NHS Problems

[Pete G]

What do you mean when you say "they are purchasers"? I only can talk about the German system (which is covering me in all of the EU as well, btw) but the government isn´t involved at all. Neither do they purchase nor provide health care. They set the regulatory framework but that´s it.

I assume the German government pays for the service for those who cannot pay for themselves. I doubt the 1m 'refugees' they took in last year have made obtaining private healthcare for themselves a priority.

That is not to detract however, from the point I was trying to make, which is that the most inefficient way of providing universal healthcare is the one where the Government is directly responsible for the provision of the actual service

[Firefly]

Jeba

I don't agree with you.

Before we had children, our finances were discussed by my husband and I, as to whether his income was sufficient to keep us without thinking of applying for benefits. We were far from 'well off' but decided that we could afford to have children, and keep a roof over our heads, which we did. I stayed at home with both of my children until they became of school age. I consider this to be part of responsible parenting.

I do not see why anyone should pay income tax to finance people who have children irresponsibly, and expect the system to pay for their upkeep. I suggest that any child should be born into a family that isn't 'well off' but at least have sufficient income to maintain that child.

Royal

Good post, I had a chuckle re your lifestyle !

Jackie

[PhotoLady]

How much do you have to pay for the NHS? Is it a flat rate, is it a percentage of your earnings? How is it funded?

Hi Jeba
The link below is apparently the simple explanation of how the NHS is funded

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... nhs-funded

And this:

As an employee: You pay National Insurance contributions if you earn more than £157 a week. You pay 12% of your earnings above this limit and up to £866 a week (for 2017-18). The rate drops to 2% of your earnings over £866 a week.

[smudger]

Firefly, I so agree with your comments.
Once I became a single parent child care costs were my responsibilty, according to my ex husband. I therefore took my daughter to the nursery, funded by me and a 15 minute walk from our house. My two older xhildren went to a friends house to go to school with their children. I dropped her there and then walked 10 minutes to the bus to get me to work.

After leaving work at 5.00 I did this in reverse, arriving home around 6.00 p.m. When I had then to prepare the evening meal, supervise homework, get 3 children fed, bathed and ready for bed at the appropriate time, and in later years then sit down to study for my accountancy qualification until 11.00 when I fell into bed.

Holidays were a mixture of minimal supervision by my ex husband, various holiday activities and 3 weeks of my annual holiday supervising, amusing and teaching my children. This usually included a weeks holiday at Butlins Filey, or a caravan park.

All of this was funded by me, there was no child care support, no freebie holiday activities, no cheap holiday clubs...............and no parental or family support

Perhaps it may be clear why I'm so frustrated at families today, particularly the nuclear family with 2 parents and 2.4 children , with child care support, with paid maternity leave, plus paid paternity leave.

Yet who still cannot support the children they have chosen to have without oodles of benefits, plus child care by grandparents and/or living with parents to enable them to live and support the children they so ckearly cannot afford!!

Why? Perhaps its the 2 cars, without which the family simply cannot manage. Or perhaps its the mandatory overseas holidays, without which the family cannot manage, or perhaps it's the private school fees without which the family cannot possibly manage. Or perhaps it's the assorted iPads, iPhones, TVs, countless other technological wonders without which todays nuclear family cannot manage.

I find it strange that I managed to bring up three well adjusted and happy children, virtually on my own, yet today's parents can't possibly manage without huge inputs of benefits, help from parents and in the extreme, accommodation and child care provided by ageing parents.

All to fund the procreation of children which they clearly cannot afford??

[jeba]

I do not see why anyone should pay income tax to finance people who have children irresponsibly, and expect the system to pay for their upkeep. I suggest that any child should be born into a family that isn't 'well off' but at least have sufficient income to maintain that child.

You don´t finance people who behave irresponsibly but their children which cannot be blamed for their parents attitudes, hoping that financing their upbringing and education will help make them assets for society rather than liabilities.

[jeba]

How much do you have to pay for the NHS? Is it a flat rate, is it a percentage of your earnings? How is it funded?

Hi Jeba
The link below is apparently the simple explanation of how the NHS is funded

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/n ... nhs-funded

And this:

As an employee: You pay National Insurance contributions if you earn more than £157 a week. You pay 12% of your earnings above this limit and up to £866 a week (for 2017-18). The rate drops to 2% of your earnings over £866 a week.

Thanks for the info. Given that level of funding I´m not surprised that the level of care the NHS provides lets a lot to be desired (accoprding to what I learnt from Brits in Germany). Contributions to health care in Germany are roughly 50 % higher.

[Dominic]

Firefly, I so agree with your comments.
Once I became a single parent child care costs were my responsibilty, according to my ex husband. I therefore took my daughter to the nursery, funded by me and a 15 minute walk from our house. My two older xhildren went to a friends house to go to school with their children. I dropped her there and then walked 10 minutes to the bus to get me to work.

After leaving work at 5.00 I did this in reverse, arriving home around 6.00 p.m. When I had then to prepare the evening meal, supervise homework, get 3 children fed, bathed and ready for bed at the appropriate time, and in later years then sit down to study for my accountancy qualification until 11.00 when I fell into bed.

Holidays were a mixture of minimal supervision by my ex husband, various holiday activities and 3 weeks of my annual holiday supervising, amusing and teaching my children. This usually included a weeks holiday at Butlins Filey, or a caravan park.

All of this was funded by me, there was no child care support, no freebie holiday activities, no cheap holiday clubs...............and no parental or family support

Perhaps it may be clear why I'm so frustrated at families today, particularly the nuclear family with 2 parents and 2.4 children , with child care support, with paid maternity leave, plus paid paternity leave.

Yet who still cannot support the children they have chosen to have without oodles of benefits, plus child care by grandparents and/or living with parents to enable them to live and support the children they so ckearly cannot afford!!

Why? Perhaps its the 2 cars, without which the family simply cannot manage. Or perhaps its the mandatory overseas holidays, without which the family cannot manage, or perhaps it's the private school fees without which the family cannot possibly manage. Or perhaps it's the assorted iPads, iPhones, TVs, countless other technological wonders without which todays nuclear family cannot manage.

I find it strange that I managed to bring up three well adjusted and happy children, virtually on my own, yet today's parents can't possibly manage without huge inputs of benefits, help from parents and in the extreme, accommodation and child care provided by ageing parents.

All to fund the procreation of children which they clearly cannot afford??

So, today's parents all send their kids to private school and get huge benefits? Where did you get that notion from?

[Jimgward]

Smudger, it sounds like you did a good job, but please dont rely on sources like the Daily Mail for your views on modern society.

My son is a 'nucleur family' in your terms.... He has two kids at 14 months.... received no support for child care or any other stuff you imply...

I was a single father, looking after 2 kids, for years, who coped because of help from a sister and her husband, plus an ex-wife's Aunt.

I spent 3 months unemployed, and never even received a single penny in state support.

No doubt some scroungers get what they shouldn't, but the sensationalist media reports are just that.

Ask yourself, why we have more food banks than at any time since WW2?

What about Nurses only being around 5% better off since 2007, while the government spent OUR 640Bn bailing out the banks, yet did NOTHING to prevent large bonuses becoming the norm there again... Labour AND Conservative governments responsible for that.... In real terms, most workers are MUCH worse off than they were 10 years ago, yet Bankers are back doing what they do best..... earning themselves money....

[smudger]

Where did I exactly say that?. I cited many things which parents today claim, I find it strange that you pick up on " all send their kids to private schools and get huge benefits" which is absolutely NOT what I said.

But parents today get maternity benefit, paternity benefit and child care subsidies, along with working tax credits, child benefit........... etc etc.

Not a notion Dominic, fact, these are the benefits available to families now. Check it out.

The only benefit I recall getting was child benefit, a heck of a lot less than the same benefit received by child rearing families today. Think I may have got a pecuniary maternity benefit for a few weeks, not months again, a heck of a lot less than that claimed by parents today. Definitely no paternity leave.

Have read many stats on the number of parents sending their children to private schools, many of whom struggle to pay the fees, hence camping out with Mum and Dad. My simple argument is that it is totally unacceptable that the tax payer should pick up these costs.

[Jimgward]

Smudger. Sounds like jealousy....

Paternity leave is up to 2 weeks, at £140 a week statutory pay (some employers MAY choose to pay more). If they do, that's a perk of the job. Good employers realise the worth of their company is the quality of their staff - not necessarily the product or service.

Maternity leave is 6 weeks at 90% of average wage then 33 weeks of £140 a week. These sums are subject to Tax and NI.

So, nothing to sing about.... some employers pay more, as a perk... If they are large companies, then they will likely pay more for shorter periods on the basis of maybe getting their employee back earlier....

You sound like you're a 'baby boomer' whose generation will be better off than their children and grand-children, due to pensions, benefits and real earnings....

So, all isn't as rosy as you think.... The bill for 'benefits' has been falling for years.... so dont assume people are screwing the system or living great lives on others' money....

Many, many people live close to or in poverty. More than since WW2. Many are massively in debt in spiralling cycles with companies like "The Cheque Company" acting as modern day loan sharks.

I know of many in poor straits and its not nice. They aren't taking foreign holidays, driving two Chelsea Tractors or sending their kids to private school. If they're staying with parents, its more likely it's because their home has been repossessed or they're now a single parent and cant afford to live on their own.

[PhotoLady]

My opinion is there should only be a child benefit paid for the very first child - and that's it.
I also agree if people want to have kids they should take the responsibility to be able to provide for them without relying on financial help or handouts.

[smudger]

Jim I was the Finance Manager in the third largest school in the UK for 13 years prior to retiring, I'm also a qualified Certified Accountant, said qualification obtained whilst working full time and bringing up 3 children on my own.
I know exactly what I'm talking about in discussing benefits and leave. I'm jealous of no one, I worked damned hard for my qualification and am content with the benefits it brought me. I'm also happy with the job I did raising three children in my own, without the benefits and paid leave parents now get.

I have no answer for why your son received non of these benefits, but they are there and available to all.

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit/overview

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/so ... nefit.html

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Paterni ... t-FAQ.aspx

I did find that in a 9 month period of unemployment I almost lost my house due to misinformation given to me by the local employment office. After 6 months unemployment I qualified for a course, which gave infirmation about various benefits etc etc. I queried an item that had been given by the local employment officer re mortgage claims. I had been told by my local employment office thatbecause I had been deemed to have left my last employment voluntarily I was not eligible for mortgage benefits. The benfits officer running the course said no, this was incorrect, it should have been for 6 weeks only, after which, I should receive the full mortgage benefits. I then queried this with my local benefits office and was told that this was indeed correct, and that I should gave been receiving the full mortgage payments from the week after I had been unemployed for6 weeks. Unfortunately, given that I had by then been unemployed over six months I could only claim a minimal portion of past benefits, which I can't now remember, but think it was 6 weeks.

Sooooooo, my long drawn out post Jim is to simply say, don't take everything as gospel, the benefits people who advised me gave me the wrong information, because of which I almost lost my house as I was unable to keepup the mortgage payments. Mortgage payments - which had I been advised correctly, I could have claimed the appropriate benefits to ensure that my house would have been secure. As it was, I rescued my house by the very skin of my teeth. My own teeth I would add, not benefits!!

[Jimgward]

You ignored the rest of my post, re food banks, how much they get for maternity and paternity leave and the poverty many live in....

Teachers, as you'd know, get paid better maternity benefits, but since they have paid for 4 years training to become a teacher, they deserve some benefits...

[jeba]

My opinion is there should only be a child benefit paid for the very first child - and that's it.

Do you think that will increase the birth rate?

[smudger]

Ahh right, let's get to the crux of the matter eh Jim!! I tried to give you info which may help your family, as it helped me in the past, but all you're interested in is why I didn't answer the rest of your post. Socialism at its best, no surprise there then.

Yes, teachers do get better benefits than most, undeservedly in my opinion, but I see no merit in your statement "they have paid for 4 years training to become a teacher they deserve some benefits"

Utter rubbish. I paid for my own training whilst holding down a full time job and bringing up 3 children on my own!! Who paid my training???? I know full well just how many teachers repay their tuition costs, and the steps they take to avoid repaying them! Why should teachers be a special case?? Accountants study for a damn site longer than teachers and invariably pay for their own training. As do many many other professions.

Just who do you think pays for all the benfits teachers get?? Not them that's for sure!!

[Pete G]

My opinion is there should only be a child benefit paid for the very first child - and that's it.

Do you think that will increase the birth rate?

Well no, but are you sure the current system increases the birth rate in a way that is practical or socially desirable?

The ability of young women to effectively 'marry the state' and start a family with the DSS as father has massive financial costs, as some posters have previously stated, but I think the major cost is that to the future of the state and, more importantly, the children who are the victims of the 'revenue generation' scheme of their parent[s]

It appears to me there is a huge swathe of children in the UK at the moment where children from quite large single parent families [just for clarity, I'm using the term 'single parent families in the sociological sense as in children who have only even known one parent, rather than children from families originally having two parents, who have subsequently separated], where the [usually] mothers, in emotional and educational terms barely more than children themselves, have effectively abrogated any parental responsibility with the State as family breadwinner, and the child's teacher effectively takes over all of the other duties, including just general socialization.

This in turn puts an intolerable burden on the teachers. I personally know of teachers in inner city schools purchasing food with their own money to feed children whose parents have other priorities, and even more worryingly come parents evening, having previously suggested ways that the parent might help in their childs own education, faced with an incandescent mother, often with latest boyfriend in tow to provide the requisite muscle, reminding the teacher that educating and socializing the child is entirely the teachers problem, and all too often back this opinion up with threats of violence.

To be a good teacher in an inner city school nowadays requires a heart of gold, nerves of steel and requirement for absolutely no recognition of the job they do, or the pressure put on them by feckless parents.

And what chance do the children stand? Just to repeat the experience of their mother or absentee father?

Photolady's suggestion may seem a little harsh, but it seems to me to be a much more positive suggestion than the status quo.

I personally would be campaigning [were I still resident in the UK] where the level of benefit payment for children was fixed at the number of children present when the claimant entered the benefit system, to ensure the protection of children from two parent families who have fallen on hard times, or separated.

[Jimgward]

Ahh right, let's get to the crux of the matter eh Jim!! I tried to give you info which may help your family, as it helped me in the past, but all you're interested in is why I didn't answer the rest of your post. Socialism at its best, no surprise there then.

Yes, teachers do get better benefits than most, undeservedly in my opinion, but I see no merit in your statement "they have paid for 4 years training to become a teacher they deserve some benefits"

Utter rubbish. I paid for my own training whilst holding down a full time job and bringing up 3 children on my own!! Who paid my training???? I know full well just how many teachers repay their tuition costs, and the steps they take to avoid repaying them! Why should teachers be a special case?? Accountants study for a damn site longer than teachers and invariably pay for their own training. As do many many other professions.

Just who do you think pays for all the benfits teachers get?? Not them that's for sure!!

Ooooo nerve, touch, oooppps.....

That chip will pull you over....

[Dominic]

Where did I exactly say that?. I cited many things which parents today claim, I find it strange that you pick up on " all send their kids to private schools and get huge benefits" which is absolutely NOT what I said.

But parents today get maternity benefit, paternity benefit and child care subsidies, along with working tax credits, child benefit........... etc etc.

Not a notion Dominic, fact, these are the benefits available to families now. Check it out.

The only benefit I recall getting was child benefit, a heck of a lot less than the same benefit received by child rearing families today. Think I may have got a pecuniary maternity benefit for a few weeks, not months again, a heck of a lot less than that claimed by parents today. Definitely no paternity leave.

Have read many stats on the number of parents sending their children to private schools, many of whom struggle to pay the fees, hence camping out with Mum and Dad. My simple argument is that it is totally unacceptable that the tax payer should pick up these costs.

I quoted directly from your own post! That's how I interpreted your words anyway.

[Firefly]

Jimgward

Why the problem with baby boomers ? We have pensions, yes which WE paid for, out of OUR earnings, we don't live on benefits. We enjoyed our lives, worked hard and played hard. We didn't look to the state or our parents for financial support. Sounds to me like you're the jealous one here. You should get what you pay for, end of. Jacs did well for herself and her children, why are you so uptight about that ?

Jeba

Often in the UK, the benefits paid to parents for the upkeep of their children, are used for other purposes. I don't know what experience you have of UK benefits, but you are mistaken if you think that all parents here are hard working poor people, who's first consideration is the welfare of their children. Simply not true.

Jackie

[Poppy]

Good post Jackie!!