‘This policy will, of course, worsen health inequalities“
- But it is fair. Those who have strived, or whose parents/family have strived, and who can afford it, get to enjoy the benefits of striving. And I'm sure life is unfair, that some will suffer undeserving misfortune. And those who have fostered strong familial and friendship bonds will have more support to rely on, than those who haven't. And there are some of us, who are even willing to consider/choose to help strangers directly. The state compelled and delivery of redistribution is the most inefficient, and I would argue, even immoral.
- When you talk about health inequality, you mean equity/outcome. What is unfair is the taxing of a working class responsible healthy non-smoking bus driver, to pay for the rich overweight smoker's new knee. What happened to you reap what you sow, a concept we teach our kids (or at least I try for mine)?
I agree up to the point that its human nature. Yes self-interest and greed is part of human nature but that can be transcended e.g. altruism and human solidarity. I'm a brexiteer, and I voted so even acknowledging the uncertainty that would have likely brought, or that my house value might drop due to less demand if the population does not keep increasing at the rate it is through mass immigration. I do so, at potential personal cost, as I believe that it would benefit Britain as a whole in the long run, and that there are some things more valuable than £, like individual liberties.
Also, the fundamental economic likelihood is that the bigger the state, the smaller the economy. There may be cases where a big seemingly benevolent state like Singapore, with a good track record of making MANY decisions that end up benefiting its citizens, could be trusted to make more good decisions, but even there, the population have either knowingly or ignorantly sacrificed free speech and other liberties.
The evidence of history lies on the side of the libertarians, and the culture war will be worn on the 'young'. It will be whether we encourage our young to embrace critical thinking, and valuing history and evidence, against the indoctrination of left-leaning state schooling (don't get me started on that). The good fight is there to be fought, and we can't give up, for the sake of the next generation.
"Happy to pay a tax increase in exchange for my first pay rise since 2004!
I suppose you preferred option is to close the NHS and charge everyone £65/appointment, £120/visit?? "
What makes you so sure you would get a pay rise? And you would pay a 10% tax increase for a 1% pay rise?? The devil is in the detail isn't it...
No I wouldn't close the NHS entirely, but it should certainly be scaled down. Maybe state emergency treatment provision only, social and elderly care for some, access/co-payments for primary care and subsidies for prescriptions for some... Certainly not the all you can eat buffet, which I presume, you want to maintain in its entirety?
In the bigger scheme of things, you believe we should continue taxing the lower middle class, or the upper working class e.g. trades/bus drivers, so that the rich can have any treatment on the NHS for free when they can afford it? Or free prescriptions, or the rich kids to have free university education , or even religious circumcisions to be carried out still up in Scotland? Why not let the majority of the public take up their own responsibility for their own decisions?
Lol yet we have a sizeable chunk of the population who are on the Left that advocate MORE state intervention and taxation... so they clearly don't get it, the reasons for which are multifactorial.
I obviously have to point out that I'm no anarchist. But I'm just glad, as it appeared for some time that I was part of only a tiny minority of libertarians/free marketeers/"evil" capitalists who want LIMITED govt. However, it is still a shame that it has to come to this, as well as the restriction of free speech, to get more to wake to the truth.
I'm glad you're with me, Harry :) It seems Jaimie still has some faith that the state will come good... like a battered wife...
But we all know nothing will change, because of 2 fundamental principles:
1. It is always easier to spend someone else's money (i.e irresponsibly)
2. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In other words, the state is human/subjective/corruptible.
|DrDeath | GP Partner/Principal|15 Jan 2020 4:22pm
1. if you think it will be any better under the socialists, you're mistaken. They are for even BIGGER state lol
2. So you want more public services, and more funding... And you would be happy to pay 10%, 20% more tax? For it to be spent irresponsibly? And if you are, what's stopping you from handing more money to the Treasury now? It's always easier to spend someone else's money isn't it...
3. The SNP run healthcare in Scotland, and despite receiving more funding per head due to the Barnett formula for healthcare, that and other public services are failing too.... I wonder why...
Had enough of the state yet?
|salaried GP | Salaried GP|10 Jan 2020 2:40pm
Shows that regardless who's in charge (SNP), if you're broke, you're broke....
Now why are we broke, is the question... budget deficit, by any chance?
|Post-truth Practitioner | GP Partner/Principal|08 Jan 2020 8:25pm
" Fund it properly....!"
- it never will be. When the value is determined by the state, instead of free market forces.
|Dr Katharine Mori | GP|09 Jan 2020 12:52pm
- Why would you want to keep the unsustainable, all-you-can-eat buffet, state-run NHS alive? All the problems are currently coming from the state, yet you want the state to keep running it? Now, I might not necessarily agree with the MEANS by which the NHS is being run down, but it would be a good thing if we moved to a scaled-down NHS, and with the public taking SOME responsibility for their own healthcare, no?
|Peter English | Salaried GP | Surrey|08 Jan 2020 12:39pm
"might well be cost-saving in the medium to long term. "
- so you want to do something, which you're not sure of the benefit, paid for by our taxes.... Just like every vanity project by the state then...
"far too little on the wider determinants of health. "
- How about the biggest one? The decision to take full individual responsibility for one's health?
How can you stop/slow it when healthcare is politicised, because it is socialised? Not to mention welfare...
You vote for smaller govt.
You advocate for individual responsibility.
Nothing else works.
If you trust the state to provide your healthcare, then by association, you trust the state to provide healthcare regulation. And any state organisation set up to oversee any sector, more often than not, makes things worse. I.e, they will not treat the problem that they are dependent on for funding.
If you don't trust the state to regulate you, why would you trust the state with ANYTHING ELSE?
In times gone by, we regulated ourselves, we were allowed to countersue, and complainants had no access to legal aid..... then the state got involved...
|Sensible Doc | GP Partner/Principal|03 Jan 2020 1:07pm
What do you expect when you incentivise the breakdown of the family unit, single parenthood, de-emphasize health and financial responsibility, and you do so via increasing the size of the state and reducing the size of the economy/private sector/tax-take.... I.e. socialism
I never suggested that you said LGBT history should be done BEFORE the more important things. But surely the education of these more important things is nowhere near the stage where they should start contemplating the less important things. Haha, an ad hominem attack now? Whilst ignoring all the other points? How am I not surprised? You might think I'm 'nasty', but am I wrong?
Again another opportunity to put your credibility where your mouth is and tell me your name...
|Prashant Patel | Doctor in Training|20 Dec 2019 10:19am
I think couples really need to start thinking and self-reflecting ...
- Duh, you would think that should be a given, wouldn't you. Consequence of incentivising irresponsible parenting and single parenthood i.e. breakdown of family unit, and the state taking on the responsibility for everything.
"someone else is going to have to do the job of parenting if parents can't."
- Sure, but I rather the quality control for that came from the freedom to decide who to do the alternative parenting, than some state bureaucracy i.e the Department of Education deciding what to educate/indoctrinate my kids with.
|Angus Podgorny | GP Partner/Principal|20 Dec 2019 10:31am
" end of primary they are more than ready and diversity, fairness and equality are good principles "
- You do realise that the Left has just been soundly rejected by the electorate. Firstly, who are you to generalise whether all kids at the end of primary are 'ready' to discern the pros/cons of 'diversity'. Secondly, do you not think there are more pressing concerns still to be learnt at that stage, i.e ALL of the maths/science/whatever languages they want to learn, individual responsibility, honesty, sex ed, etc... before we come to LGBT history...
Thirdly, fairness and equality are NOT the same thing. What's fair is not always equal and vice versa... e.g equal prize money for men's and women's pro tennis when women spend less time on court and have a much smaller viewership.
|Prashant Patel | Doctor in Training|19 Dec 2019 7:08pm
- Really? You rather trust STATE SCHOOLS (incidentally, the same schools teaching LGBT history to 6 yr olds - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/03/birmingham-primary-school-to-resume-modified-lgbt-lessons) to teach your kids rather than take the responsibility of teaching your own kids about valuable life lessons???
|DrDeath | GP Partner/Principal|19 Dec 2019 3:06pm
You would hope that neutrality would be the objective, although I grant you that there is a very thin line between journalist and activist. Very few people are politically neutral personally of course, however, surely as part of the professional role of any editor of a media stream, would be to maintain as neutral a position as possible, to appeal to as wide an audience as possible(?), amongst other aims. But maybe I presume too much. Jaimie has pretty much declared his position anyways, but feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.
On the representation in the media, oh I certainly think there is a left leaning bias in the "mainstream" media, and that's before we go into other things like state education, social media "deplatforming/censorship", etc.
Just look at the report done on the BBC re its bias.
When's the last time you saw a report/documentary on Venezuela, or the Yellow vest movement in France, or the Hong Kong protestors, on mainstream media? You'd have to go to independent media/alt sources...
I thought it was parents' responsibility to teach their children how to socialise/make friends, and to themselves be part of the support network......
Consequence of breakdown of family units, irresponsible parenting, incentivising of single parenthood, broad welfare provision, etc
"But I fear they are repeating the mistakes of the past decade."
- Yes, but for not being honest about the truth of comprehensive unsustainable socialist healthcare provision. We should be tailing the NHS back, not throwing more money to be frittered away on useless "managers, CQC, initiatives like 7 day routine access, religious circumcisions up in Scotland, personal health budgets, the list goes on"
Jaimie, you never seem to engage on this point. Betrays your political leaning. I had presumed the Editor of Pulse should be politically neutral?
"funding for the AVS service was reallocated – but Dr Pitalia continued it at our Wigan practices at SSP Health’s expense, as she recognised the immense worth of the system."
- Essentially, hiring of 1 FTE GP/nurse to do HV only..... I.e a pay cut.... And as pointed out above, despite a sizeable proportion of inappriopriate requests. Thanks, but no thanks, it's not the solution.