8 ms·

Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay mo

Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. That may not be fair, but when most voters are property owners you're not going to get a different outcome. This is an interesting topic because it highlights how the political and economic culture is broken and incapable of effective national strategy. I don't think housing, health, industrial policy, education, or anything else can be fixed without a complete overhaul of the UK's political parties, media, and systems.

ericd 3y ago
It seems like maybe they didn’t pay in enough - baby boom demographics meant there were relatively more productive workers paying for relatively few old people, so each worker was paying a fraction of what it would cost to carry themselves through old age. Also, not enough kids, and of those, not enough who wanted to go into medicine. It seems like baby booms have a way of making things seem artificially good for a while, and then there’s a hangover.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ilyt 3y ago
  > It seems like maybe they didn’t pay in enough - baby boom demographics meant there were relatively more productive workers paying for relatively few old people, so each worker was paying a fraction of what it would cost to carry themselves through old age. Right but manufacturing technology better and more efficient, we produce far more "per worker" now
  - ericd 3y ago
    Yeah, but I don’t think we’ve seen commensurate gains with healthcare workers, except by perhaps reducing visit time per patient.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      Perhaps the inference is that the owners of industrial technology should be paying more taxes on their profits, since the proportion of labor as an input is shrinking.
sidewndr46 3y ago
But getting people to pay twice for public services is a core way to increase tax revenue!
- tacocataco 3y ago
  The core way that pushes this cost onto the working class.
mmarq 3y ago
> Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. It's not as simple as "give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into". If you have 20K in your bank account and no property, you have to pay for your care. If you own 2 flats worth 1M each and have 10K in your bank account, you pay nothing. The so-called "dementia tax" would have make this situation fairer. Besides, they wouldn't have to release equity while alive, but the cost of care would be paid by the heirs upon selling or inheriting their parent's property. Imagine a scenario where you have 20K in your bank account. You child inherits only 10K, because you had to pay for your care. Now imagine you have 2 flats and 10K in your bank account. Your child gets the whole lot. Does this look fair? Theresa May, that, as far as I'm concerned, should be sent to the Hague for architecting the hostile environment for foreigners, had only one non-demented idea in her entire political career: making social care fairer, and that's what killed her premiership. I can't think of a more emblematic example of what is going on in the UK.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mcny 3y ago
  > Does this look fair? No, but because we should end means testing completely. I thought NHS meant you didn't have to do all the things we have to do here in the US. A few years ago, I had to do an annual wellness exam so I could keep my health insurance "discount" at work. There was some miscommunication within the three parties: 1. Doctor's office 2. Lab 3. Insurance and I had to act like a mediator between them. I thought that was bad enough but NHS sounds worse now.
  - scott_w 3y ago
    The Conservative government that's been in power for 13 years has consistently underfunded the NHS. While the current vogue is to blame Covid, it's only been the final crack in a dam that's been bursting for years now.
- 3y ago
mrcartmeneses 3y ago
It’s I my broken because our electoral system favours conservative outcomes. If we had proportional representation then many of the issues that seem impossible would suddenly become easy to solve. Edit: in before anyone asks for evidence of favouring conservative outcomes: Boris Johnson had a landslide 80 seat majority with only 43.6% of the popular vote. PR would mean more coalition governments, but those would largely be left leaning Labour/Lib/SNP even when the conservatives have higher than historically average vote shares.

ericd 3y ago

It seems like maybe they didn’t pay in enough - baby boom demographics meant there were relatively more productive workers paying for relatively few old people, so each worker was paying a fraction of what it would cost to carry themselves through old age. Also, not enough kids, and of those, not enough who wanted to go into medicine. It seems like baby booms have a way of making things seem artificially good for a while, and then there’s a hangover.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ilyt 3y ago
> It seems like maybe they didn’t pay in enough - baby boom demographics meant there were relatively more productive workers paying for relatively few old people, so each worker was paying a fraction of what it would cost to carry themselves through old age. Right but manufacturing technology better and more efficient, we produce far more "per worker" now
- ericd 3y ago
  Yeah, but I don’t think we’ve seen commensurate gains with healthcare workers, except by perhaps reducing visit time per patient.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Perhaps the inference is that the owners of industrial technology should be paying more taxes on their profits, since the proportion of labor as an input is shrinking.

sidewndr46 3y ago

But getting people to pay twice for public services is a core way to increase tax revenue!

tacocataco 3y ago
The core way that pushes this cost onto the working class.

mmarq 3y ago

> Theresa May tried to sell this as part of her election campaign. It was a disaster. No one wants to be forced to give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into. It's not as simple as "give up some of their personal wealth to pay more for an NHS they've already paid into". If you have 20K in your bank account and no property, you have to pay for your care. If you own 2 flats worth 1M each and have 10K in your bank account, you pay nothing. The so-called "dementia tax" would have make this situation fairer. Besides, they wouldn't have to release equity while alive, but the cost of care would be paid by the heirs upon selling or inheriting their parent's property. Imagine a scenario where you have 20K in your bank account. You child inherits only 10K, because you had to pay for your care. Now imagine you have 2 flats and 10K in your bank account. Your child gets the whole lot. Does this look fair? Theresa May, that, as far as I'm concerned, should be sent to the Hague for architecting the hostile environment for foreigners, had only one non-demented idea in her entire political career: making social care fairer, and that's what killed her premiership. I can't think of a more emblematic example of what is going on in the UK.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mcny 3y ago
> Does this look fair? No, but because we should end means testing completely. I thought NHS meant you didn't have to do all the things we have to do here in the US. A few years ago, I had to do an annual wellness exam so I could keep my health insurance "discount" at work. There was some miscommunication within the three parties: 1. Doctor's office 2. Lab 3. Insurance and I had to act like a mediator between them. I thought that was bad enough but NHS sounds worse now.
- scott_w 3y ago
  The Conservative government that's been in power for 13 years has consistently underfunded the NHS. While the current vogue is to blame Covid, it's only been the final crack in a dam that's been bursting for years now.
3y ago

mrcartmeneses 3y ago

It’s I my broken because our electoral system favours conservative outcomes. If we had proportional representation then many of the issues that seem impossible would suddenly become easy to solve. Edit: in before anyone asks for evidence of favouring conservative outcomes: Boris Johnson had a landslide 80 seat majority with only 43.6% of the popular vote. PR would mean more coalition governments, but those would largely be left leaning Labour/Lib/SNP even when the conservatives have higher than historically average vote shares.