Blimey!
Fancy spending your whole life worrying that an illness or an accident to yourself or to other members of your family is going to wipe you out.Did you read Asherman's post about his wife getting ill and it costing him $75 grand.I hope he can afford it.
Infant mortality is a killer statistic.Anybody who keeps that low has my approval.
You're a bit hard on us Steve saying the NHS is the ONLY civilised thing left.What about the BBC and our lovely Monarch.When one is a subject one can do anything which She doesn't say you can't.So you don't need to think.
Are you looking forward to Gentleman Wayne tonight?He's going to get provoked I should think.
The NHS is a great idea and even greater policy
In Australia we had something very similar. Unfortunately for us we have been subjected to an ideologically driven federal government which, over many years, has set about systematically dismantling the excellent system we had and we now have something which is still far better than that in the US but not as good as it should be.
How anyone can argue against the welfare state is beyond me.
Yes we pay a bit more tax (there is in fact a % levy on our tax specifically to help fund the scheme) but an Australian won't be refused excellent health care because they are indigent nor will excellent health care make an Australian indigent. The principal is that we all pay a bit so that none of us is without care or financially broken by the need for health care.
How can anyone seriously argue with that? I mean seriously. I don't mean some sort of appeal to pure ideology. That argument never works except in the fevered mind.
Be glad you have the welfare perks!!!
In the US healthcare is a disgrace to the idea of equality. Unstead of it being more of a basic right it is a perk for the well to do!
I'm all for the welfare state, and I would never want rid of it, but I think it's on the way out.
The NHS is in a bad state, the british goverment blow their own trumpet about how much they've invested and it is more than had been paid in. But just about everyone I've seen comment on it whether they be from the NHS or an ecconomist all say that there is not enough for the NHS to get themslves back on track after years of underfunding. I'm pretty sure the goverment spendng plan is up in a year or two (they had been raising spending by however x% each year), but the spending hasn't got the NHS to the levels of some other European nations like France (or the levels most with in the NHS expect it to be). But apparently the French NHS is crippling their ecconomy, but I've only heard that once so it may of been a bit of scare mongering or something.
It seems that in the UK we're moving away from a welfare state. The NHS needs a revamp, it's not working as efficently as it can and new treatments and drugs cost more than the old ones, so unless something changes theres going to be a time when the NHS collapses or where the NHS is having to buy older, less efficient treatments effectivly forcing anybody with any alement to go private or accept worse healthcare.
I don't know how much health insurance costs, but it seems to me that the best way to do things would be for the goverment to insure the whole population. In 2001-2002 they spent 45-50 billion on the NHS there are about 50 mill people in the UK, thats about £750 or so per person. But thats something I thought up my self so theres probably something incredibly unworkable about the whole thing.
And the schools...every city academy is doing ****, but Tony Blai is pushing for more to be set up...
The welfare state is great, and theirs noway I would want to get rid of it, but theres are some hard questions about how/if it can work in modern Britain. The fact that the goverment seem more concerened with making it look like its working/getting the public to belive its work rather than trying to make it work makes me think that unfortuntly some time in the future Britain will have gotten rid of the welfare state.
Interesting points terrygallagher. I think if the welfare state is going out in the UK then it's because the current government wants it to happen. If they wanted to maintain and strengthen it they would.
Their do seem to be a fair numbers of parasites who scroung etc
IF YOU HAVE A GENUINE REASON LIKE MYSELF(I AM DISABLED,MYSELF),I DON'T BEGRUDGE ANYONE,but they do seem to be people taking the system for a ride,such as the person whose only handicap is his golf!
Like anything else Badboy, abusers have to be sorted. We have public transport but we don't abolish it because of the people who refuse to pay.
Those who abuse the system are stealing from those in need. The authorities need to extract the digit and sort it out.
I AGREE,GOODFIELDER.
I WOULD LIKE TO TELL SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WHAT I THINK ****************************
on the other hand
I have to defend the Labour govt. where it has done well imo.
Dont mention war islam terrorism iraq
but it has put an awful lot of money into health care and education.
And even if private health/education organisations are employed by govt. to deliver health care, there is a world of difference between that, and paying for it as you require it. No one wants to go back to that as I see it.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:on the other hand
I have to defend the Labour govt. where it has done well imo.
Dont mention war islam terrorism iraq
but it has put an awful lot of money into health care and education.
And even if private health/education organisations are employed by govt. to deliver health care, there is a world of difference between that, and paying for it as you require it. No one wants to go back to that as I see it.
No argument Steve. None at all.
I think Blair tried to line up with Bush to manage his foreign policy madness. That failed.
But when it comes to domestic policy no contest. Thatcher showed what the Tories think of society. When it comes to looking after real people and not corporations, Labour is so far in front it's not funny.
thanks gf
the tragedy for Blair is that he will be remembered for iraq terrorism anti terrorism legislation etc etc.
People will gloss over the investment and reform of public services as if it was just bound to happen.
But then he (Blair) did not have to take a gamble on GWB did he?
Blair and GWB - in my more mellow moments I like to think that Tony was trying to do the right thing with GWB and to rein him in a bit. I would very much like to think Blair had misjudged his ability to deal with Bush than think that Blair was actually all for the invasion and occupation.
I can't dislike Blair (after all he launched both his electoral campaigns from my old school!) but as you point out, I don't think history will be kind in the short term.
One does wonder if all genuine[/[/size]U] benefit claimants should leave their estates to the taxpayer.
Should genuine benefit receipants go on strike or something to indicate that they are genuine?
There's a report this week that 21% of Merthyr residents are on disability benefit.It seems they hobble in on Mondays for their cheque and party away until the next one.The other 79% probably work in the benefit office or in the service industries which include pubs,cake shops and other medical services.
That's pretty good.Who in their right mind would wish to do away with that.
Someone local was convicted of benefit fraud.
Her husband etc were too lazy to go and work.
Most work causes pollution.
For example-to get the gold to make the rings,bracelets etc with which men bribe ladies, who can't resist the lure of bright,shiny,expensive gee-gaws, to co-operate with them requires very large quantities of cyanide solutions which future generations will have to clean up at vast cost and the manufacture of the cyanide solution is also polluting as is the transportation of it to the remote areas where gold is found.I think 100s of tons of rock are used to produce one ounce of gold and to quarry this is also polluting.
So-is it work when the bottom line is just a shag?And it therefore follows that those who don't work may well be the most useful members of society and some folk envy them because they can get a shag without wrecking the earth.
Pick that out of your teeth badboy.
You can't have a world where everyone is work shy,how would things be run,where would the money for hospitals came from for example?
Well-I was suggesting distinguishing between activities known as "work" before using the word to imply something good or useful across the board.Obviously I would consider health care as work along with food production and other essentials to human existence.But a good deal of what is known as "work" is counter productive to human life as I am sure you will realise once you focus your mind which is all I sought to do.
What would you do with storage lakes of cyanide solutions which run to billions of gallons when all they have provided is some pretty trinkets.The Xmas binge is another case to consider as is the whole process of built in obsolesence and fashion.
We may have our egos flattered by such things but what will future generations think of that when they have to sort out the mess which could well cost them thousands of times the value of the things we have made.
There's work and there's "work".If a millionaire prankster hired you to let tyres down on pub car parks for his amusement would that be work?Or if you had a job sticking plastic fruit-like objects on ladies's hats for Ascot week.
