Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by ver01@, Mar 7, 2019.
Well that's just stellar.
As I said, I'm not saying you're unjustified in expecting more, just that the argument with figures won't elicit as much sympathy as you may wish for if you base it on the idea that it isn't much money as you did in your earlier post. Your wage not being as much as you would like or think it should be is not the same thing as you being low waged. Even the lowest figure is more than some households take home when both work full time.
This is just a myth spread by the ultra rich, duping the middle class to believe it.
The reality is, and this is based by empirical evidence across the globe, is that taxing the rich more doesn't actually lead to a mass exodus. The rich either already have thought they pay too much tax and selfishly disappeared to some tax haven, or there are other issues that create a gravity making them stick around such as the desire still to live in the country. They also face the threat that if they move then they wont have access to the high income and the other locations with the same earning potential has the same tax rates. A CEO earning 1m in London wont suddenly find a similar paid job in the Caymans, they may be able to move to other European or US major cities with big corps and earn similar money and pay similar or higher taxes.
There is also a very easy way to ensure that selfish rich elite pay their share by using a global taxation system. Therefore, moving elsewhere makes absolutely no difference to the tax they would have to pay in the UK. The US does this for example. If they want to benefit form a tax heaven then they would have to renounce their British Citizenship and say goodbye to the passport. Re-application of British citizenship would require paying back the taxes missed in the intervening years.
Maybe the UK gov would artificially extend the passport application waiting list like they supposedly do with NHS waiting lists.
For all the NHS workers you can stop worrying because the answer is just around the corner and so simple I cant believe it hasnt been instigated already.
We can all stop worrying now. Phew!
NHS procurement in shocking overspend shocker...
But presumably the only possible solution to the NHS problems is just to throw more money at it regardless of spending efficency?
The solution certainly isnt to lower funding thats for sure.
Which is why it hasn't been, in cash or real terms.
Reality trumps your opinion I'm afraid...
Spending per capita is down though:
More is done for more people for the same money. It doesn't work long term.
I think you've either got your terms wrong or linked to the wrong article, as that article does t talk about per capita spend, which has risen, albeit very slowly.
What your article talks about is how spending compares to the rest of the economy as a percentage of gdp, which is something else.
Sorry you’re right, spending as a proportion of GDP is what I was going for. As best I'm aware this is the most common measure of national healthcare spending.
We are restricting growth in healthcare spending. I’m not sure you can expect excellence in healthcare when we devote less of our GDP to healthcare spending than Slovenia.
I just watched last week's Question Time and after the segment at the end about GPs I thought Id pop on here and see if there was a thread about it. Of course there is!
Personally I think its a disgrace. GPs are paid very very well, have a role in life that is important and responsible, and yet they are moaning like a factory worker on an assembly line wanting a raise and more breaks.
In that kind of job you have to take personal responsibility and you have to accept your job is more than just the money or the hours it is a life choice. That is why you are paid at the level you are paid rather than a £20k a year job where there is no personal responsibiity and you can behave like a chav all day if you want.
I think GPs and the NHS is now a dinosaur. Its inefficient, uncompetitive and for sure does not serve me or my personal healthcare needs very well at all. We need an affordable private system now, technology has moved on sufficiently to enable that to happen.
It's far more efficient and cost effective than the American model though. And having experienced the American model I'd very concerned about the potential for both profiteering, duping the consumer with unnessary procedures and corruption. All of which I saw to be abundant.
What technology would have benefited the NHS in the past that is feasible now?
The NHS healthcare outcomes, trying to treat everyone, are barely better than the USAs, who don't. Our healthcare is accessible but ineffective, the USA is effective but inaccessible. Comparing the two systems is like demanding you choose between dog and cat excrement for dinner, and pretending there isn't a street full of restaurants serving proper food elsewhere.
Both the uk and the US need massive healthcare reform, based on looking at the multitude of countries across the first world that have better healthcare outcomes than either of us.
What do you mean the outcomes are barely better at treating everyone? I'd dispute that. It's changed now but I used to have an American girlfriend who's job was to deny health insurance to people who were die without it. If you live in poverty in the US you're still ******.
If you're middle class health insurance takes a massive cut out of your salary compared to the amount of tax we pay in the UK. The US spends 17.2% of it's GDP on healthcare compared to 7.2% in the UK.
It's become an out of control quack industry where instead of system built around patient needs, it's treatment based around drug company and other commercial needs. For instance in the UK nurses are trained to encourage breast feeding because it's best for baby. Where as in the US milk companies pay hospitals to encourage mums to introduce baby formula at birth. They overmedicate everything because there's money to be made from selling the drugs and services. Is middle aged setting in? Let us prescribe you some steroids.
so how much do you think GPs earn, and therefore, in your opinion, should be paid then?
I mean that, statistically, the uk and the us systems both have poor healthcare outcomes.
The poor outcomes arrive in different ways, the US system has access problems, which drive the score down as people who need treatment don't get it. The uk doesn't have access problems, the uk system is just not very effective with the treatment it provides compared to most other comparable countries.
Separate names with a comma.