Quote:
Originally Posted by Avulon
No-one is claiming the NHS is 'Free' but 'Free of charge at point of delivery'. UK taxpayers pay for the NHS, notice I said 'taxpayers'. There are many UK citizens who are not tax payers that benefit from the NHS - should all these also be being charged in your view? How many generations of UK citizens should I count as my ancestors before I qualify in your view?
What decision(s) are you labelling as 'Crass' (stupid and insensitive)?
|
Semantics - the arguments recognise citizen funding and no, you don't open your wallet each time you leave the doctors surgery or hospital.
The NHS is treated/considered and abused by many as a 'free service' ie not valued - as one example just look at the number of missed GP appointments alone (and the attributed costs that some bean counter has used to illustrate the financial waste to the system) proof of attitudinal disregard of the 'no cost (to me)' service; administrational cost would not support the idea but if there were to be a refundable £15/appointment fee we'd soon see a huge increase in appoinment take-up (conversely, probably a significant drop in appointment numbers requested .....win win NHS, less pressure on the system, more time for treating genuine ailments).
As already mentioned, +5 decades funded by every citizen (taxpaying citizens if you insist), each to their means. True not all contribute and that fact was part of the equation for the original funding formula but the model was supposed to follow a right cone (wide funding base, relatively smaller usage frustrum) and not the trend to an inverse shape that has been allowed to develop through crass decisions and muddled thinking by successive administrations/dogmas.
Within the model, contributions by preceding generations essentially fund the future infrastructure/user. Once the model is unduly influenced from outside the system it starts to break down (inverted cone sydrome..).
Final word from me 'cos we can't solve anything; new joiners of the NHS club from 'outside' should contribute via a surcharge - it's a contribution and not full compensation for what they haven't paid (by comparison with a contemporary as I attempted to illustrate in an earlier post) - it's not perfect but it is logical and fair.