£10 charge to visit A&E?

[For Us All]

But by far the main demand on the NHS is coming from an ageing population not immigration?

 

Latest figures show that 20% of A&E attendances are alcohol related.

[geosname]

Latest figures show that 20% of A&E attendances are alcohol related.

 

What proportion of the NHS does A&E represent?

[For Us All]

What proportion of the NHS does A&E represent?

 

Good question,I don't know if there are any stats?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Latest figures show that 20% of A&E attendances are alcohol related.

 

As I said, by far the main demand on the NHS is coming from an ageing population

 

About 70% of NHS budget is spent on chronic conditions so A&E falls into the other 30%..whcih obvioulsy includes acute condtions etc

[kevin_struggles]

Do you object to paying into a system for others to receive care that they cannot afford to pay for themselves?

 

I dont know, I'm torn becasue there is obvioulsy a need for quality care for those who genuinely cant provide for themselves but I'm against having a system that is so esily abused.

 

I'm not against paying in for others but I woudld want gerater clarity on what constitutes a poor person. If they can afford a car, three kids, broadband, sky, daily visits to the pub, annual holidays and regular take-aways then I wouldnt call them poor.

 

In this country if you pay for everything yourself you have to make sacrifices so you can pay for what is essential. In my opinion many so-called poor people are just people who dont make those sacrifices and expect everything to be topped up from the benfits system and I think that has to change.

[kevin_struggles]

As I said, by far the main demand on the NHS is coming from an ageing population

 

About 70% of NHS budget is spent on chronic conditions so A&E falls into the other 30%..whcih obvioulsy includes acute condtions etc

 

Arguably that is fair enough because the older you are the more money you are likely to have paid in. After lifetime paying taxes it would be a bit much to say older people are a drain on the system (I know you havent said that exactly but some people appear to view it that way)

 

The problem is each generation pays for the previous one and there arent enough people in this generation who are working and paying taxes, they are too busy chasing pipe dreams at university, depsite overwhelming evidence that the highly paid jobs they are chasing dont exist in the required numbers.

 

The answer, as always, is more jobs.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Arguably that is fair enough because the older you are the more money you are likely to have paid in.

 

I have no issue with the elderly being the biggest drain on the NHS...they have by and large paid on so it's their turn tio take out; I was merely seeking to highligt that it's not immigrants who are drainig the NHS

 

 

The answer is a growing economy so that demand for labour increases so either there are more jobs or people get paid more for doing their jobs in order to hold onto them...so more tax revenue without destroying things thru punitive tax rates

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I dont know, I'm torn becasue there is obvioulsy a need for quality care for those who genuinely cant provide for themselves but I'm against having a system that is so esily abused.

 

I'm not against paying in for others but I woudld want gerater clarity on what constitutes a poor person. If they can afford a car, three kids, broadband, sky, daily visits to the pub, annual holidays and regular take-aways then I wouldnt call them poor.

 

In this country if you pay for everything yourself you have to make sacrifices so you can pay for what is essential. In my opinion many so-called poor people are just people who dont make those sacrifices and expect everything to be topped up from the benfits system and I think that has to change.

 

Whilst I agree in principle whilst we have a benefits system and free at the point of need health servcies there will always be people who abuse it..it's the price we pay for having such services, However govt does have a responsibility to the tax payer and those in genuine need to do all it can to minimise the abuse but mustn't throws the baby out with the bath water...i.e take servcies away form the genuinely needy in trying to deal with those abusing the system.

 

IMO the so called bedroom tax is an example where they are trying to do the right thing but have got it wrong in the implementation cos of the adverse effects on many that are genuinely in need of a spare room or are unable to find an alternative.

[kevin_struggles]

Whilst I agree in principle whilst we have a benefits system and free at the point of need health servcies there will always be people who abuse it..it's the price we pay for having such services, However govt does have a responsibility to the tax payer and those in genuine need to do all it can to minimise the abuse but mustn't throws the baby out with the bath water...i.e take servcies away form the genuinely needy in trying to deal with those abusing the system.

 

Thats where we differ, I think its time to pull the plug out and if that means the baby goes then so be it.

 

I think the abuse is too deep rooted now, its not even recognised as abuse by many I dont see how we get back to the principles the NHS was based on. Attitudes would have to swing too far and I dont see it happening.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

For me it's a price worth paying to ensure the genuinely in need get the help they need..but that doesn't mean we can't do better in addressing the issue

 

So we'll have to agree to disagree(I'm getting too soft)

[kevin_struggles]

For me it's a price worth paying to ensure the genuinely in need get the help they need..but that doesn't mean we can't do better in addressing the issue

 

So we'll have to agree to disagree(I'm getting too soft)

 

I agree, you are getting too soft ;)

 

There must be a way to balance it but there doesnt seem any political will to do so, its just used as a potential vote winner, we will spend X amount on the nHS etc etc.

 

BTW what did you think of my effort at poetry on Robs birthday thread, did you see it?

[carl]

Exactly what was claimed..they go for what is popular and will they believe get votes..they stand for nothing except trying to get elected..you just admitted it

 

It is the Labour and Conservative parties with their constant broken promises and issues used for their own political ends which you can judge in that respect. What UKIP want is to change the face of how policies are brought about and give people locally the chance to instigate where monies are spent, not like Labour who has wasted Millions locally whilst major general issues have been neglected, and the Tories who have inflicted serious financial hardship on the majority of society.

 

UKIP will be aware that they can be voted out in five years time. I would not say that they are going to be elected as the next government, but they are going to win quite a few seats around the country, which possibly will see them attaining a balance of power. The sooner the better I say.

[Tone]

You'll have to be more specific viz your source/reference, the refs you provided are mainly about enrollment in 2015 and the plans available in 2014. If your figures are correct l can't understand the discrepancies in the numbers.

 

As I said in a prior post, the figures were from hhs.gov.

 

Look here for a summary: http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/

[JOHNNYAITCH]

It is the Labour and Conservative parties with their constant broken promises and issues used for their own political ends which you can judge in that respect.

 

But you posted this about UKIP "they have had to adjust their policies through years of learning themselves by talking to the public on what is popular and what isn't" so obvioulsy you think UKIP is just adjusting its policies to reflect what is popular..they don't have a stance, ethos etc just populist polices.

 

and the Tories who have inflicted serious financial hardship on the majority of society.

 

Err..no they haven't

 

UKIP will be aware that they can be voted out in five years time. I would not say that they are going to be elected as the next government, but they are going to win quite a few seats around the country, which possibly will see them attaining a balance of power. The sooner the better I say.

 

I think they'll get lots of votes but very few seats..not enough to make any diffeence anyway..but we shall see

[Bea Smith]

But you posted this about UKIP "they have had to adjust their policies through years of learning themselves by talking to the public on what is popular and what isn't" so obvioulsy you think UKIP is just adjusting its policies to reflect what is popular..they don't have a stance, ethos etc just populist polices.

 

 

 

Err..no they haven't

 

 

 

I think they'll get lots of votes but very few seats..not enough to make any diffeence anyway..but we shall see

 

 

 

If Carl is right and his ukip have been actually listening to what the public wants, there is nothing wrong with this. Are you saying the other parties should NOT listen to public opinion, perhaps just your own opinion ?

 

the tory mobsters... err... YES they have and you just saying they haven't won't change things. Just because you don't go to a food bank, IT DOESNT CHANGE THE FACT THAT OVER A MILLION PEOPLE DEPEND ON THEM.

 

Just because you are sitting there warm and smug, it doesn't mean millions of elderly people have got their heting lower, and just because you have a reasonable lifestyle and a job where you can stay home and play on websites half the day doesn't mean that millions either cant get a job or have to work for a pittance in a scabby call centre or some other dump.

 

UKIPs votes also may be distributed quite differently from your own inflexible forecasted picture - all the experts agree they have no idea what this election should be like, so why should you know better oh great Oracle.