[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Traduk

Twice your age + 1.

What you fail to take into account is that this country is based on elements within society being totally free at point of delivery. We do not have the structure which allows for co-pay or full pay for the services that are inherent within the system and have been since the initiation of the welfare state.

I entirely take it into account and disregard it. It doesn't work anymore and needs to be disregarded. When it comes to my and my family's future I couldn't care less what the country is built on, I care where it is going I couldn't give a jot for nostalgia I want whatever works and offers the best prospects.

Originally Posted by Traduk

Your views generally are very right wing but as a generality talent is not rewarded in a manner that facilitates pay as you go. An example would be a surgeon on about the money you appear to earn who has left these shores for foreign parts for 2.5X UK salary. Even at highish tax rates he can co-pay for whatever is needed albeit it takes a move half way round the world to change the economic scenery.

I am somewhat disconcerted that my views are apparently 'very right wing'. I entirely disagree that they are 'very right wing', I am considerably to the left of the right wing in the United States for example. If I am 'very right wing' it shows how far to the left this country has swung, and we can all see how well that's worked out for us.

Originally Posted by Traduk

I have used private dentistry for decades and without doubt I get the best that money can buy but it costs thousands for almost anything restorative. My choice forced by an absence of NHS facilities or even if available restricted to the bear minimum for oral health. That part of the NHS is already co-pay and beyond the basics of drill it, fill it or pull it, it costs. It is a basic and IMO poor service. It is one that I wouldn't want to see medicine follow but suspect that it will.

I disagree that there will be an inevitable co-pay element to medical care. I would however have no problem at all with there being a co-pay element for those who are capable of paying, on condition that there is an element of give in return, my specific thoughts being a tax incentive for having private healthcare rather than the current system of regarding it as a taxable benefit if provided by an employer.

Originally Posted by Traduk

I latched on to your post because there was an element of "I'm alright Jack" within it as there is with a lot of your posts. What you fail to recognise over and over is that somebody has to pay and trying to ameliorate your suggestions with wishing for the best treatment at the lowest cost cannot mathematically square with any change to what exists currently on a cost basis.

I would draw your attention to what I specifically said:

I only care about people getting the health care they need, when they need it, at a price be it via taxation, insurance or a combination of both which is as low as possible, to the highest feasible quality.

Caveats 'as possible' and 'highest feasible'. It will always be a balancing act, I'm not naive enough to think good medical care is cheap.

Originally Posted by Traduk

Your comments which you kindly highlighted for me advocate co-pay. The government is pursuing policies in other areas (universities) on where co-pay goes. It starts low to get the ideology accepted and then to save costs on the public purse the burden falls more heavily on the user. That is in action at this time.

What is wrong with the costs of using a service being in part borne by the user? Even super socialist France operates co-pay, I don't see riots over it there?

Originally Posted by Traduk

If the same principle gets into health everybody's future looks dire because invariably the time of greatest expense on and for an individual is when they are least able to afford it. My reference to your age is not personal but at your age insurances whether life or health are relatively low cost. As with both of those types of insurance as years progress and they become most needed they are priced according to risk and are prohibitively expensive, even for people with substantial financial backing.

I'm not advocating mandatory private insurance. Single payer insurance where risk is entirely socialised across all age groups needn't be inordinately expensive for the more elderly within society and, of course, I would hope no-one expects those who have reached the state retirement age to pay.

I draw your attention to this:

I couldn't even care less about it being completely free at the point of delivery, many other systems with much better patient outcomes employ selective co-pay.

I apologise if I was not clear but by 'selective' I was referring to selecting subsets who are capable of paying rather than expecting those on the bread line, those who have retired and those who are unemployed to pay.

Originally Posted by Traduk

I read your posts and frequently see a lack of differentiation from where this country has been to where it appears to be going.

I do not understand that statement. If it means what I think it means that is because I couldn't care less where this country has been as far as social services and health care go beyond avoiding the mistakes of the past and care only about where it is going.

Originally Posted by Traduk

Private pensions have always been historically linked to state provision with supplementation taking place one to the other. With the movement of retirement age that model is now bent moving on towards broken. Total self provision will not occur with historic co-pay (employer\employee) relationships. Both need to be doubled with pot\s being filled at around 33% of salary per annum over a working lifetime.

I cannot say this makes much more sense. Increasing the retirement age is absolutely required to offset increased life expectancy and ensure that schemes remain viable.

Originally Posted by Traduk

In retirement it is necessary to be fairly wealthy in untouchable money in order not to be poor. Heaven help us if this lot throws medical costs into the equation.

No-one apart from those who are genuinely on the right wing in a big way would even contemplate making retirees pay for health care. Even in the United States Medicare is present to look after them.