Jump to content
- - - - - - - - - -

163 Players are online

supreme cc

Privatising Sectors of National Healthcares

Recommended Posts

Before I begin, this is not a discussion  between a completely public healthcare system and a fully privatised one. 

I will be using the UK’s NHS as an example throughout this discussion and it will be the base behind a lot of my points.

Anyway, in the UK there is a National Health Service that is prodominently funded by the taxing of the population. It is free healthcare for all citizens and is currently undergoing a lot of stress, with issues such as there not being enough nurses or funding.

Many people in the UK beleive that to solve the issues in the NHS and to increase its funding CANNOT be done by raising the tax rates on the population. Many people already beleive that tax on the rich is too high on Britain and by increasing this to fund the NHS would just cause high skilled and high paid workers to leave the country and find work elsewhere.  UK tax rates: https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

People beleive my privatising sectors of the NHS would reduce stress on the service and therefore it would function better. It would also allow taxing rates to be eased on the rich in the UK. 

Sectors of the NHS that I beleive should be privatised:

a) Weight related healthcare, such as Gastric bands. People who are diagnosed with a disease that can promote weight gain wouldn’t have to pay. People can control their weight and your metabolism isn’t an excuse. I beleive that you can choose to live a fat life, but you should be willing to fund it yourself. Currently people are being taxed to pay for this healthcare, and by privatising it, this unhealthy lifestyle would be less attractive. 

b) Smoking related illnesses that require treatment. Once again, this is a life choice and smoking is a luxury. Be willing to pay the price for your luxurious life decisions, not others taxes.

c) Treatment due to alcohol consumption, such as Accident and Emergency visits when somebody chokes on their own vomit, when a child with a broken spine is waiting for an abulance. This would discourage antisociable behaviour and would cause less stress on the NHS due to it.

I do not beleive that people shouldn’t be able to live the ways I stated above, such as an unhealthy lifestyle and smoking. I just beleive they should individually pay for it. 

This would mean that less doctors would be required to provide health serviced related to the above, and therefore more could be trained to help other sectors of the health service, such as children born with a highly dangerous disease. 

This could also help discourage unhealthy lifestyles, furtherly putting less stress on the NHS, and also could help decrease tax rates.

Do you beleive people should have to pay for healthcare due to the cost of their own life choices? (Baring in mind, most illnesses caused by the above behaviour don’t happen after 1 drink or 1 unhealthy burger. These are caused from consistent life choices, so people would be aware of what they are doing)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to America and visit a hospital after being injured. You'll be greeted by a large bill and wish that you were paying taxes instead of digging yourself in a hole of debt. The same applies to college education.

  • Nice 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xex said:

Come to America and visit a hospital after being injured. 

Hence I said this discussion isn’t between a fully public and fully private health system. 

These people aren’t visiting hospital after just ‘getting injured’. Its due to the lifestyle they live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, reading through this was a disaster with the amount of spelling mistakes but regardless, I'll make a full fledged reply.

10 hours ago, supreme cc said:

Many people in the UK beleive that to solve the issues in the NHS and to increase its funding CANNOT be done by raising the tax rates on the population. Many people already beleive that tax on the rich is too high on Britain and by increasing this to fund the NHS would just cause high skilled and high paid workers to leave the country and find work elsewhere.

True, the taxing that goes towards the NHS pretty much does pay for everything within the NHS, speaking broadly. However, funding still is an issue. This is a major reason why people have voted to leave the EU for the money it would bring that the NHS desperately needs. Hopefully the labour party is brought to power and can help this happen, the true question is though, would the NHS really receive £350M a week? That's a different discussion.
A lot of the problems that the NHS is currently having is caused via funding. Not having enough funds for healthcare buildings, such as walk-in General Practices, Hospitals, the fact that the Air Ambulance is completely ran off of charity despite how many countless lives it saves yearly, staff, equipment, drugs and many more.
In the west midlands, if you've had a serious neck or head injury, you're blue-lighted to Stoke.
This is because Stoke has a specialised Neck and Head ward that is genuinely leagues above other hospitals. Why? I don't know. The standards of care and speciality differ from hospital to hospital and this therefore creates lots of demand in some areas than others. Funding would help tackle this issue. Same goes for inner-city hospitals. They're much more inclined in dealing with things such as RTC's, alcohol-induced injuries, assaults, life-threatening injuries, ect. 


It's a whole can of worms. Funding is the issue. Maybe tax isn't, but funding most definitely is.
 

10 hours ago, supreme cc said:

with issues such as there not being enough nurses or funding.

These aren't the only problems that the NHS is having. No where near. 
Nurses are a major part of the NHS, true, but regardless of this these aren't the only job role within the Health Service that is lacking. 
For instance, and speaking from experience, the university and course that I'm attending increased the amount of students in the course by 62.5%, and this is a job role that is specifically made for the NHS.

People aren't going into the NHS because in regards to other jobs, they're not that well payed for time and effort put in. For instance, an IRL mate is currently undergoing an apprenticeship with Business and Finance with a company for 2 years, which they're providing financially and after he completes it will be on $52k Annually.
However, going into the actual topic...

 

10 hours ago, supreme cc said:

a) Weight related healthcare, such as Gastric bands. People who are diagnosed with a disease that can promote weight gain wouldn’t have to pay.

What would define fine-able though in this category? There's a lot of different things that can affect weight. In regards to this, would you also be fining people who are class 2 diabetic? As Diabetes can possibly be self-inflicted due to diet. There's too much of a wide scope in regards to what is fine-able or what isn't. Too many grey areas and not enough time or necessity for this to start happening.

 

There's a lot different "Weight related healthcare" out there currently, along with this there are many different things that can promote weight gain, not strictly diseases.
For one example, childbirth.
It's incredibly broad-minded to simply state that you're able to lose weight after a baby is born. Yes, strictly this is true, but there are many different factors to think of when a woman child bears. They struggle to exercise whilst pregnant. This can and usually does lead to weight gain. And then once going through labour, they have "baby-weight". This is difficult for a woman to lose due to a number of things. Poor / lack of diet, lack of sleep, lack of exercise, and physical exhaustion to name a few. These will all promote weight gain, and they'll all happen to a mother once they have a child to look after as well.
https://www.fitpregnancy.com/exercise/postnatal-workouts/5-reasons-youre-not-losing-your-baby-weight

10 hours ago, supreme cc said:

Smoking related illnesses that require treatment. Once again, this is a life choice and smoking is a luxury. Be willing to pay the price for your luxurious life decisions, not others taxes.

Again with the tax. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with, but again, it's hard to prove that someone has a disease strictly due to smoking. COPD, Cancers of the mouth, lungs and throat, dental care (This is privatised but the point still stands) and so many other respiratory diseases. Although primarily; they are caused by smoking. However, not in every case. This therefore makes it hard to fine on because the hospital would have to prove it was caused because of that.

10 hours ago, supreme cc said:

c) Treatment due to alcohol consumption, such as Accident and Emergency visits when somebody chokes on their own vomit, when a child with a broken spine is waiting for an abulance. This would discourage antisociable behaviour and would cause less stress on the NHS due to it.

Reading this one pissed me off the most.
Alcohol consumption is such a broad scope of practice that healthcare professionals have to deal with on a daily basis. Along with this, there are many different reasons why people drink. To start with, alcoholism. Alcohol is a drug, and through daily use causes an addiction. An addiction is widely accepted as a "disease" so to speak. You stated above that people with diseases shouldn't be fined so does this go along with that?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart-addiction/201112/is-addiction-really-disease

Another thing is mental health. Mental health is closely correlated to alcohol consumption, although not dependently caused and in a large amount of cases not what occurs or is a contributing factor. Mental Health is disgustingly under-appreciated in the UK, under-funded and usually underestimated. A large quantity of alcoholism can be correlated to mental health. Does that mean people who're drunk but have mental health issues are to be fined? People who have mental health issues often have them but aren't diagnosed or receiving correct treatment. Then, to top it off, someone with schizophrenia who drank and is emitted into hospital now has to pay a massive fine because of it. How do you honestly think that would impact someone in such a vulnerable position? 

What if someone falls over, breaks a leg and is emitted into hospital. Then, upon being brought in is found to be under a fractional amount of alcohol. Well, it's in their system, they had an injury, and are in hospital requiring treatment, so fine them!? 
It's not as broad-termed as that. That might not of been the cause of it. What if their shoelace is untied?

Which takes me on to my next point.
What about fining someone because of stupid-ass decisions or mistakes?
For instance, I personally was in attendance less than 2 weeks ago to a fucking idiot that thought it would be a wise decision to cement his fucking head into a microwave.
I was apart of the second crew on-scene, and it came through as a Category 1 call. Then you have to ask, yes it was self-inflicted but he was in genuine life-threatening danger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-birmingham-42288252/prankster-defends-cementing-head-in-microwave

What about people who drive cars?
Driving a car increases you chance of being put at-risk by an absurdly amount. Due to that, should the NHS fine people who're injured when they're travelling in a vehicle? I mean, "It's a lifestyle choice and a luxury people should have to pay for.


What about people that self-harm. Teenagers? Kids? Vulnerable people? Should we really fine a 13 year old for self-harming because they're being bullied by half the school?
What age do we begin fining at? 
Do we fine the protective guardian if they're under that age? 

There's so many questions and different things that people should, or could be fined for and it's too broad of a question to start fining different aspects of the NHS or treatment due to certain issues or problems. 

So no, they shouldn't. 
We should leave the EU and the NHS should receive 350m a week and that would help for starters.

Thanks, 
Fancy Boots.

Edited by Fancy Boots
Typo's
  • Upvote 1
  • Nice 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

Hopefully the labour party is brought to power and can help this happen, the true question is though, is would the NHS really receive 350M a week? That's a different discussion.

The labour party coming to power would cause an economic catastrophe for Britain. The tax is already high enough and labour want to increase this on the high skilled and paid workers. The increased tax on the rich would discourage all skilled workers to work in the UK, including the doctors. This would cause a brain drain in the UK and also we wouldn't have enough people to fill the jobs that the taxing is funding (eg: the doctors in the health service). I can say this with 2 relatives working in the NHS, a brother in medical school and what their colleagues have said they would do if the labour party got in. Many have said they would look to work in the USA/Canada/Australia. Not only this but all firms would leave the UK due to the tripled corporation tax, and the UK would have very little FDI, as companies would operate in lower taxed countries or trading blocs like the EU.

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

These aren't the only problems that the NHS is having. No where near. 
Nurses are a major part of the NHS, true, but regardless of this these aren't the only job role within the Health Service that is lacking. 

This is a major issue since nurses have to attend a nursing school, nearly the equivalent of attending a university for a wage such "Fully qualified nurses start on salaries of £22,128 --- progress to a maximum of £35,577.  Why would people go through all the effort of training to be a nurse when there is such wage-reward for the work, when there are options to get a degree and earn more? With the current lack of nursing, the healthcare will always fail and I know this from expert advice.

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

There's too much of a wide scope in regards to what is fine-able or what isn't. Too many grey areas and not enough time or necessity for this to start happening.

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

There's a lot different "Weight related healthcare" out there currently, along with this there are many different things that can promote weight gain, not strictly diseases.
For one example, childbirth.

A woman who has put on a bit of weight due to child birth won't need a gastric band the next week. Something like a gastric band can be easily privatised without grey areas, saving tax payers as they cost up to £8,000 per surgery. I would privatise healthcare required due to type 2 diabetes as long as it wasn't inherited and was solely due to weight gain (without the person being diagnosed with a disease that promoted weight gain).

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

it's hard to prove that someone has a disease strictly due to smoking

If the disease isn't inherited and their are severe signs of repetitive patterns of smoking that could have contributed to your disease, you should have to pay. It was your lifestyle choice to REPEATEDLY smoke, knowing before each cigarette that there could be negative impacts on your health. Why should the taxpayers fund your treatment?

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

Alcohol is a drug, and through daily use causes an addiction. An addiction is widely accepted as a "disease" so to speak. You stated above that people with diseases shouldn't be fined so does this go along with that?

I agree people can become addicted to alcohol, but people also become addicted to gambling. Do we pay the gamblers when they become addicted (often due to depression) and have lost all their money? No. Do we relieve people who have broken the law and driven under the influence of alcohol because of their addiction? No. They are imprisoned.

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

Another thing is mental health. Mental health is closely correlated to alcohol consumption, although not dependently caused and in a large amount of cases not what occurs or is a contributing factor. Mental Health is disgustingly under-appreciated in the UK, under-funded and usually underestimated.

I agree mental health is under-appreciated in the UK. But here's a scenario. A man is divorced, loses the right to see his kids, undergoes depression, gambles his money away and is in poverty. The government don't pay out this man as it was his addiction that caused this. Its the same with alcohol consumption. You may say that alcohol consumption is a physical health issue but so is gambling in a sense. Without money they could end up the streets, leading to all sorts of physical health issues. 

I believe that instead of focusing on giving the addicted alcohol consumers free healthcare, we should focus on preventing and solving the issue of mental health, otherwise there will constantly be high rates of depression and alcoholism. Privatising the related healthcare would only dis-encourage excessive alcohol consumption/smoking/unhealthy habits and therefore this would become less of an issue anyhow.

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

fractional amount of alcohol. Well, it's in their system, they had an injury, and are in hospital requiring treatment, so fine them!? 

There is something called a limit that we use for drink-driving. Using a breathalyser a limit would be introduced. Not a difficult concept.

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

What about fining someone because of stupid-ass decisions or mistakes?

Everyone makes mistakes and you must pay for your mistakes to learn from them. 

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

Driving a car increases you chance of being put at-risk by an absurdly amount.

It is almost a necessity in present life and work. Smoking, drinking and unhealthy eating isn't and don't help you provide an income.

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

What about people that self-harm. Teenagers? Kids? Vulnerable people?

No, I didn't mention that once. You went off-topic.

 

1 hour ago, Fancy Boots said:

We should leave the EU and the NHS should receive 350m a week and that would help for starters.

Where do you expect the 350m a week to come from, if not tax payers? The figure that was presumed we would save weekly from the EU turned out to be false, if you didn't know already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply!
Here we go!


 


1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

The labour party coming to power would cause an economic catastrophe for Britain. The tax is already high enough and labour want to increase this on the high skilled and paid workers.

Labour coming to power isn't what is going to cause an "Economic Castastrophe". 
What is causing that is the UK leaving the EU, which by the way was a National wide REFERENDUM. Now, we have Theresa May's cowardice trying to repeal this action, even though the british public voted in majority for it to happen. It's like "We hate Trump, We hate Trump!" But yet half of America voted for him. Hmm....
The tax is high, true. But The Labour Party is only looking to increase this marginally on INDIVIDUALS earning over 80k per annum.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/814161/Labour-Party-manifesto-2017-tax-Jeremy-Corbyn-raise-taxes-garden-tax-election

 

 

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

The increased tax on the rich would discourage all skilled workers to work in the UK, including the doctors. This would cause a brain drain in the UK and also we wouldn't have enough people to fill the jobs that the taxing is funding (eg: the doctors in the health service).

This is simply untrue.
If you think that people are going to jump ship on their country due to monetary gain, I genuinely believe you're mistaken.
Let's weigh up the pro's and con's.
1). Have to guarentee the job in a designated location abroad to start with.
2). Have to move there.
3). Have to get Citizenship there to be able to live and work within that country.
4). Have to sell your home in the UK, because as you said, the NHS workers are oh so struggling for money.
And many more reasons. Transportation of items. It's all a massive hassle. People simply don't do it. It's said in jest a lot, but it doesn't occur. Why move to a foreign country simply to start all over instead of climbing the ladder that you currently work in?

 

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

I can say this with 2 relatives working in the NHS, a brother in medical school and what their colleagues have said they would do if the labour party got in. Many have said they would look to work in the USA/Canada/Australia.

Yeah. I'm not going to call bullshit, but bullshit.
If you have relatives that're working in the NHS, there is honestly no reason why they would be opposed for the Labour Party to come to power.
You're believing hear-say from word of mouth instead of doing research for yourself. Read their manifesto for healthcare, it's nothing but positives the NHS is otherwise being neglected from.
https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/
 

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

Not only this but all firms would leave the UK due to the tripled corporation tax, and the UK would have very little FDI, as companies would operate in lower taxed countries or trading blocs like the EU.

Again, no they wouldn't. 
By "Firm" I'm assuming you mean "Business".
Imagine if it's a pain in the fucking arse just to move country, imagine this:
All of that, along with a business. 
With the added incentive that that business may fail abroad and the individual being in financial ruin. It's a rare occurrence when it does happen.

"As companies would operate in lowered taxed countries or trading blocs like the EU." 
Ummm...? They already do lmfao.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4303030/The-major-firms-avoiding-corporation-tax.html
https://www.ft.com/content/00de4f00-b754-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/microsoft-avoids-paying-100m-a-year-in-uk-corporation-tax-a7089931.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/google-facebook-amazon-ebay-apple-7251746

And, FYI, Corporation Tax is dealt similarly, not identically however, to Personal tax. It's mostly based on Profitable margin's per annum and whatnot. I don't own my business, but obviously Mcdonalds isn't getting the same tax as your kebab shop down the road.

 


 

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

This is a major issue since nurses have to attend a nursing school, nearly the equivalent of attending a university for a wage such "Fully qualified nurses start on salaries of £22,128 --- progress to a maximum of £35,577.  Why would people go through all the effort of training to be a nurse when there is such wage-reward for the work, when there are options to get a degree and earn more?

No they don't go to "Nursing School".
They go to "University". 
And Nursing can be a "Degree", which completely nullifies your argument of
"Why would people go through all the effort of training to be a nurse when there is such wage-reward for the work, when there are options to get a degree and earn more?"

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/nursing/studying-nursing

 

True, they do start on a low wage. However, to be "Fully qualified", they only take a 2 year course.
You know, it's funny that you bring Nurses' pay into the question when fully qualified doctors, fresh from medical school have to have done a minimum of 5 years, however only start 1 payband higher.
https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/doctors/why-study-medicine

https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/doctors/pay-doctors

Also, Nurses, Midwifes and Paramedics have been promised a "Pay Award" from the Autumn Budget in 2017. You don't research yourself as we've already discovered, so you wouldn't know this.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget
And, if you want to talk about pay, you can check this article that explains how pay is slowly increasing for NHS staff yearly.
http://content.digital.nhs.uk/article/5057/NHS-pay-statistics-published.

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

With the current lack of nursing, the healthcare will always fail and I know this from expert advice.

"I know this from expert advice"
but doesn't provide a source. Hmm....

Regardless...
It's not only the "Lack of nursing" that's causing the healthcare to fail. The NHS is within the top 5 employers worldwide. 
If you're going to bring in the lack of nursing and the pay-scale being the main issue because of this, wouldn't pumping loads of money into the NHS solve this?
And this isn't the sole reason why the NHS is dying.
A nurse is paid minimally due to the skills that they bring. For instance, a newly qualified nurse that took the 2 year diploma are unable to cannulate.
Cannulation is an important and crucial skill that allows IV entry to a patient.
But what about: Junior Doctors, Surgeons, Paramedics, Ambulance Technicians, Waiting times in the NHS, the NHS waiting list, Lack of hospitals, Walk-in centres, GP's, Sexual Health Clinics, Overworked and overtired staff, staff who're inept of certain necessary skills on a daily basis within a hospital, misdiagnosis or missing something completely, NHS consistently being sued, and many more. 
There's a great strain on the NHS, a lack of Nurses isn't the sole reason.
As I said above, lack of staff are being worked on. There's been a 62.5% influx of students on my University course that're going to be joining the NHS. This is similar for universities nationwide. 
 


 

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

A woman who has put on a bit of weight due to child birth won't need a gastric band the next week. Something like a gastric band can be easily privatised without grey areas, saving tax payers as they cost up to £8,000 per surgery.

£8,000 being the top end of the cost. When stating costs in regards to arguments, state the price bracket if it's influential to your point. Otherwise it makes you look manipulative.
A Gastric Band generally costs £4,000 to £8,000, rounded. This means that a gastic band could cost 50% of what you originally stated. Also, since you're sticking to this point of a gastric band, a 20 very hard, gruelling, mind boggling search of a mere 20 seconds found me out some interesting points.
Such as, there's criteria for a gastric band. This being: 
- A BMI of >40 and a serious condition posing threat to health.
- The individual trying many / all other weight loss method
- Agreeing to follow up care and treatment after the surgery, such as healthy lifestyle choices and regular check-ups with the GP.
- They've been receiving or received treatment from a specialist obesity team.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/weight-loss-surgery/who-can-have-it/

But let's think for a minute however. It's a lifestyle choice? Okay, we'll go along with that. If that's the case, why would be potentially bankrupt or withdraw treatment and healthcare to someone who potentially desperately needs it because of a financial problem? Without this surgery, these people have a much higher chance of dying from their disease. Withdrawing that from them or charging someone who is seeking treatment goes against what the NHS stands for. They need this treatment, and you're charging them for it. It's like withholding insulin from a diabetic or Ventolin from an asthmatic.

On about the cost:
The NHS had roughly £116.4B from 2015-2016.
https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs

£8,000 of this to someone who needs it isn't a big deal, or a problem because of "Taxpayers money".

 

 


 

 

1 hour ago, supreme cc said:

If the disease isn't inherited and their are severe signs of repetitive patterns of smoking that could have contributed to your disease, you should have to pay. It was your lifestyle choice to REPEATEDLY smoke, knowing before each cigarette that there could be negative impacts on your health. Why should the taxpayers fund your treatment?

True, they knew that it was bad for them, but you've kind of answered your own question here.
"You should have to pay"
"Why should the taxpayers fund your treatment".

Short answer: Because they, statistically, also pay tax. So in essence, they are paying for their own treatment. The entirety of your argument is completely nullified because of this. Let's assume a scenario. Good old Bill, who's an engineer who earns £73,563 a year and is super taxed has paid tax all of his life. Good old Bill has also smoked for the past 15 years. Well, he's paying tax. A portion of that goes towards the NHS so it's unfair to also charge him for a self-inflicted disease which requires treatment when he's essentially been paying for it. So, either treat him, or treat him and charge him, and now he doesn't have to pay tax because he's been faux'ed out of it. But if he's not paying tax, the next person wont want too. Now because of this, there's uproar and a massive decline in the amount the government is able to spend yearly via tax alone. 

 

Oh, and also: 
"This could also help discourage unhealthy lifestyles, furtherly putting less stress on the NHS, and also could help decrease tax rates."
No it wont help reduce tax rates. Not at all. That money would just be spent somewhere else where it's needed within the NHS.


Solution? 
People that don't pay tax should be charged.
Problem with that?
Majority of people who don't get taxed earn less £11,500 per annum.
https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates
These individuals simply can't afford treatment for smoking, or £4,000-£8,000 for a Gastric Band.
This is why the NHS exists.

 

Summary of all of this. 
You ignored a lot of my main points.
You don't do research for yourself or provide links.
You are generally close-minded.
You're lazy and I personally don't think you know genuinely how the NHS works and functions.

Anyhow, hope I've helped demonstrate why you're wrong. 

Many thanks, 
Fancy Boots.

Edited by Fancy Boots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

The tax is high, true. But The Labour Party is only looking to increase this marginally on INDIVIDUALS earning over 80k per annum.

They aren't looking for a marginal increase. It is quite drastic if you think that current taxing on the rich is already too high. They are also trying to increase tax on the 125k+ earners as well as the 80k+ earners. These are our skilled workers in our economy, that is prominently based on the service sector. You need these skilled workers in order for a service sector based economy to thrive and with these increased tax rates, it will only discourage workers with a high human capital to work in the UK, and it will also discourage workers to work the longer hours in order to stay under these ridiculously high tax thresholds. I know as a friend of mine has just graduated from the University of Imperial and is now doing investment banking, and after speaking to him, he has told me how his whole team would be moving out of the UK if the labour party was to get in and introduce their new tax rates.

Secondly, labour want to triple corporation tax? Surely this madness with already businesses moving out of the country due to Brexit. Why would any business operate in the UK if we tripled the corporation tax, and when there are options to base themselves in other lower tax rate countries? 

8 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

Yeah. I'm not going to call bullshit, but bullshit.
If you have relatives that're working in the NHS, there is honestly no reason why they would be opposed for the Labour Party to come to power.

Yes I do have two relatives working in the NHS and one relative in medical school. If you want proof I can disclose it privately but I am not posting related personal information on  a public forum. One of my parents work in the NHS and other works in the NHS as well as doing private work. They would find it disastrous if the labour party got into to power. So would a lot of their colleagues who they have spoken to, with many of them being above 80k and the 125k income tax thresholds. Why would the doctors work in the UK with such high tax thresholds, overtime hours and under appreciation in the healthcare system, when they would be much better off working in a country such as Canada/Australia/America, where their skills as a doctor would be much more appreciated. This appreciation would be shown with a much higher real income and therefore doctors would be much better off working in a different country if labour were to get in. Its not about labours manifesto for funding the healthcare system, because as I said before, the tax rates are already too high on the rich. Its the fact that a lot of these doctors are included as the rich who earn above these tax thresholds. 

 

8 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

1). Have to guarentee the job in a designated location abroad to start with.
2). Have to move there.
3). Have to get Citizenship there to be able to live and work within that country.
4). Have to sell your home in the UK, because as you said, the NHS workers are oh so struggling for money.

This is pretty irrelevant. I have spoken to my parents and their colleagues about this matter and multiple have said they would find work elsewhere. It is not hard at all for workers with their human capital to find jobs in these countries, so that isn't an issue. It is also very easy for people of their age and with their qualifications to get acceptance to move there, so that isn't an issue. 

Oh, and about the sarcastic point of NHS workers being struggling for money, why don't you check how NHS workers (doctors/surgeons) real incomes' have drastically decreased over the last decade, due to literally no increase in wage but a rise in inflation. It has been calculated that some NHS workers real incomes have decreased by 30% over 1 decade. How can you not say that their jobs have been completely devalued in the UK, and why wouldn't they go through the effort of just selling a house to have a real income that is nearly twice of their current in a different country? Workers are willing to undergo a short-term pain for long-term gain so your argument is pretty invalid.

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

By "Firm" I'm assuming you mean "Business".

They can be used the same way in this context so I don't know why you are trying to correct me.

 

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

Imagine if it's a pain in the fucking arse just to move country, imagine this:
All of that, along with a business. 
With the added incentive that that business may fail abroad and the individual being in financial ruin. It's a rare occurrence when it does happen.
 

Ok. If you didn't know, since Margaret Thatcher, the UK's economy has been prominently based in the service sector. London is one of the top 2 financial centres of the world, and if you did your research, there has already been mass movement of financial firms leaving the UK post Brexit. With an increase in corporation tax, I think big businesses and TNC's would be willing to move any of their business they have in the UK to other countries (that are in trading blocs like the EU and have lower corporation tax). It really isn't that difficult for transnational corporations to move nation with the current influence and power they have in the common world, and with them already operating in the poorest regions of the world for cheap labour? You really think a TNC with a wealth greater than the whole of Finland or Norway would find difficulty in moving out of the UK? All car manufacturing that is currently done in the UK by Japanese manufacturers such as Honda and Toyota could easily move their manufacturing to lower taxed companies, to increase their profits. So I don't know how you can argue that a triple in corporation tax wouldn't lead to businesses leaving the UK

 

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

You know, it's funny that you bring Nurses' pay into the question when fully qualified doctors, fresh from medical school have to have done a minimum of 5 years, however only start 1 payband higher.

A career isn't based off 2-5 years? People want a potential high paid career. Doctors may start on a low salary, but they can work their way up to become a consultant, and have the possibility of a high paid income. This is why have a huge shortage of nurses in our health service. Its due to the low prosperity of their wage and there is no arguing of the matter. 

 

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

"Pay Award"

I already did my research and have debated on the Autumn Budget. The "Pay Award" is not significant enough to promote the route taking of the younger generation to become nurses. We need nurses in the future and we need to offer the younger generations prosperity in the nursing line of work, so when they choose to do a degree, they choose to become a nurse. 

 

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

"I know this from expert advice"
but doesn't provide a source. Hmm....

Because I would be disclosing personal information. If you research though, you can see this from the perspective of professionals across the world. It is well-known that a public healthcare is fundamentally reliant on a supply of nurses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

If you're going to bring in the lack of nursing and the pay-scale being the main issue because of this, wouldn't pumping loads of money into the NHS solve this?

Yes but where do you expect this funding to come from, if the tax rates are already at an extreme? We have said this from the start that funding is obviously an issue for the health service to function, but increasing tax rates is not the answer.

 

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

As I said above, lack of staff are being worked on. There's been a 62.5% influx of students on my University course that're going to be joining the NHS. This is similar for universities nationwide. 

We allow foreign students to attend our medical schools, and they come due to the schools being some of the best in the world. This increases the competitiveness of the medical schools, and therefore there are less places for the UK's own students. These foreign students then leave with their degree and work in their home nation, where they would be better off working as a doctor, due to a better real wage. This is a major reason why we don't have enough doctors working in the NHS. Its not that people don't want to become doctors, there is a massive number of students who apply for medical school.

 

9 hours ago, Fancy Boots said:

A Gastric Band generally costs £4,000 to £8,000, rounded. This means that a gastic band could cost 50% of what you originally stated

You are claiming £4,000 is still not of great expense? The £4,000 that come from the tax payers. The £4,000 that the overweight would then have to fund for themselves, discouraging this unhealthy lifestyle. This would then decrease the demand for gastric bands and we wouldn't need to supply as many specialised doctors for this type of healthcare. Then we could specialise doctors in another sector of the health service where are they are required (as you said before there is a shortage of doctors in our health service).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In america if you go to the hospital for a scraped knee and you're without insurance u can expect at least an 800$ medical bill.

 

Id much rather pay taxes every week and have healthcare rather than pay an arm and a leg to stay healthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read anything but here in Canada you can expect to wait all fucking day in the emergency room waiting to see some chink that doesn't speak English. Can be hard to see a doctor when people are seeing the doc because they have a sore throat and can waste everyone's time knowing they won't fit the bill. our medical system is so fucking clogged it's a joke expect to sit behind someone with a cough while you have a broken femur. 

ups & downs to both systems I suppose and as I mentioned I didn't read anything on this topic lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...