The-Snowman:
Your tax contributes to the nhs, you’re not paying for healthcare. Your tax won’t be reduced if the nhs is taken away. So what you’re saying is you can’t afford private healthcare or medical insurance? Strange that, since you’re advocating it as the way forward.Your second load of waffle doesn’t even come close to answering it. Try again
No what I’m saying is that my wages like others were never enough to cover the true costs of health care regardless of how it is funded taxation based or insurance.Why wouldn’t/shouldn’t the NHS component of taxation be removed assuming there was no such thing as the NHS or someone had opted out of it.As I said I couldn’t afford to pay twice in that regard.I’m advocating a US ( or preferably German ) style system only because as I said it obviously creates more pressure on employers to pay more for their employees’ health care costs when factored into wage demands than the so called ‘free’ UK NHS system does.IE government controlled funding just gets in the way of that part of the wage bargaining process in the employers’ favour by imposing laughable levels of rationing.Which is why the employers are so keen on it and why US and German unions are rightly less keen on the Brit type system.
As for the second question.Exactly where did I say that the US insurance based system doesn’t have the same conflict of interest between what’s good for its own and wage payers’ balance sheets v what’s good for the patient.Just as it does in the case of the government doing what’s good for its own balance sheet and the interests of keeping wage costs down for employers in the case of the NHS.All of which turns deadly when the massive costs of further treatment can be saved to the advantage of employers’ wage costs and balancing the government’s books simply by euthanising anyone considered to be not worthy of saving.
While for all his moaning Pat,like your family,obviously hasn’t yet found himself facing the ultimate implications of that.Unlike people like my Mum. 