michael howard is now officially the leader of the tory party

Watch
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#161
Report 16 years ago
#161
So the gap between the voucher and private is even more! Thus only wealthy people can opt for it!
0
reply
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#162
Report 16 years ago
#162
(Original post by pkonline)
So the gap between the voucher and private is even more! Thus only wealthy people can opt for it!
its quite simple. you can either have free treatment on the NHS, or take a substantial proportion of the money and take it to private treatment. for many operations this means millions of households would be able to choose between private or NHS care..
0
reply
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#163
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#163
(Original post by pkonline)
The Tories have one spokesman for health and education ie. giving half the effort. Shows you how lowly they think of public services - they have two charmen though!
wow you really are stupid like you say in your sig, but ill forgive you
theyre having one spokesman so they can more effectively communicate their message to the public.
0
reply
Unregistered
Badges:
#164
Report 16 years ago
#164
(Original post by vienna95)
its quite simple. you can either have free treatment on the NHS, or take a substantial proportion of the money and take it to private treatment. for many operations this means millions of households would be able to choose between private or NHS care..
That was precisely the point I was making. The ones who will be able to take a substantial proportion of money from the public purse and top it up with their own to get fast, private treatment with any reference to their means are the very ones who could afford the full cost of private treatment in the first place, either outright or through very costly insurace cover.
Once again, the Tories pander to the wealthy! It's cold out there in the political wilderness!!
0
reply
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#165
Report 16 years ago
#165
(Original post by edders)
wow you really are stupid like you say in your sig, but ill forgive you
theyre having one spokesman so they can more effectively communicate their message to the public.
What's that? "We don't give an damn about health and education" ?

In fact, I know - why not have one spokesman for ALL their policies - even easier to communicate to the public!

I vote for Widdecombe.
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#166
Report 16 years ago
#166
Theresa May must be chuffed - finally recognition that it takes 2 men to do the work of one woman
0
reply
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#167
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#167
(Original post by Unregistered)
The ones who will be able to take a substantial proportion of money from the public purse and top it up with their own to get fast, private treatment with any reference to their means are the very ones who could afford the full cost of private treatment in the first place, either outright or through very costly insurace cover.
thats obviously wrong. youre not either 'rich' or 'poor' but somewhere along a spectrum of earnings. state funding would allow many to afford private treatment who wouldnt be able to otherwise.
0
reply
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#168
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#168
(Original post by llama boy)
What's that? "We don't give an damn about health and education" ?
if thats the case whats this we're talking about their new health and education policies?
0
reply
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#169
Report 16 years ago
#169
(Original post by edders)
wow you really are stupid like you say in your sig, but ill forgive you
theyre having one spokesman so they can more effectively communicate their message to the public.
I know I am edders, I need a lot of explaining .

How can one person do two massive portfolios and communicate them easily? The NHS is massive - needs one person to concentrate on it and present it to the people.
0
reply
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#170
Report 16 years ago
#170
(Original post by edders)
thats obviously wrong. youre not either 'rich' or 'poor' but somewhere along a spectrum of earnings. state funding would allow many to afford private treatment who wouldnt be able to otherwise.
Exactly. And the state should not be funding an inegalitarian healthcare system.
0
reply
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#171
Report 16 years ago
#171
(Original post by llama boy)
What's that? "We don't give an damn about health and education" ?

In fact, I know - why not have one spokesman for ALL their policies - even easier to communicate to the public!

I vote for Widdecombe.
LOL maybe they only need one cos they on ehave one policy - no to europe!
0
reply
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#172
Report 16 years ago
#172
(Original post by edders)
if thats the case whats this we're talking about their new health and education policies?
You mean the ones that set both on the road away from being publicly owned?
0
reply
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#173
Report 16 years ago
#173
(Original post by edders)
thats obviously wrong. youre not either 'rich' or 'poor' but somewhere along a spectrum of earnings. state funding would allow many to afford private treatment who wouldnt be able to otherwise.
Not many - only a few. I don't know many who have a few £1000s in the bank so that they can jump the queue.
0
reply
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#174
Report 16 years ago
#174
(Original post by edders)
thats obviously wrong. youre not either 'rich' or 'poor' but somewhere along a spectrum of earnings. state funding would allow many to afford private treatment who wouldnt be able to otherwise.
Yes, and somewhere along that spectrum is a point where people on one side can afford it and people on the other can't.

Therefore, in this context, "rich" and "poor".
0
reply
Unregistered
Badges:
#175
Report 16 years ago
#175
(Original post by edders)
thats obviously wrong. youre not either 'rich' or 'poor' but somewhere along a spectrum of earnings. state funding would allow many to afford private treatment who wouldnt be able to otherwise.
Would that include the most vulnerable members of society who have the greatest need - those who have disabling long term illnesses that have resulted in them being able to work to earn sufficient monies to top-up vouchers for these private treatment fees! No!!! That is why I am incensed about passports. They offer no help whatsoever to those in greatest need. Once again the tories will ignore them - how can they claim to be coming more from the middle - they are lurching inexorably much deeper to the right (which is not right!)
0
reply
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#176
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#176
(Original post by Unregistered)
Would that include the most vulnerable members of society who have the greatest need - those who have disabling long term illnesses that have resulted in them being able to work to earn sufficient monies to top-up vouchers for these private treatment fees! No!!! That is why I am incensed about passports. They offer no help whatsoever to those in greatest need. Once again the tories will ignore them - how can they claim to be coming more from the middle - they are lurching inexorably much deeper to the right (which is not right!)
but if lots of people go private money/facilities will be freed for these people to use?
0
reply
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#177
Report 16 years ago
#177
(Original post by edders)
but if lots of people go private money/facilities will be freed for these people to use?
Not if they take the NHS money with them when they go, as is being proposed.
0
reply
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#178
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#178
(Original post by llama boy)
Yes, and somewhere along that spectrum is a point where people on one side can afford it and people on the other can't.

Therefore, in this context, "rich" and "poor".
its not that clear-cut, its a matter of how much you want private treatment/how prepared you are to pay to skip the queue.
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#179
Report 16 years ago
#179
Once insurers start to be sued under the Disability Discrimintation Act for un-substantiated discrimination things will start to change and disabled people may be able to buy reasonable health/life/travel/car insurance (and maybe I won't be in a situation where if my husband dies I'll have to sell our house within a month because noone will provide life insurance and I can't afford the mortgage alone).
0
reply
not1
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#180
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#180
(Original post by llama boy)
Not if they take the NHS money with them when they go, as is being proposed.
its really not that hard to understand. the NHS doesnt pay for ALL the private healthcare costs. for eg. if the NHS paid 50% of the private costs 50% would be left for the NHS, as opposed to 100% being used up if theyd got the treatment on the NHS.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you do not get the A-level grades you want this summer, what is your likely next step?

Take autumn exams (178)
46.48%
Take exams next summer (56)
14.62%
Change uni choice through clearing (90)
23.5%
Apply to uni next year instead (41)
10.7%
I'm not applying to university (18)
4.7%

Watched Threads

View All