[Search & Destroy]

.25% tax rise for all basic rate tax payers
1.0% tax rise for all higher rate tax payers
Gastric Bands, Boob jobs, gender realignment treatment etc to be fully charged to the the 'customer'
Drunken A&E admissions £100 charge
£20 charge for A&E admissions for a income tax payers
Foreigners with less than 5 years contributions to be charged for treatment unless they choose a nhs run health insurance scheme
Scrapping winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, free to licence to all tax paying pensioners
Tax breaks for people who opt for private health care
Sponsorship on Hospitals, eg The Specsavers Calow Hospital

[Wooden Spoon]

However uncomfortable it may be the NHS in it's current form is not sustainable. A large burden could be lifted by providing better care for the elderly at home and in the community. Charging for non attendance of appointments as well

[Wooden Spoon]

Edit• no tax for minimum wage. No increase in tax to 25k 25k-40k 0.5% 40-55k 1% 55-100k 2% 100-150k 3% over 150k6%

[s42blue]

a kick in the balls, on 26 March 2015 - 01:42 PM, said:

Edit• no tax for minimum wage. No increase in tax to 25k 25k-40k 0.5% 40-55k 1% 55-100k 2% 100-150k 3% over 150k6%

Actually agree with some of S&Ds ideas...

I disagree that simply increasing taxes is the right answer. Taxing just leaves less disposable cash to spend on goods and services. It is, IMO, a populist policy described by pretend Socialists like Red(ish) Ed .

[calvin plummers socks]

Search and Destroy, on 26 March 2015 - 01:26 PM, said:

.25% tax rise for all basic rate tax payers
1.0% tax rise for all higher rate tax payers
Gastric Bands, Boob jobs, gender realignment treatment etc to be fully charged to the the 'customer'
Drunken A&E admissions £100 charge
£20 charge for A&E admissions for a income tax payers
Foreigners with less than 5 years contributions to be charged for treatment unless they choose a nhs run health insurance scheme
Scrapping winter fuel allowance, free bus pass, free to licence to all tax paying pensioners
Tax breaks for people who opt for private health care
Sponsorship on Hospitals, eg The Specsavers Calow Hospital

Actually agree with some of that!

Smokers to get no free treatment
Anyone drunk to receive no free treatment
Anyone obese to be charged also.....::

[s42blue]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

Actually agree with some of that!

Smokers to get no free treatment
Anyone drunk to receive no free treatment
Anyone obese to be charged also.....::

Health fascist..

[calvin plummers socks]

Absolutely!

I hate the fact that my taxes go towards keeping alive people who have no respect for themselves or bodies.

In same way I hate people who litter (and have to pay for people to pick up after them).

And subsidising oap's free travel

Etc etc

I'm turning so right wing.....

This post has been edited by calvin plummers socks: 26 March 2015 - 04:51 PM

[valemadness]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

Actually agree with some of that!

Smokers to get no free treatment
Anyone drunk to receive no free treatment
Anyone obese to be charged also.....::

and people that are obese due to health issues????

[SpireiteFitzy]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 04:41 PM, said:

Actually agree with some of that!

Smokers to get no free treatment
Anyone drunk to receive no free treatment
Anyone obese to be charged also.....::

Trouble with picking and choosing what is and isn't free is that you'll soon get a mounting list of things reasoned to not be necessary. I mean sports injuries for example. If your going to reason that drunks don't get treatment cause it's their own fault for drinking, the same argument will be applied to any injury sustained playing sports, it's your own fault for playing. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone to get treated cause they like doing sports?

It's a slippery slope if you start banning things from free treatment.

[calvin plummers socks]

valemadness, on 26 March 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

and people that are obese due to health issues????

Very rare- people are mainly obese because of what goes in their mouth (and what they don't do on their feet)

SpireiteFitzy, on 26 March 2015 - 04:51 PM, said:

Trouble with picking and choosing what is and isn't free is that you'll soon get a mounting list of things reasoned to not be necessary. I mean sports injuries for example. If your going to reason that drunks don't get treatment cause it's their own fault for drinking, the same argument will be applied to any injury sustained playing sports, it's your own fault for playing. Why should the taxpayer pay for someone to get treated cause they like doing sports?

It's a very good point

[Search & Destroy]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

Very rare- people are mainly obese because of what goes in their mouth (and what they don't do on their feet)



It's a very good point

It's not though is it, as a nation, a healthy sporty active lifestyle is encouraged whereas smoking drinking and getting fat isn't.
It's a non starter of an argument.

valemadness, on 26 March 2015 - 04:50 PM, said:

and people that are obese due to health issues????

That's fine, shouldn't be hard to differentiate.

[valemadness]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

Very rare- people are mainly obese because of what goes in their mouth (and what they don't do on their feet)



It's a very good point

ok if you say so, cos there's no side effects to medication that includes weight gain is there?

[s42blue]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 04:48 PM, said:

Absolutely!

I hate the fact that my taxes go towards keeping alive people who have no respect for themselves or bodies.

In same way I hate people who litter (and have to pay for people to pick up after them).

And subsidising oap's free travel

Etc etc

I'm turning so right wing.....

And people driving too fast? Their own fault.

Sports injuries?

Why not do away with the NHS and have a pay as go? No pay, no drugs/treatment. Taxes come down, people are richer... Now that is Right Wing .. (no i don't think it's a good idea btw!)

[SpireiteFitzy]

Search and Destroy, on 26 March 2015 - 05:00 PM, said:

It's not though is it, as a nation, a healthy sporty active lifestyle is encouraged whereas smoking drinking and getting fat isn't.
It's a non starter of an argument.




That's fine, shouldn't be hard to differentiate.

Non starter of an argument? Au contraire it's the pinnacle of the argument. You can't just pick and choose what you want to treat based on your own personal opinion. If I could I'd refuse to pay tax to the nhs for a whole host of things but I'd rather have an nhs that didn't discrimate treatment and treats everyone as opposed to one that picks and chooses when it does because someone somewhere doesn't agree with it.

[calvin plummers socks]

SpireiteFitzy, on 26 March 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

Non starter of an argument? Au contraire it's the pinnacle of the argument. You can't just pick and choose what you want to treat based on your own personal opinion. If I could I'd refuse to pay tax to the nhs for a whole host of things but I'd rather have an nhs that didn't discrimate treatment and treats everyone as opposed to one that picks and chooses when it does because someone somewhere doesn't agree with it.

Although no one would argue that smokers shouldn't be charged for smoking related treatment

valemadness, on 26 March 2015 - 05:02 PM, said:

ok if you say so, cos there's no side effects to medication that includes weight gain is there?

A few do but this can be counter effected by measures such as exercise and suitable diet plan

[SpireiteFitzy]

calvin plummers socks, on 26 March 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

Although no one would argue that smokers shouldn't be charged for smoking related treatment



A few do but this can be counter effected by measures such as exercise and suitable diet plan

Of course no one would argue, I don't agree with it myself. But my point is in this day and age the second you banned treatment to smokers you'd have lawyers falling over themselves to pile in and get other things banned by the same reasoning, you'd have Tories (and probably politicians in general) going over every treatment with a fine toothcomb looking to try and offload it to save money, and you'd have human rights groups all over you like a rash on discrimination and human rights abuses by stopping treatment to sections of the population. Not to mention the court of public opinion with trying to get stuff taken off the freebie treatment table just cause they don't agree with it.

This post has been edited by SpireiteFitzy: 26 March 2015 - 05:35 PM

[calvin plummers socks]

Spireite Fitzy is right about the sports injuries S&D- we all moan about drunks getting treatment and drug addicts etc but what about injuries caused by skiers/ cyclists/ boxers etc. they're equally self inflicted often.
(And I'm thankful in some ways as I make a living out of treating sports injuries etc)-difference I suppose is that they pay for that -not many smokers or drug addicts I guess choose to pay themselves for treatment?

Always a good debate this one

[Search & Destroy]

Ok, if the PM announced charging for obesity smoking and drink related illnesses do you think that would be a winner?

Or would also charging for sports related injuries be even more of a vote winner?

My opinion is that the 1st would receive overwhelmingly high public support and the second would be met with dismay.

[valemadness]

Search and Destroy, on 26 March 2015 - 06:41 PM, said:

Ok, if the PM announced charging for obesity smoking and drink related illnesses do you think that would be a winner?

Or would also charging for sports related injuries be even more of a vote winner?

My opinion is that the 1st would receive overwhelmingly high public support and the second would be met with dismay.

rather than charging per illness cause, the government would be better charging everyone £1 per prescription, even kids and OAP's and charge a missed appointment fee as well of say £25, but instead of just posting out appointments, make people contact either phone or online to make appointment, so they can't say they didn't receive the appointment.

[Search & Destroy]

valemadness, on 26 March 2015 - 06:48 PM, said:

rather than charging per illness cause, the government would be better charging everyone £1 per prescription, even kids and OAP's and charge a missed appointment fee as well of say £25, but instead of just posting out appointments, make people contact either phone or online to make appointment, so they can't say they didn't receive the appointment.

Do that as well, if I was in charge of the NHS it'd make a profit!