Monday, January 15, 2007
Sick
The Daily Mail on Saturday tells us of NHS "patients" being offered the option to pay for their operation and thereby "jump the queue" and receive treatment.
Of course the "journalist" manages to miss an important point. The treatments have already been paid for, either by the patients themselves or others ("from each according to his means to each according to his needs")in the form of National Insurance (Insurance being misleading as the only side of the bargain is payment of the premium). So by asking for another payment, note there's no suggestion of a refund for the premiums paid, the poor people are being asked to pay twice for the same thing.
All of us who pay the National Insurance tax have all paid for these operations, now they cannot happen, we should all get a refund.
Imagine if this was a private company, taking payments in return for healthcare, then when people fell ill, expecting them to pay for treatment, they'd be an outcry. We'd have pictures showing directors houses and cars, we'd have calls for legislation to "protect" the public, every leftie going would be denouncing capitalism, directors salaries and complaining of how people get conned, and how others profit from their misfortune, the reality is that if you have the money and are in pain, you'll be very tempted to give it to the NHS.
I see the NHS as a huge gravy train, not for the majority of staff perhaps, but those at the top are bigger swindlers and robbers than many others. There's been a programme on BBC2 showing some self-made millionaire trying to get Rotherham hospital running efficiently; the chief executive of the hospital (for me) is no manager, but no fool either, he produces government figures and is probably classed as good at his job, ultimately I think he must know the hospital could be run better, I also think he knows he'll get no credit for doing so, just a lot of hassle, but does he resign? Does he forego his (judging from his house and car) generous salary? Yet (for me) he knows as much as the director of a company that continues trading with inevitable bankruptcy that people are being fleeced.
Years ago, when the worker was portrayed as slaving away for the capitalist, at least the capitalist provided something (capital). Now the worker slaves away for the apparatchik - who waxes fat on the food of the poor, but the apparatchik is supposed to work for the people, the reality is he does nothing, but produce figures and take the salary. What a sick system.
Of course the "journalist" manages to miss an important point. The treatments have already been paid for, either by the patients themselves or others ("from each according to his means to each according to his needs")in the form of National Insurance (Insurance being misleading as the only side of the bargain is payment of the premium). So by asking for another payment, note there's no suggestion of a refund for the premiums paid, the poor people are being asked to pay twice for the same thing.
All of us who pay the National Insurance tax have all paid for these operations, now they cannot happen, we should all get a refund.
Imagine if this was a private company, taking payments in return for healthcare, then when people fell ill, expecting them to pay for treatment, they'd be an outcry. We'd have pictures showing directors houses and cars, we'd have calls for legislation to "protect" the public, every leftie going would be denouncing capitalism, directors salaries and complaining of how people get conned, and how others profit from their misfortune, the reality is that if you have the money and are in pain, you'll be very tempted to give it to the NHS.
I see the NHS as a huge gravy train, not for the majority of staff perhaps, but those at the top are bigger swindlers and robbers than many others. There's been a programme on BBC2 showing some self-made millionaire trying to get Rotherham hospital running efficiently; the chief executive of the hospital (for me) is no manager, but no fool either, he produces government figures and is probably classed as good at his job, ultimately I think he must know the hospital could be run better, I also think he knows he'll get no credit for doing so, just a lot of hassle, but does he resign? Does he forego his (judging from his house and car) generous salary? Yet (for me) he knows as much as the director of a company that continues trading with inevitable bankruptcy that people are being fleeced.
Years ago, when the worker was portrayed as slaving away for the capitalist, at least the capitalist provided something (capital). Now the worker slaves away for the apparatchik - who waxes fat on the food of the poor, but the apparatchik is supposed to work for the people, the reality is he does nothing, but produce figures and take the salary. What a sick system.
Tags: NHS, state apparatchiks, statism, welfare state
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: NHS, state apparatchiks, statism, welfare state
Saturday, January 06, 2007
A tale of Christmas Winterval woe
An observant reader emailed me the link below.
It's a story in my local "news"paper, it tells of a couple and their broken down boiler and how: "They spent a miserable Christmas huddled together..."
I don't want to spoil the story, go and read it, make sure you read the comments easily the best part. The story is here.
It's comforting to see the people of York in gerneral have the right idea. It's pathetic to see our useless "news"paper coming out with this drivel and expecting people to pay for it.
What's even worse is that time and again, money is taken from those who've earned it, taken by the state with the threat of imprisonment and then dished out to whichever claimant fills out a form. It I want a new bolier (mine is over 30 years old) I'll have to pay for it myself, where's my state handout? Instead I have to make do with my old one and pay for their new one as well. It's a disgrace.
It's a story in my local "news"paper, it tells of a couple and their broken down boiler and how: "They spent a miserable Christmas huddled together..."
I don't want to spoil the story, go and read it, make sure you read the comments easily the best part. The story is here.
It's comforting to see the people of York in gerneral have the right idea. It's pathetic to see our useless "news"paper coming out with this drivel and expecting people to pay for it.
What's even worse is that time and again, money is taken from those who've earned it, taken by the state with the threat of imprisonment and then dished out to whichever claimant fills out a form. It I want a new bolier (mine is over 30 years old) I'll have to pay for it myself, where's my state handout? Instead I have to make do with my old one and pay for their new one as well. It's a disgrace.
Labels: tax, welfare state
Monday, November 27, 2006
A nation of claimants
The Times reports here on a report from Reform who apparently are a "think-tank" which promote the liberalisation of public services (so they're overdue a link on the sidebar which will be following soon).
The report exposes the horror of the "welfare state" from the article: "The welfare state cost £79 billion last year, more than is spent on the entire education system, twice as much as on law and order and almost as much as on the NHS. It totals nearly £3,000 a household a year. There are 51 different benefits, with 39 per cent of households claiming one or more."
£3000.00p per annum it costs me, so in real terms that probably means I have to earn £5000.00p p/a to pay my contribution, to say that represents a very substantial part of my income is only all too true. I have to go without, not because I haven't earned it, but because the state takes it from me and gives it to others.
Oh well I suppose it's for those less fortunate, people who'll literally starve to death if I didn't pay. "Households with incomes of up to £66,350 — which puts them in the richest fifth — can be entitled to welfare." Well that's nothing like what I earn, why should I who earn less money be subsidising someone earning all that? What a sick disgrace.
Apparently: "80 per cent of benefits — £64 billion — paid without any strings attached." Well where's my cut of action? I want a slice of the pie after all I'm paying for it. I'm studying a part-time course as well as working; I can't even get tax relief for my course fees. I'm one of those trying to better my position and myself, and what do I get? "...the benefits often end up punishing those who want to better themselves." That's right! I can't claim any benefit, yet I have to pay for the benefits; I get punished twice over, firstly my work is worth less money to me because of all the taxes I have to pay, and secondly the pound in my pocket is worth less because of the that state slush fund (which I've paid for along with so many others) which makes the prices of everything higher. I can't afford to purchase labour, because the labour I could afford is paid by me via the state to sit on its backside and do nothing.
This report really brings home the insidious nature of state benefits. The only surprising thing about them is how they sucker the public. It's high time people wake up to what the reality of the benefits system means, I suspect one day they will and there'll be a terrible price to pay.
The report exposes the horror of the "welfare state" from the article: "The welfare state cost £79 billion last year, more than is spent on the entire education system, twice as much as on law and order and almost as much as on the NHS. It totals nearly £3,000 a household a year. There are 51 different benefits, with 39 per cent of households claiming one or more."
£3000.00p per annum it costs me, so in real terms that probably means I have to earn £5000.00p p/a to pay my contribution, to say that represents a very substantial part of my income is only all too true. I have to go without, not because I haven't earned it, but because the state takes it from me and gives it to others.
Oh well I suppose it's for those less fortunate, people who'll literally starve to death if I didn't pay. "Households with incomes of up to £66,350 — which puts them in the richest fifth — can be entitled to welfare." Well that's nothing like what I earn, why should I who earn less money be subsidising someone earning all that? What a sick disgrace.
Apparently: "80 per cent of benefits — £64 billion — paid without any strings attached." Well where's my cut of action? I want a slice of the pie after all I'm paying for it. I'm studying a part-time course as well as working; I can't even get tax relief for my course fees. I'm one of those trying to better my position and myself, and what do I get? "...the benefits often end up punishing those who want to better themselves." That's right! I can't claim any benefit, yet I have to pay for the benefits; I get punished twice over, firstly my work is worth less money to me because of all the taxes I have to pay, and secondly the pound in my pocket is worth less because of the that state slush fund (which I've paid for along with so many others) which makes the prices of everything higher. I can't afford to purchase labour, because the labour I could afford is paid by me via the state to sit on its backside and do nothing.
This report really brings home the insidious nature of state benefits. The only surprising thing about them is how they sucker the public. It's high time people wake up to what the reality of the benefits system means, I suspect one day they will and there'll be a terrible price to pay.
Tags: justice, taxes, welfare state
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: welfare state
