8 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

If the NHS collapses who will bail it out ? The Government or the Tax payer.

If the NHS collapses the majority of the UK will find themselves unable to afford healthcare.

British expats living overseas will not have their ‘run home to nanny’ backstop underwriting their ‘self insured’ heath plans.

Theresa May moved social care into the NHS without providing the necessary funding, setting up the NHS funding and care crisis that Andy Burnham is now dealing with.

Social care should never have been put within the NHS.

The UK has an aged imbalanced population, the old need taking care of, Andy Burnham has decided not to kick that can down the road.

The lib Dem leader Ed Davey has offered his support. Tory leader Badenoch has made the customary offer to help on ’common grounds’ provided no taxes are raised, urgent and necessary social care services are apparently free of cost.

Burnham has a clear majority, he doesn’t need to make deals with other parties, but it is clear social care needs urgent reform.

There’s a desperate need for reform of social care provisions in the UK, apart from the threat current policies are to the NHS, millions of people are struggling with a social care system that is failing.

Yet another tribute to ‘austerity’.

Burnham is onto a winner.

https://www.health.org.uk/reports-and-analysis/analysis/unpaid-care-the-realities-of-caring-in-the-uk

Edited July 29Jul 29 by Chomper Higgot

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s no such thing as ‘self insuring’.

Yes there is, Higgot.

Self insurance is when you put aside sufficient funds to cover potential losses or incidents such as illness or accidents.

That is what I do. There is no confusion. See below for further clarification. Maybe better to educate yourself before making stupid statements.

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes there is, Higgot.

Self insurance is when you put aside sufficient funds to cover potential losses or incidents such as illness or accidents.

That is what I do. There is no confusion. See below for further clarification. Maybe better to educate yourself before making stupid statements.

Keep telling yourself that Jonny while you pray your NHS underwriter doesn’t indeed collapse.

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If the NHS collapses the majority of the UK will find themselves unable to afford healthcare.

No other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes. Why do you think that is?

Just now, James105 said:

No other country copies the UK model of the NHS and most have better health outcomes. Why do you think that is?

Many other countries have far worse systems, the US by example.

Why do you think that is?

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Keep telling yourself that Jonny while you pray your NHS underwriter doesn’t indeed collapse.

You're trolling at this point, Higgot.

We both know what self-insuring is.

Therefore, if you don't have anything intelligent to say please refrain from engaging with me.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

You're trolling at this point, Higgot.

We both know what self-insuring is.

Therefore, if you don't have anything intelligent to say please refrain from engaging with me.

Yes, it’s a self deception.

Stay lucky.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, it’s a self deception.

Stay lucky.

I don't need luck, Higgot.

I need cash reserves. Which I have. In abundance. It guarantees I can get treatment done immediately at a hospital of my choice. Unlike an insurance policy.

Envy won't help you. Maybe you should have spent more time working and less time trolling on internet forums?

Now, let's get back on topic.

Burnham has a clear majority, he doesn’t need to make deals with other parties, but it is clear social care needs urgent reform.

That was yesterday today it's all change with the Tories' and Lib Dem's' invited to sort out the first Labour' mess.

And in a first you agree social care does need Reform with or without Nigel?.

3 minutes ago, Tidal wave said:

Burnham has a clear majority, he doesn’t need to make deals with other parties, but it is clear social care needs urgent reform.

That was yesterday today it's all change with the Tories' and Lib Dem's' invited to sort out the first Labour' mess.

And in a first you agree social care does need Reform with or without Nigel?.

It’s a smart move to invite cross party input to such a major and necessary change to vital care services.

Ed Davey has a long history of campaigning for change to social care and brings with him voters who are on board with the issue but who are not Labour supporters.

Badenoch is once again on the back foot, she can’t oppose Burnham fixing what is a clear Tory made mess, she’ll always bang on about taxes, it’s all she’s got.

Social care and the NHS are matters of concern to voters across the political spectrum, that alone makes this a smart policy move.

It’s also the right thing to do.

Burnham is onto a winner.

The NHS collapsed 40 years ago

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a smart move to invite cross party input to such a major and necessary change to vital care services.

Ed Davey has a long history of campaigning for change to social care and brings with him voters who are on board with the issue but who are not Labour supporters.

Badenoch is once again on the back foot, she can’t oppose Burnham fixing what is a clear Tory made mess, she’ll always bang on about taxes, it’s all she’s got.

Social care and the NHS are matters of concern to voters across the political spectrum, that alone makes this a smart policy move.

It’s also the right thing to do.

Burnham is onto a winner.

Yes sounds amazing, and expensive. Where is the money coming from to pay for this? The UK is currently borrowing money to pay the £120bn interest on its existing debt. What is he going to cut? Is he going to reduce welfare? Foreign aid? The NHS budget? It's easy to say what he wants to spend money on. Not so easy to say where that money is coming from.

5 minutes ago, James105 said:

Yes sounds amazing, and expensive. Where is the money coming from to pay for this? The UK is currently borrowing money to pay the £120bn interest on its existing debt. What is he going to cut? Is he going to reduce welfare? Foreign aid? The NHS budget? It's easy to say what he wants to spend money on. Not so easy to say where that money is coming from.

Social care is a requirement, it’s not a want, it’s something that’s absolutely vital for an aging population.

There’s £59 Billion of taxes going unpaid and that’s before offshoring and corporate tax dodging is addressed

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

I don't need luck, Higgot.

I need cash reserves. Which I have. In abundance. It guarantees I can get treatment done immediately at a hospital of my choice. Unlike an insurance policy.

Envy won't help you. Maybe you should have spent more time working and less time trolling on internet forums?

Now, let's get back on topic.

Even if any of that were true it only serves to demonstrate your call for the collapse of the NHS is little more than a demonstration of ‘I’m alright jack’.

Stay lucky.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a smart move to invite cross party input to such a major and 🤔necessary change to vital care services.

Ed Davey has a long history of campaigning for change to social care and brings with him voters who are on board with the issue but who are not Labour supporters.

Badenoch is once again on the back foot, she can’t oppose Burnham fixing what is a clear Tory made mess, she’ll always bang on about taxes, it’s all she’s got.

Social care and the NHS are matters of concern to voters across the political spectrum, that alone makes this a smart policy move.

It’s also the right thing to do.

Burnham is onto a winner.

So you were wrong yesterday but full of admiration and right today just to be clear🤔

Edited July 29Jul 29 by sammieuk1

Just now, sammieuk1 said:

So you were wrong yesterday but full of admiration today just to be clear

And here you are again with your customary ad hominem while dodging the actual topic of discussion.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And here you are again with your customary ad hominem while dodging the actual topic of discussion.

You do this a lot when caught out wet dreaming don't you soon you will be back to Imigrunting' again🤔

At the core of this is too many time wasters at hospital. Kid's have a runny nose go to a pharmacy and pay for runny nose medicine.

I like the Dutch system where there is a small non-refundable fee to see a doctor that discourages time wasters.

If you ailment is not worth paying a small fee to get looked at / cured then...

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Even if any of that were true it only serves to demonstrate your call for the collapse of the NHS is little more than a demonstration of ‘I’m alright jack’.

I'm not calling for it to collapse. I'm saying if it's going to collapse, let it.

Throwing ridiculous amounts of money at it to prop it up year after year as it fails year after year, all the while people grifting from it, is neither morally correct nor financially sustainable (which actually explains why as a leftist you support it).

It has failed and needs to be replaced with something that actually works for British people. There are many alternative models available that still help the (genuinely) poorest in society get healthcare.

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Stay lucky.

Nothing to do with luck. I didn't win the lottery. I didn't inherit it. I made the money myself. Perhaps you could have put your time to better use, but that's hardly my problem.

44 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Social care is a requirement, it’s not a want, it’s something that’s absolutely vital for an aging population.

There’s £59 Billion of taxes going unpaid and that’s before offshoring and corporate tax dodging is addressed

So in other words it is unfunded and the money will need to come from additional borrowing or tax rises on the struggling middle class. You might as well state the money is coming from addressing welfare fraud, or illegal immigrants, or foreign aid or a multitude of other areas that has challenged even intelligent, competent politicians and certainly will not be addressed by this current crop of clowns.

Like I said, it's easy to make spending promises and requires zero skill. Funding them is another matter entirely. Pulling a figure of £59bn out of thin air and thinking a small town mayor will obtain this money where others have failed is laughable.

6 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

At the core of this is too many time wasters at hospital. Kid's have a runny nose go to a pharmacy and pay for runny nose medicine.

I like the Dutch system where there is a small non-refundable fee to see a doctor that discourages time wasters.

If you ailment is not worth paying a small fee to get looked at / cured then...

Even this sensible suggestion would never be approved by Labour MPs. The NHS is a religion to them and anything other than "free at the point of contact" is considered blasphemous.

16 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

You do this a lot when caught out wet dreaming don't you soon you will be back to Imigrunting' again🤔

And yet more ad hominem.

17 minutes ago, James105 said:

So in other words it is unfunded and the money will need to come from additional borrowing or tax rises on the struggling middle class. You might as well state the money is coming from addressing welfare fraud, or illegal immigrants, or foreign aid or a multitude of other areas that has challenged even intelligent, competent politicians and certainly will not be addressed by this current crop of clowns.

Like I said, it's easy to make spending promises and requires zero skill. Funding them is another matter entirely. Pulling a figure of £59bn out of thin air and thinking a small town mayor will obtain this money where others have failed is laughable.

No, not I other words unfounded and who suggested the money should come from the middle class?

Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax fraud, add tax loopholes and there’s plenty of money without bothering the ‘struggling middle clsss’.

23 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'm not calling for it to collapse. I'm saying if it's going to collapse, let it.

Throwing ridiculous amounts of money at it to prop it up year after year as it fails year after year, all the while people grifting from it, is neither morally correct nor financially sustainable (which actually explains why as a leftist you support it).

It has failed and needs to be replaced with something that actually works for British people. There are many alternative models available that still help the (genuinely) poorest in society get healthcare.

Nothing to do with luck. I didn't win the lottery. I didn't inherit it. I made the money myself. Perhaps you could have put your time to better use, but that's hardly my problem.

The NHS does not fail year after year.

19 minutes ago, James105 said:

Even this sensible suggestion would never be approved by Labour MPs. The NHS is a religion to them and anything other than "free at the point of contact" is considered blasphemous.

Moving social care back out of the NHS, where it should never have been in the first place, is a sensible Labour suggestion.

The fear on the right being Burnham is onto a winner.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, not I other words unfounded and who suggested the money should come from the middle class?

Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax fraud, add tax loopholes and there’s plenty of money without bothering the ‘struggling middle clsss’.

There is not plenty of money. The UK has to borrow money to make its debt interest payments of £120bn per year. If there was an extra £59bn available why did super lawyer Starmer not get his grubby hands on it rather than destroying his political capital on winter fuel allowance cuts, farmers inheritance and VAT on private schools (all of which raised a pittance), rather than just get the £59bn so readily available... according to you. Why did he try and raise £5bn from welfare cuts rather than get the £59bn? I can tell you why. Even if that money did exist it would be more difficult to legally obtain than (for example) deporting a foreign born convicted rapist from the UK whose kid does not like the taste of chicken nuggets in his home country. That's why.

The reason I say the middle class as that is the only group that is easy to tax as they mostly are on PAYE. You cannot tax people who do not make a net contribution as they are on welfare, and the rich people in the UK can move themselves and their money elsewhere to avoid paying tax. That leaves the middle class. Or he could cut spending from other areas, but that will make him look bad and upset his Labour MPs, so he won't.

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Moving social care back out of the NHS, where it should never have been in the first place, is a sensible Labour suggestion.

The fear on the right being Burnham is onto a winner.

The right are just asking where the money is coming from. If the money comes from stopping foreigners from claiming welfare and diverted to British people receiving end of life care then I am sure they will be supportive.

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

There is not plenty of money. The UK has to borrow money to make its debt interest payments of £120bn per year. If there was an extra £59bn available why did super lawyer Starmer not get his grubby hands on it rather than destroying his political capital on winter fuel allowance cuts, farmers inheritance and VAT on private schools (all of which raised a pittance), rather than just get the £59bn so readily available... according to you. Why did he try and raise £5bn from welfare cuts rather than get the £59bn? I can tell you why. Even if that money did exist it would be more difficult to legally obtain than (for example) deporting a foreign born convicted rapist from the UK whose kid does not like the taste of chicken nuggets in his home country. That's why.

The reason I say the middle class as that is the only group that is easy to tax as they mostly are on PAYE. You cannot tax people who do not make a net contribution as they are on welfare, and the rich people in the UK can move themselves and their money elsewhere to avoid paying tax. That leaves the middle class. Or he could cut spending from other areas, but that will make him look bad and upset his Labour MPs, so he won’t.

Yes people earning wages are easily taxed via PAYE.

Ltd., companies and corporations have means to dodge taxes through loopholes.

There’s no reason why that can’t change.

There’s also absolutely no reason why all UK bonds, the major repository of debt are subject to floating interest rates.

By example, uk banks and insurance companies are required to hold capital to regulated minimums, they use this capital to facilitate their business. There is reason why those mandated holdings which the banks use to their advantage should pay floating interest rates.

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

The right are just asking where the money is coming from. If the money comes from stopping foreigners from claiming welfare and diverted to British people receiving end of life care then I am sure they will be supportive.

Let’s have a figure for the cost of welfare fraud by immigrants.

For comparison the tax gap is £59 Billion.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And here you are again with your customary ad hominem while dodging the actual topic of discussion.

But it's what you said so it's bound to be directed at you

A common misconception is that an ad hominem attack is synonymous with an insult. This is not true, although some ad hominem arguments may be considered insulting by the recipient. ie you🤔