GB taxes subsidise US Health

GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 235th post - 1 Nov 2004 17:39
So, as well as keeping the parasite British private health industry alive by paying its training costs, we are now doing the same for America, the Land of the Freemarket 'Die As You Pay' health system.
If the free market in nurses had to pay to train its own staff, it would disappear overnight. Instead, we, the Sap British Taxpayer, pay through the nose to train healthworkers in the NHS, only for them to be poached by ambulance chasing vultures like BUPA and the US Factory Health corporations.

You wonder why the NHS costs more each year and is short staffed, look no further than your friendly BUPA rep - and of course, the free market contradiction he represents.

If the government wanted to solve the NHS's problems overnight, all it would have to do is impose a Training Levy on all private health staff trained at the expense of the taxpayer.

Why won't they do that? [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health James StGeorge - 3250th post - 2 Nov 2004 11:19
Simple, make the training fees like university ones. Make them pay back the cost as well.
[JamesStGeorge my h2g2 page search there with no spaces] [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 249th post - 2 Nov 2004 11:41
So how do you make nurses' wages high enough to repay the fees? You prepared to pay the tax? No, didn't think so. But you are prepared for your tax to subsidise the profits of a sub-standard service which only deals in the economically viable diseases and when it makes a disastrous mistake, always knows that the state service is there to pick up the pieces.
You are, in principle, prepared to see NHS patients waiting in corridors rather than see a drop in the profits of BUPA. That's essentially what you're saying. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health James StGeorge - 3248th post - 2 Nov 2004 12:48
Nurses wages are already very highly paid, certainly more than the lower limit that university student have to pay back their fees. The individual is the beneficiary, they reasonably ought to pay for their training. That leaves them free to work where they wish. The NHS is quite happy to take the free training of third world nurses depriving those countries of their money and resource.
BUPA's profits are of no concern or relevance way or the other.

[JamesStGeorge my h2g2 page search there with no spaces] [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 251st post - 2 Nov 2004 15:39
If 'Nurses wages are already very highly paid' why are we so short of them?
Would you be one?
And Society is the ultimate beneficiary, or should be - that's why we pay for it, not to finance the dreary consumer spending of BUPA's shareholders and executives. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health James StGeorge - 3253rd post - 2 Nov 2004 16:03
Were it the sort of thing I was good at doing , to right I would, it would increase my income considerably.
[JamesStGeorge my h2g2 page search there with no spaces] [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 254th post - 2 Nov 2004 16:22
And why do you think that the rest of the able-bodied British workforce don't feel the same way as you?
Why are we short of nurses if the pay is so good? (2) [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health motorist - 2730th post - 2 Nov 2004 16:23
maybe the humungous unpaid overtime puts them off? [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: GB taxes subsidise US Health James StGeorge - 3261st post - 2 Nov 2004 16:41
It is unfashionable, and entrance has been made ridiculous with degree requirements, ordinary girls will just go and be beauticians or holiday reps. They have too many other options these days.
[JamesStGeorge my h2g2 page search there with no spaces] [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 257th post - 2 Nov 2004 17:35
So how much is a first year qualified nurse paid? I'm interested. If it's as much as you make out, I might have a pop myself.
More than a nail-polisher you say?

Well that's the future of the NHS secure then. You can't say fairer than that.

Still. I'm still baffled. Enormous wages and still no takers. Beats me.

Unfashionable you say. Not like a call-centre operator then? There seem to be plenty of those.

Naturally all those silly feckless girls we breed nowadays wouldn't want to be shlepping bedpans all day, as you say. They'd rather be teasing hair and chatting about their boyfriends. You know what they're like. And what is the incentive for a girl to get a career anyway? They only want to go and have kids and live on maternity leave and benefits and drink Bacardi Breezers and smoke Superkings and watch Trisha all day anyway. Apparently. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health James StGeorge - 3267th post - 2 Nov 2004 20:17
£17,000 is the lowest for qualified that I can see.
I fear your description is probably about right.

'Nannies', so called, child minders seem only to want to text their friends and meet up for a good part of the day to spend chatting rather than working. It is a dead easy life and well overpaid.

[JamesStGeorge my h2g2 page search there with no spaces] [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 261st post - 3 Nov 2004 11:53
So you think 17 grand is a generous wage after all those years of training.
For your information, the year is 2004, the prime minister is a Mr Tony Blair (Labour in its second term, would you believe) Women have the vote! Millwall just won the F.A. Cup, but not in Wembley, that was demolished not long after that business with the white horse - in Cardiff of all places. You don't want to know what's happening in America. And £17000 these days is a pittance.

For goodness sake, a loaf of bread costs £500!

Are you beginning to understand? Is daylight beginning to dawn? [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health James StGeorge - 3275th post - 3 Nov 2004 19:51
If you have that perspective you are exceedingly fortunate. It is considerably more than I earn after a longer training period and a considerable number of years experience. And this as a start, with vast amounts more as time goes by. It is also as I understand it more than the amount that requires loan repayment for student fees.
If you spend more than 50p rather than £500 you are either a fool or over wealthy!

I have long understood most are grossly overpaid. Dawn? it is midday, no light problem at all.
[reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 268th post - 4 Nov 2004 10:28
After tax, national insurance, rent, and council tax deductions, £17000 leaves you with about £120 to spend each week. You think this is 'enormous'?
Where do I start?

Is there any point?

I don't think so.

There's really nice hermit website I came across the other day. Can't remember the address off hand. Can you remember? [reply] [Complain about this post]



re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Jason D - 217th post - 1 Nov 2004 17:44
"If the government wanted to solve the NHS's problems overnight, all it would have to do is impose a Training Levy on all private health staff trained at the expense of the taxpayer."
Or pay them more so they wont go to the US or BUPA? After all, its money that attracts them there... isn't it? [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 237th post - 1 Nov 2004 17:52
If the NHS didn't waste money charitably training staff for the private sector, it COULD pay them more.
Otherwise it will be down to good old Middle England to stump up more cash, and they won't like that and if it happens they might get annoyed and De-Elect the Boy Blair and then under Micky The Teeth we would see BUPA execs dancing on operating tables.

And so is the democratic process kept in balance by the organic workings of gallant British entrepreneurialism. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Don Glen - 1917th post - 1 Nov 2004 17:51
What really puzzles, and annoys me, is the growth of "agency" nurses in the NHS. Instead of a nurse joining the NHS, she signs up with an agency who then act as broker and send her to work in a hospital at twice the cost of her original employment.
This is insane. The NHS should simply refuse to employ agency nurses at any price. In a month or two they would be out of existence. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Little Richardjohn - 238th post - 1 Nov 2004 17:54
But taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean banning British private medicine, wouldn't it?
Can you imagine how many apoplexies and attacks of the vapours that would bring on at the Daily Mail? [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: GB taxes subsidise US Health Rosie T - 97th post - 1 Nov 2004 18:08
My thoughts exactly while watching this evening's news.