Covid restrictions - are you adhering or not?

[Count Steer]

In the longer term we should seriously consider a special tax on tobacco/alcohol/burgers just to fund extra NHS capacity.

It always seems a bit 'odd' when a government says something is really, really bad so we're going to rake in a lot of cash from it (and then they get 'addicted' to the cash flow). Taxing booze and tobacco doesn't really seem to make that much difference other than give a boost to smugglers does it? Optically it's probably better to tax companies that profit from the sales than at point of sale but that's still window dressing the relationship. I dunno what the answer is though - 'education' doesn't seem to work, banning isn't acceptable (not everyone drinks or eats to excess) so I guess tax is the least worst option....it just doesn't sit well.

[DefTrap]

And motorcyclists, cyclists, climbers, swimmers, car drivers, office workers, soldiers,

... die of obesity, smoking or covid they'll only die of something else anyway, so no need for masks?

And of course the rest of the time, nobody could give a shit. It's just a good excuse to have a pop.

[Cousin Jack]

In the longer term we should seriously consider a special tax on tobacco/alcohol/burgers just to fund extra NHS capacity.

It always seems a bit 'odd' when a government says something is really, really bad so we're going to rake in a lot of cash from it (and then they get 'addicted' to the cash flow). Taxing booze and tobacco doesn't really seem to make that much difference other than give a boost to smugglers does it? Optically it's probably better to tax companies that profit from the sales than at point of sale but that's still window dressing the relationship. I dunno what the answer is though - 'education' doesn't seem to work, banning isn't acceptable (not everyone drinks or eats to excess) so I guess tax is the least worst option....it just doesn't sit well.

Seems to me that we need a more transparent tax system, where every tax is 'pointed' at a particular govt expenditure. So say Income tax could fund say education, defence and the NHS. If the govt chose to cut NHS expenditure, that element of tax falls too, and vice versa.

[Yambo]

In the longer term we should seriously consider a special tax on tobacco/alcohol/burgers just to fund extra NHS capacity.

It always seems a bit 'odd' when a government says something is really, really bad so we're going to rake in a lot of cash from it (and then they get 'addicted' to the cash flow). Taxing booze and tobacco doesn't really seem to make that much difference other than give a boost to smugglers does it? Optically it's probably better to tax companies that profit from the sales than at point of sale but that's still window dressing the relationship. I dunno what the answer is though - 'education' doesn't seem to work, banning isn't acceptable (not everyone drinks or eats to excess) so I guess tax is the least worst option....it just doesn't sit well.

The answer is very simple. Reduce the amount of NHS funding from taxation.

The required extra funding would come from health insurance. Require everyone to have health insurance (there could be a government run scheme administered by an insurance company) and access to that health insurance is dependent on a medical examination which includes examination of your medical records, right of abode in the UK and a couple of other criteria maybe.

The insurance companies know full well how to work out how much individuals should pay.

What funding comes out of taxation is used to man and equip the HNS.

[Count Steer]

In the longer term we should seriously consider a special tax on tobacco/alcohol/burgers just to fund extra NHS capacity.

The answer is very simple. Reduce the amount of NHS funding from taxation.

The required extra funding would come from health insurance.

Which causes a huge ramp in prices of medical treatments.
Anyone had any pet medical bills since pet insurance became a 'thing?
Anyone paid for their own physio since company health insurance became a 'thing?
Might work in Turkey if you have a surfeit of medics etc or maybe have a lot of poor people that can't afford medical treatment but nobody cares much...I suspect they still get treatment if you have a 2-tier system for rich/poor like America?

[Yambo]

Medical treatment isn't cheap shocker!

Maybe people should pay a lot more for medical treatment instead of not looking after themselves and expecting it for free. Or maybe people should simply pay for their medical treatment. Of hold on, they are paying, through taxation. I doubt they are paying as much in as they may require out though.

So, insurance covers it. Fit and healthy 60 year old pays x amount and fat lazy smoking drinking 30 something pays xxx amount. Parents can pay more for their children. It works for motor insurance.

Need a bit of fine tuning of course or maybe some coarse tuning if like you, people don't want to pay for medical treatment when it's required but are happy to keep paying when it's not. But then you can please some of the people . . .

Currently my taxes pay towards all of the NHS and I'm banned from using it. People who pay nothing towards the NHS - all of it, can get free treatment. That's not right, fair or good management.

I appreciate you personally don't have an answer but if all you're going to do is be negative about any proposal then maybe you should give up the right to complain about the current situation.

[gremlin]

I've often argued that a doctor's appointment should be charged to individuals who are able to pay. Easy yard stick is whether or not you pay for prescriptions. I know we all pay tax and NI already, but I can't help but think it would both reduce unnecessary GP visits, plus boost the coffers for the poor ol' NHS, gawd bless 'er.

I reckon £15 is a fair price, although I'm not sure I could trust the receptionists to work a card machine as they seem to struggle to find their arses with both hands.

[weeksy]

I've often argued that a doctor's appointment should be charged to individuals who are able to pay. Easy yard stick is whether or not you pay for prescriptions. I know we all pay tax and NI already, but I can't help but think it would both reduce unnecessary GP visits, plus boost the coffers for the poor ol' NHS, gawd bless 'er.

I reckon £15 is a fair price, although I'm not sure I could trust the receptionists to work a card machine as they seem to struggle to find their arses with both hands.

And about the tax and NI ? Will you want us to pay for Fire ? Police ? Ambulances ? Bin collection ? Street cleaning ? all on top as an extra service too ?

[Count Steer]

Medical treatment isn't cheap shocker!

Maybe people should pay a lot more for medical treatment instead of not looking after themselves and expecting it for free. Or maybe people should simply pay for their medical treatment. Of hold on, they are paying, through taxation. I doubt they are paying as much in as they may require out though.

So, insurance covers it. Fit and healthy 60 year old pays x amount and fat lazy smoking drinking 30 something pays xxx amount. Parents can pay more for their children. It works for motor insurance.

Need a bit of fine tuning of course or maybe some coarse tuning if like you, people don't want to pay for medical treatment when it's required but are happy to keep paying when it's not. But then you can please some of the people . . .

Currently my taxes pay towards all of the NHS and I'm banned from using it. People who pay nothing towards the NHS - all of it, can get free treatment. That's not right, fair or good management.

I appreciate you personally don't have an answer but if all you're going to do is be negative about any proposal then maybe you should give up the right to complain about the current situation.

I'll ignore the last bit unless you really want to discuss things in that way....or point out where I was complaining about the current situation.

Your solution: people likely to get sick pay more. So, a woman born with the genetic markers for breast cancer pays more health insurance.

No thanks. I'll stick with what we have and 'complain' that it could be made to work better.

[slowsider]

I've often argued that a doctor's appointment should be charged to individuals who are able to pay. Easy yard stick is whether or not you pay for prescriptions. I know we all pay tax and NI already, but I can't help but think it would both reduce unnecessary GP visits, plus boost the coffers for the poor ol' NHS, gawd bless 'er.

I reckon £15 is a fair price, although I'm not sure I could trust the receptionists to work a card machine as they seem to struggle to find their arses with both hands.

And about the tax and NI ? Will you want us to pay for Fire ? Police ? Ambulances ? Bin collection ? Street cleaning ? all on top as an extra service too ?

I pay for GP visits and bin collection. You prolly pay for A&E if you have a RTC.

But isn't his key point 'individuals who are able to pay'? That's how a progressive income tax system works anyway - those who have more pay more.

Where it falls over is that those who are not able to pay are often the smokers drinkers and eaters who will continue to use a free-at-the-point-of-use GP service anyway.

[MrLongbeard]

Just ban old people, them living longer is what's caused all the strain on the NHS.

[weeksy]

Just ban old people, them living longer is what's caused all the strain on the NHS.

Can i at least get to 50 ?

[Mussels]

I've often argued that a doctor's appointment should be charged to individuals who are able to pay. Easy yard stick is whether or not you pay for prescriptions. I know we all pay tax and NI already, but I can't help but think it would both reduce unnecessary GP visits, plus boost the coffers for the poor ol' NHS, gawd bless 'er.

I reckon £15 is a fair price, although I'm not sure I could trust the receptionists to work a card machine as they seem to struggle to find their arses with both hands.

Most of that group are probably the ones who should see their doctors a little more often and not the people wasting GPs time.

[slowsider]

Just ban old people, them living longer is what's caused all the strain on the NHS.

The first stage was moving them out unscreened to care homes at the start of the pandemic.

[MrLongbeard]

Just ban old people, them living longer is what's caused all the strain on the NHS.

Can i at least get to 50 ?

OK.
But you have to give up everything that increases your risk of requiring medial attention over and above the accepted norms of living a healthy lifestyle.

[weeksy]

But you have to give up everything that increases your risk of requiring medial attention over and above the accepted norms of living a healthy lifestyle.

DO you have a list ? and how much longer will i live if i give them up ?

What if i die of something else ? Will you compensate my family ?

[MrLongbeard]

DO you have a list ? and how much longer will i live if i give them up ?

Anything which increases your risk where a safer alternative is available.
eg, you enjoy downhill mountain biking, and this is a healthy activity, however it is too dangerous now and the NHS can't cope, the same health benefits can be achieved with an exercise bike in your garage and a much reduced risk.
So give up the downhill stuff, or fully fund any medical needs arising from it, and be able to demonstrate such funds are available.

What if i die of something else ? Will you compensate my family ?

No, but they will be permitted to remove all precious elements and sell your organs from your body before disposal.


Or we could carry on as we are, accept that those who abuse their bodies are less likely to be a long term burden on the system than those who look after themselves, and it all kind of comes out even in the long run.
Oh, but maybe look into better use of resources

[weeksy]

DO you have a list ? and how much longer will i live if i give them up ?

Anything which increases your risk where a safer alternative is available.
eg, you enjoy downhill mountain biking, and this is a healthy activity, however it is too dangerous now and the NHS can't cope, the same health benefits can be achieved with an exercise bike in your garage and a much reduced risk.
So give up the downhill stuff, or fully fund any medical needs arising from it, and be able to demonstrate such funds are available.

What if i die of something else ? Will you compensate my family ?

No, but they will be permitted to remove all precious elements and sell your organs from your body before disposal.


Or we could carry on as we are, accept that those who abuse their bodies are less likely to be a long term burden on the system than those who look after themselves, and it all kind of comes out even in the long run.
Oh, but maybe look into better use of resources

What if MTBing gives me more benefits in terms of weight/heart/fitness/health over the amounts i take out from breaking bones etc ?

[DefTrap]

I pay for doc's visits over here (long story but I'm not "in the system") - so each visit is c 25€. I'm fine with that, I can afford it, but then cross fingers I'm reasonably healthy (I do ride bikes though, I probably drink too much cheap wine, I should shed a few pounds, I might have the occasional smoke) at this point.
But obviously there are repercussions if we start talking about paying for long term illnesses, especially those that could be causally linked to my out-of-control hedonistic lifestyle. You get to see the cost price of healthcare over here (they often bill you and then give it right back) and even short hospital stays are eye wateringly expensive.

[MrLongbeard]

Easy yard stick is whether or not you pay for prescriptions.

But but but fatties with self inflicted type II diabetes get free prescriptions.
No I'm not bitter, just because I have a life long illness which impacts my health detrimentally, and the medical illness list hasn't been looked at properly for yonks and have to pay for my drugs.

Hell, it'd be easier to get NHS funding for gender reassignment surgery than for them to fork out the cost of a Ventolin inhaler