"James Wilkinson" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 23:24:50 +0100, bert wrote:

In article , Andrew
writes
On 30/06/2016 15:37, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:02:18 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
James Wilkinson wrote:
In my entire life, the only thing the NHS fixed for me was a couple
of
broken bones. That's a lot less than my tax contributions to the
NHS.
I would much rather have paid for the bones from my own pocket.

Right. One of those eternal optimists. No house insurance either?

Only buildings to shut the mortgage lender up.

Like the lottery, the odds are always against you. The insurance
company makes money. If you don't get anything insured, you're much
better off, and can afford the odd mishap.

Not like the lottery. You play the lottery hoping to get a windfall.
You
insure against being hit by a windfall.

If you have enough money to pay for your house being destroyed by fire
etc, no need to have insurance.

Very few indeed have enough money to pay for a possible third party
claim
after a motor accident - hence the compulsory insurance.

Doesn't need a degree in rocket science to work out. Just ask your
parrot
if you're unsure.

But it helps if you appreciate that the trivial amounts of tax and NI
paid by the majority of people does not in anyway cover the costs
of the NHS, nor all the free education that their kids receive.

And for people over 65 it is even worse, massively so for the 83+
group. The latter were all retired by the time that Gordon started
hosing money at the NHS in 2001, increasing its budget 5 fold (but
with no matching increase in effectiveness). But they enjoyed huge
tax cuts during their working years prior to 1997,

SO not taking away your money in tax is a benefit?

Yes, taxes are stupidly high.

Not for the clowns on benefits etc.

and their houses
went up 100 times in value,
No benefit at all except to pay my care home fees eventually.
but they have paid *none* of the extra
NI charges.
Well they don't get in-work benefits.

Older people actually make a net contribution to the economy of about
£58bn per year.

From what?

Their income stream, pensions investments etc.

They don't work.

They don't need to do contribute by their spending.

These people are now the biggest cost on the NHS even if they don't
contract Cancer. So who should pay the £200,000 cost of Cancer
treatment for for them ?. Their lifetimes tax and NI definately doesn't
cover even a fraction of the cost.

Well mine has. Never been an inpatient, only an outpatient once. Haven't
been to a doctor for years and probably only about5 times in a
lifetime. And on top of that I've paid for my own eye test and
prescriptions -until I got free test at 65.

Cannabis cures cancer.

Like hell it does. It actually causes lung cancer just like tobacco does.

We are still borrowing £75 Billion every year (down from £150
Billion a year in 2010). So that means todays pensioners and
parents are borrowing money from future generations, who don't
yet have the vote and may not even be born yet.

It only has to be paid back if the country you borrowed it from has more
nukes.

In the era of low interest rates about £78bn has been transferred from
savers (mostly older people( to borrowers (mostly younger people)

Banks encourage borrowing, it's all their fault. What do you think made
half of them bankrupt?

That fool Brown deregulating them.

No other country in the *entire* world has a health care system
which requires absolutely no payment at the point of use. There
is a reason for this - it's impossible to do it. Without some
form of payment (or limited free access) at the point of use, the
users have no idea what it really costs.