So what do we think of this? Paying GPs to diagnose dementia

[Wirralson]

Anecdotal quotes mean zilch Wirralson, didn't you know that?

And free at the point of care is a provision that will NEVER be discounted no matter how many statistics get thrown at it...why?

Because it is the right thing to do.

Higher taxation IS the answer.

Oh and fewer reactionist number crunchers and more people with vision would help.

National Insurance is a compulsory tax on earnings...ALL taxes are compulsory insurance.

Experience does mean something. A social worker who has experience both Danish and British childrens' services and elderly care observed to me that she experienced the same problems in both. If you want some evidence on elderly care try this: http://www.esn-eu.org/news/324/index.html And it's no accident my friend works in London - she can't afford to live in Denmark given the tax levels. Her mother does the same - lives in UK because taxes are low and her perception is that elderly care is better (morer or less free in both countries as far as healthcare is concened,

My point is simple and your World Bank list makes it for me: high taxes do not automatically lead to better services. They only increase the volume of revenue - but how you spend the actual revenue is far more important - and you need the number crunchers to translate any vision (even your dystopian one) into a workable reality.

You also need a little context on Scandanavian taxes. One little quirk of the Swedish tax system for many years was that you could set interest payments on some loans against tax. So for many Swedes their actual tax rate was lower than headline figures suggest. (The policy objective was to stimulate spending and discourage saving to boost economic growth in the 70s and 80s.)

Higher taxation most definitely is not of itself = note the emphasis - the answer to any question. What matters most is the efficiency of how money is channeled to where it is needed, and direct taxation funding is a pretty inefficient way of doing that. Imposing a hypothecated levy (as the Danes actually do with their so-called health tax) does at least ring-fence health expenditure by reserving a specific income stream to it. How you tax and the transparency of your tax system is of vital importance in sustaining any funding level. Unless the policy makers understand the basic legal, policy and financial building blocks, any policy they devise is doomed to failure, regardless of its ideological stripe.

The sooner Free at the Point of Delivery Healthcare is ended, the better our healthcare system will be - even if it remains publicly funded. But What is unforgiveable is the shambles that using taxation-based funding automatically imposes. (And taxes aren't insurance - they are state-sanctioned theft.)

W

 

[garnuft]

(And taxes aren't insurance - they are state-sanctioned theft.)

There's the nub. And there's the rub.

The World Bank list WASN'T about taxation, you just choose to think it was.
It was about wealth per capita.

Any policy or ideology is NOT bound to demise...we make the laws, we make the fiscal boundaries, we dictate the pace.

 

[stanleypj]

Experience does mean something.

Sorry, garnuff is correct. What a friend has told you about her personal view of the comparison between countries doesn't constitute any kind of argument. I'm surprised you persist after this has been pointed out.

(And taxes aren't insurance - they are state-sanctioned theft.

Is this meant to be some kind of joke?

 

[handyjack]

And taxes aren't insurance - they are state-sanctioned theft

Quite true Wirralson. Just look at the revenue raised by car tax and petrol duty and vat on fuel, then look at the state of the roads we have to drive on.

 

[sue38]

Can I remind all members that whilst healthy and respectful debate is welcome on the forum, posts which are political and/or personally abusive are not.

3.2 Messages must not be obscene, defamatory or libellous, inflammatory, vulgar, sexually orientated, racial, political, hateful, threatening, in violation of any laws or good morals and practice or personally abusive. You hereby undertake to indemnify and hold harmless Alzheimer's Society against all costs and expenses from any such actions by you.

Let's keep it respectful .

 

[garnuft]

Yes...I think describing my idea of Society as dystopian contravenes T&Cs.

 

[Kevinl]

Yes...I think describing my idea of Society as dystopian contravenes T&Cs.

Well don't get yourself banned I like your posts.

Anyway according to the Daily Fail they've been trialling this in Bristol for months and paying the Doctors £200 per diagnosis (link below.
Has anyone in the area noticed any upsurge in activity as predicted will happen?
Has everyone in Bristol over 50 been getting letter off the doctor to "come in for a checkup", is the whole of Bristol now on Aricept and all the other predictions?
Either way up I don't see doctors should be paid more for doing their already well paid job be it looking for or monitoring AZ, high blood pressure, cholesterol or anything else.
K

 

[LYN T]

Yes...I think describing my idea of Society as dystopian contravenes T&Cs.

Yes Gwen

I think, if anyone reads through the whole of your posts, describing your ideas/points as dystopian is very far of the mark.

I think your views could be described as outlining a realistic utopia -if taxes are raised etc. Not a bad thing in my opinion. But what do I know? I'm just your average person hoping that one day the vulnerable in our Society will be treated equally and with compassion.

 

[Wirralson]

Sorry, garnuff is correct. What a friend has told you about her personal view of the comparison between countries doesn't constitute any kind of argument. I'm surprised you persist after this has been pointed out.



Is this meant to be some kind of joke?

pNo. And Garnuft's highly political posts are distinctly lacking in evidence. Perhaps you can point out where she posted evidence of the quality of Danish public services (of which she presumably has no experience - my friends do.) I'd be more impressed if I saw some actual economic comparisons between the UK's position and the Scandinavian experience. Try reading "The Economist" for some excellent (and balanced) critiques of the Scandinavian approach (subscription only in some cases so no link). I also provided links to an academic paper which illustrated clearly that the same problems occur across countries - which given that they are North-West European post industrial democracies with an ageing population is pretty much what one would expect. And the underlying point - that high taxes on their own do not guarantee quality public services - remains.

Taxes are indeed state-sanctioned theft. A state is any internationally recognised body with a monopoly of coercive power within its boundaries - otherwise called a national legal system. The fact that a legal system makes actions lawful doesn't make it any less coercive (in the sense in which political scientists and lawyers use the term). Theft is the intention permanently to deprive a person of property unlawfully - all that the state does is legitimise its own actions hence the term state sanctioned theft for taxation. It is a quotation (actually from a US Court Case about a rather different issue). It is necessary for it to do this for funding its own functions, but essentially what states do with taxation is legitimise an activity which would otherwise be unlawful.

Finally this isn't your or her personal space any more than it's mine, but the political nature of Garnuft's posts is IMHO treading the boundaries of a breach of T&Cs. Perosnally I enjoy them, but any action is up to the Moderators - not me.

W

 

[Wirralson]

There's the nub. And there's the rub.

The World Bank list WASN'T about taxation, you just choose to think it was.
It was about wealth per capita.

Any policy or ideology is NOT bound to demise...we make the laws, we make the fiscal boundaries, we dictate the pace.

Read what I posted. I didn't say it was about taxation. I said that it needed to eb read with caution as it listed % of GDP spend on health care. Your post separately mentioned high taxation and I also responded to that. I repeat - high tax (and separately) high % spend of GDP on Healthcare doesn't guarantee the (positive) outcome of improved public services. My own preference is for private provision not for ideological reasons simply because it is easier for the public sector to redirect the activity more easily - direct public control makes it very hard to shift policy - for example in favour of more flexible elderly care.

Finally, I assume from your dismissal of "mere anecdote", you have first-hand experience of Danish elderly care? Or peer-reviewed evidence of comparisons from a recognised academic body? Happy to read either. My point was simply a gentle caution - things are seldom quite as rosy in other countries as we want to believe. (Trust me on this, if I thought the Danes or anyone else had the answer, I'd be all for it.)

The World Bank stats incidentally include private spend as well as public at least in respect of US Healthcare spend - and the US has the highest healthcare spend as % of GDP but some of the greatest variations in health outcomes.

 

[stanleypj]

Taxes are indeed state-sanctioned theft. A state is any internationally recognised body with a monopoly of coercive power within its boundaries - otherwise called a national legal system. The fact that a legal system makes actions lawful doesn't make it any less coercive (in the sense in which political scientists and lawyers use the term). Theft is the intention permanently to deprive a person of property unlawfully - all that the state does is legitimise its own actions hence the term state sanctioned theft for taxation. It is a quotation (actually from a US Court Case about a rather different issue). It is necessary for it to do this for funding its own functions, but essentially what states do with taxation is legitimise an activity which would otherwise be unlawful.

I invite people to read this paragraph and draw their own conclusions as to whether the original statement can be justified.

 

[LYN T]

I'm a simple soul Consequently I have a simple outlook on life generally

I admit that I have idealistic leanings-but even those are simple

I would like to live in a country where people don't whinge about paying taxes when they are needed to help the vulnerable in our Society. I would like the NHS to continue to be free 'at the point of delivery' surely this is a core principal of the NHS, and has been since it's concept? I know that we pay for eye tests/prescriptions etc-but if certain criteria are met these are subsidised, or free.

The thought of having no NHS leaves me cold-it's by no means perfect-but better than having to rely on private medical insurance. The health of poorer members of our society could suffer. Imagine being a parent and having to choose between paying for medical care or food on the table? That's something I wouldn't like to face if I had young children.

W-how would we pay for anything without taxation? You call it state sanctioned theft-I call it a caring obligation by Society to provide for our innocent children and other vulnerable folk. If the State doesn't collect taxes do we have to hope that people will just put into the 'pot' to enable the services and infrastructure to continue?

Lyn T

 

[Bree]

I diagnosed my OH's AZ, the GP didn't agree with my diagnosis at first, will they pay me ?

 

[garnuft]

My next door neighbour's elderly sister has lived in Denmark for 30 years, when I bump into her while walking the dog, I'll ask her what her sister thinks of life in Denmark...adding to that well-respected bank of scientific research filed under 'hearsay'.

In the meantime I found these articles...

https://sweden.se/society/why-swedes-are-okay-with-paying-taxes/

http://unsdsn.org/resources/publications/world-happiness-report-2013/

found this...
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...le-tax-collectors-heroes-democracy?CMP=twt_gu

 

[stanleypj]

In 1959, I almost had a Swedish pen friend. I wrote to her and she never replied.

Terrible people, those Swedes, no wonder they're in such a mess.

 

[ASH74]

Returning to the original topic of this thread.....I have been a teacher for many years ....I am now subject to performance related pay...i.e. If I do a good job I get more pay.....I have been teaching long enough to remember the days when we all got the same pay however good or bad we were! Now I have always striven to be a good teacher.....and my performance related pay reflects that.....previously I wasn't recognised for going that extra mile! Some of my colleagues who did far less than I did got the same pay in the past which I thought was unfair, but it didn't stop me being a good teacher. Now I am sure it is the same for doctors there are fantastic doctors who go that extra mile money isn't their first thought but if this incentive motivates those who aren't interested (like my FIL's GP) then this initiative might achieve something. I might not have had to fight for a year to get a referral for my FIL and as a family we might not have had so much stress.

I know medicine and teaching are meant to be vocations but the world we work in has changed.






Sent from my iPad using Talking Point

 

[LYN T]

Gwen-point proven I believe

 

[LYN T]

In 1959, I almost had a Swedish pen friend. I wrote to her and she never replied.

Terrible people, those Swedes, no wonder they're in such a mess.

Perhaps she was happily going through her tax return

 

[Wirralson]

I invite people to read this paragraph and draw their own conclusions as to whether the original statement can be justified.

It has been justified by better and brighter commentators than either of us, stanley. Any basic introduction to theories of the state and state power (whether of the left or the right) will produce a range of views, including plenty in support of the original statement (which is pretty mainstream in the US in particular, where it goes back to the "no taxation without representation" cry that helped spark the American Revolution). The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less justifiable as a point of view.

Application of taxation at Danish and Swedish apparentrates of personal taxation to the UK population as they stand would hit two groups hardest: the poor and those on fixed incomes (mainly pensioners and the disabled). Is that what Garnuft really wants?

W

 

[stanleypj]

It has been justified by better and brighter commentators than either of us, stanley. Any basic introduction to theories of the state and state power (whether of the left or the right) will produce a range of views, including plenty in support of the original statement (which is pretty mainstream in the US in particular, where it goes back to the "no taxation without representation" cry that helped spark the American Revolution). The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less justifiable as a point of view.

Application of taxation at Danish and Swedish apparentrates of personal taxation to the UK population as they stand would hit two groups hardest: the poor and those on fixed incomes (mainly pensioners and the disabled). Is that what Garnuft really wants?

W

Yes, I'm sure your views would find you a home in the Tea Party.

If you are right about this being a mainstream view in the US (and, having lived and worked in the US myself*, I think you are exaggerating the support) it would help to explain why the US is noted as such an unequal society, lagging way behind most of Europe.

But then perhaps you believe in inequality?

* My view based on my direct experience