue.

You're still getting a very good deal that remains unfair to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Glaucus said:
Well it is as your pension pot doesn't cover the payments. So that shortfall has to be made up by tax money, therefore it very much is in need of being sorted out.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

I'm in the LGPS. It's self-funded.
 
SteveOBHave said:
The whole 'Striking culture' is flawed and petulant IMO.
Click to expand...

Teachers and civil servants have been on strike, what is it, twice this year, if you include Wednesday? That's hardly a culture is it?


Have you had two days off sick this year? Does that mean you have a culture of sickness abscence?
 
I've spoken to quite a few people affected by this. None of them really close friends so to speak.

The problem they are all arguing is:
They have to work for longer
They have to pay more contributions in 13% iirc
They get about 36% less payout from their pensions

Most i've spoken to would be happy if the Government removed any one of these, and especially would sign on the dotted line tomorrow provided they don't lose the 36% of their pension.

Meanwhile i've had the counter argument that MP's (on over £66k) only pay 10% into their pensions. The Great Pensions Robbery (book) is as close as i can get at finding the injustice in the system.

For example:
Mrs A Jones works for 35years at The Council... is on £19,000 and thus over £1,500 is paid into her pension, plus a contribution that allows her on retirement to earn between £4,000 and £6,000...

Alaistair Darling paid £16,400 per year into his Pension from his ministerial role and can expect to retire earning £252,500 for the rest of his life. To put that into perspective: Mrs A Jones pays in £320 a year and is entitled to £14,000 or there abouts for the rest of her life... how can that be fair.

Needless to say i fall in the in support of category however as long as fair concessions are put forward they should be honoured.

One thing i haven't seen mentioned is that it is the richest in society who always earn the largest Pension payouts and more over, they pay proportionally the least into the system.

Politicians should start paying their fair share... as should the banks... the wealthy who while i wholeheartedly agree, do help generate revenue for the country are the most likely people to hoard their wealth. I have £150.00 spare each month and can only afford to save around £30 a month.

Its been said a million times by Mr Cameron... but the truth is: "Some of us are in this together"
 
MagicBoy said:
Not in our regional scheme.
Click to expand...
Actually, you'll probably find it is under-funded because the asset valuations are out of date (which the government want revalued to expose the under-funding, the unions don't because... it would expose the underfunding).

Even if your regional scheme was funded, it would be wrong to say "I'm in the LGPS. It's self-funded."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom