Tax Cuts Anybody

[mumbojumbo]

The leadership candidates are fixated with tax cuts, and by implication spending cuts .Given a commitment to defence ,law and order etc this means cuts to NHS and protection of the vulnerable .Kemi Bloodnot ,whose parents are a Gp and a professor respectively represents a new elite drawn from ethnic minorities. What a shower, totally devoid of imagination and invention.

[Psamathe]

In the leadership candidate list some would likely consider themselves "no hopers" this time round. But in declaring themselves they raise their prominence and when they don't get enough support they declare themselves supporting another leading candidate and are thereby guaranteed a decent job if their chosen frontrunner wins, giving themselves a better chance next leadership election, etc. A lone MP can only offer his/her vote to a candidate whereas somebody withdrawing their candidacy and supporting somebody else is seem to be offering their own plus their supporters votes; their "I believe <x> is the best candidate" gets publicity, they get heard, their supporters believe in their views, etc.

They are playing a game whilst the country in a time of crisis lacks leadership. But to them their games are all that is important.

Ian

[Tiberius]

Well it is so SO difficult to get an appointment to see a Doctor around these parts. I'm guessing that tax cuts won't improve this situation. I'm getting on and will get by, it's my kids/grandkids that I worry about, how have we ended up in this situation?

Thanks for nothing Mr 'Longest ever secretary of state for health' Hunt.

As for Grant Shapps......

[simonineaston]

I think a lot of people may miss a couple of serious points - first that centrist political parties, across the piece, have ceded power over the past couple of decades to global finance and commerce. There is very little that they can do now, to resist the demands of their new masters. If people could see the true extent of the intended privatisation of care services, they'd be truly alarmed.
The primary ambition of these super-powerful entities is profit and to monetise the nations' health & care needs as part of that ambition. They've had decades of experience in the States to hone their chops and now the UK is firmly in their sites. And we're now exposed to these leeches, by the urgent need for trade deals, especially with the US - another awkward point they didn't plaster over the Brexit bus.
The second point is that all mainstream parties are part of this new ideology - they have no choice, as the combined resources of the pan-global companies are waaaay more powerful than mere governments. They now hold the purse strings.
Third point is that this move to privatise services across the board isn't just pie-in-the-sky or will-o-the-wisp vague threat - it's already firmly underway. The concept of the APMS or alternative provider of medical services is being pursued actively by several outsourcing companies, with the attendant risk to standards, fairness and the reliability of services.
But they don't mention any of this when they chivy for our votes, do they? They just bang on and on about lowering taxes - well guess what happens when you lower taxes?? That's right - services get outsourced, that's what. So the final ignominy is that the politicians can then justify the reduction in GP numbers etc etc etc etc by saying "Well, you all voted for lower taxes - waddya expect???"

[Tangled Metal]

I went private under the NHS when Blair was in power. I guess you're right about all parties.

Of course my. Gp did tell me that the contract was for a minimum of x number of patients for y pounds a year for n years. It was summer and they were on x + many thousands of patients all for the same y pounds of cost. Another words I and all the patients for the rest of the year were effectively for free. She said using that private service got be seen in 6 weeks not at least 6 to 12 months and took a lot of pressure off the actual NHS service. Plus I got free coffee, biscuits with China cup, saucer and plate with a nurse carrying it for me between the rooms i had to visit. Sometimes it works for the NHS and patients.

[Stradageek]

I went private under the NHS when Blair was in power. I guess you're right about all parties.

Of course my. Gp did tell me that the contract was for a minimum of x number of patients for y pounds a year for n years. It was summer and they were on x + many thousands of patients all for the same y pounds of cost. Another words I and all the patients for the rest of the year were effectively for free. She said using that private service got be seen in 6 weeks not at least 6 to 12 months and took a lot of pressure off the actual NHS service. Plus I got free coffee, biscuits with China cup, saucer and plate with a nurse carrying it for me between the rooms i had to visit. Sometimes it works for the NHS and patients.

Not sure I agree. Private healthcare needs to be fully private, i.e. all doctor training and all facilities paid for privately, not by the tax payer. Also no tax concessions for private healthcare companies, they are in it for profit and are not a charity. And most importantly, no recourse to the NHS when things go wrong - I know for certain (not just by watching 'This is going to hurt') that private hospitals only do simple 'profitable' procedures and when they go wrong they simply ring 999.

The USA has the most expensive healthcare system in the world and yet is the only 'developed' country where life expectancy is falling! Their system prioritises expensive treatments for the rich, to maximise profits, while the poor can die. Do we really want to go there?

Rant over

[Tiberius]

I know a number of people who have private healthcare insurance BUT, they still have to contact an NHS Doctor before any of their benefits kick in. They get far better attention when they are referred to a specialist but, they are in exactly the same position as me/my family when they need to get an appointment with a GP.

A question for the people here who have private healthcare. Does your insurance/cover/call it what you will, give you easier access to a GP? It is this initial appointment that we (here) find so hard to get.

My sister lives in Melbourne Australia. She can get an appointment with a GP in the next hour, free.

[Jdsk]

In a discussion of taxation and healthcare it's worth noting that the public expenditure on healthcare in the USA is about the same as that in the UK per capita. And then about the same again on private healthcare.

Jonathan

[Pebble]

Disappointing so far that non of the hopefuls have mentioned the environment.

Not that we have a direct vote on the outcome, but who should we be keeping our fingers crossed for if looking after our environment is high on our priorities ? and does any of them ride a bike ?

[Jdsk]

From a macroeconomic point of view the major point of comparing private and public provision of healthcare is if there's a benefit in switching expenditure from one to the other. In the UK's current position that could be, for example, greater efficiency in private provision. But there isn't any evidence that that is the case. Switching the money to the less efficient system and labelling the expenditure as something other than taxation doesn't save the British people anything.

From the points of view of coverage and equity rather than macroeconomics of course there are many other benefits of a national system.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

I know a number of people who have private healthcare insurance BUT, they still have to contact an NHS Doctor before any of their benefits kick in. They get far better attention when they are referred to a specialist but, they are in exactly the same position as me/my family when they need to get an appointment with a GP.
...

When I was caring for a family member who had Private Health Insurance who needed a fair amount of different consultants we didn't go through a GP. Just call the Insurance company (one of the big UK ones), get an authorisation code and give that code to the consultants PA (means they'll get paid) and book consultations/treatments.

And if self-funding it's even easier (no GPs involved).

Ian

[Psamathe]

Disappointing so far that non of the hopefuls have mentioned the environment.

Not that we have a direct vote on the outcome, but who should we be keeping our fingers crossed for if looking after our environment is high on our priorities ? and does any of them ride a bike ?

I think at the moment they are focusing on their very narrow electorate (200,000 mainly white, mainly male and mainly living in South of England) - and that group are not interested in environment, climate change, levelling-up, food banks, etc.

Ian

[Carlton green]

I am of the opinion that low taxation is a recipe for disaster and that the value and equity of taxation needs to be clearly and repeatedly explained to the British public - particularly the ones that bother to vote.

High taxes allow good health care and good health care gets people off of the sick and back to work; that saves on state paid sick pay, that gets spending money into the pockets of workers earlier and that gives employers much needed staff. High taxes allow roads to be maintained so you don’t need to buy a 4 x 4 to cope with potholes. High taxes allow Social Workers and Police Officers to be employed so crime is prevented, people are kept safe and due to early intervention folk don’t get themselves into bother or even jail. Jail’s expensive because it costs The State to keep people there, The State ends up financially supporting families, employers loose labour and the person in Jail ain’t spending money or paying taxes. High Taxes allow Councils to be properly run and Schools to be properly funded. State schools are particularly good value, well try paying for private education and soon you’ll see that it’s much cheaper to pay a bit more tax that have to pay private school fees.

Low taxes are simply a false economy.

[simonineaston]

Disappointing so far that non of the hopefuls have mentioned the environment.

tbf, I think they have - albiet in the form of the catch phrase 'The net zero plan', and has been couched in terms of 'no plan to divert from'.
But it goes without saying that that approach would be described by even the most relaxed climate activists as woefully inadequate.

[Pebble]

Disappointing so far that non of the hopefuls have mentioned the environment.

Not that we have a direct vote on the outcome, but who should we be keeping our fingers crossed for if looking after our environment is high on our priorities ? and does any of them ride a bike ?

I think at the moment they are focusing on their very narrow electorate (200,000 mainly white, mainly male and mainly living in South of England) - and that group are not interested in environment, climate change, levelling-up, food banks, etc.

Ian

In the first part of the contest they are appealing directly to their fellow conservative MPs. After that it will be the paid up faithful who will choose from the final two, at that stage cheaper petrol, bigger SUVs and open season on cyclists may win the day.

all the same, still very disappointing non of them are mentioning the environment.