It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
originally posted by: Britguy
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
Our taxes pay for the system. If they want to privatize it, then we should see a reduction in income tax / national insurance, matching what we'd be paying in premiums to the private supplier. It's only fair!
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
originally posted by: Britguy
Is it any wonder that the NHS is under such financial strain when we look closely at the incompetence and gravy train riding execs in charge?
originally posted by: Britguy
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
Our taxes pay for the system. If they want to privatize it, then we should see a reduction in income tax / national insurance, matching what we'd be paying in premiums to the private supplier. It's only fair!
originally posted by: stumason
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
I really wish you'd research stuff about the UK before commenting, it's getting to be a bad habit.
We pay National Insurance towards the NHS (on top of general taxation). The Government budget for the NHS is around £130 Billion a year, of which the bulk is covered by aforementioned NI contributions.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: 321Go
It doesn't matter at all if the NHS is privately or publicly funded, as long as the cost to the tax payer is minimal and the cost to the user is £zero. The patient outcomes are THE most important issue here, not the finances. Governments – all of them – have proved themselves time and again to be totally crap business managers.
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
Most people view healthcare as a human right like water and air and not a privilege.
Its one of the few things we will disagree on.
Now the UK health system is under huge strain and needs a overhaul but there are plenty of country's like France and Japan that can provide good quality healthcare to all. I want the UK to be more like THEM.
sorry but no one in the civilized world wants the US dog eat dog healthcare system.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: stumason
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Why should the cost to the user be "zero?" You don't think someone should contribute anything, even a little, to their own health?
I really wish you'd research stuff about the UK before commenting, it's getting to be a bad habit.
We pay National Insurance towards the NHS (on top of general taxation). The Government budget for the NHS is around £130 Billion a year, of which the bulk is covered by aforementioned NI contributions.
I knew that, which is why "free" healthcare isn't really free. Somebody has to end up paying for it, even for those who don't kick in.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
I agree with that. Tax you less and let you spend your own money.