|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 21:21:41 GMT
Oh I know a lot remains unpaid, but that does not mean, as some have reportedly suggested, that we should not at least try and charge foreign nationals for service they receive. Canada certainly charges. I've never bought into the Daily Mail's assertion health tourism is a massive thing, I know it happens, but its on a much smaller scale than the rivers of piss from the Mail and their ilk try to suggest. Its always worth remembering, those who are trying to do down the NHS have a long standing agenda to sell it off so they and their rich friends can make as much profit from health care as possible. The Mail has led a campaign against the NHS since its conception, so I doubt them and their useful idiots such as baloo will be changing tack any time soon. After all they don't care moving to a US style system means poorer outcomes for patients, all they see is the US pays more than double per capita than the UK for similar levels of health care, and that's a sh*t load of profit going to waste as far as they can see. Who has said the NHS should not charge overseas nationals? I have heard people argue that it’s not for doctors to spend time assessing a patient’s right to treatment but not anybody saying the NHS should be free to the global population? I do wonder if it’s a load of whine over nothing though. Like what is the % spent on foreign nationals as a proportion of the whole? And will it just be a quid pro quo as Britons will have unpaid medical bills in other countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 10, 2019 21:56:02 GMT
What are you babbling about? OOTLG said pretty much everyone gets that. I'm just pointing out they don't. Slightly disingenuous on your part given your whole time throughout the thread seems to be a whine that doctors have a decent pensions arrangement which others don’t. Also OneOfThe said it’s true for everybody in the country that the employer contribution is more than the employee’s. I have no idea if it is accurate but that’s not the same as saying everybody gets a 20% employer contribution. Far outweighs was the exact quote. But here from the ONS In 2017, almost half of private sector employers with defined contribution schemes contributed less than 2% of pensionable earnings, compared with around 6% in 2012. I'm not whining about them getting more, but if your employer is paying 10x the national average please don't be moaning about it. Especially when I'm paying for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 23:26:28 GMT
Slightly disingenuous on your part given your whole time throughout the thread seems to be a whine that doctors have a decent pensions arrangement which others don’t. Also OneOfThe said it’s true for everybody in the country that the employer contribution is more than the employee’s. I have no idea if it is accurate but that’s not the same as saying everybody gets a 20% employer contribution. Far outweighs was the exact quote. But here from the ONS In 2017, almost half of private sector employers with defined contribution schemes contributed less than 2% of pensionable earnings, compared with around 6% in 2012. I'm not whining about them getting more, but if your employer is paying 10x the national average please don't be moaning about it. Especially when I'm paying for it. “Far outweighs” =\= “20%”. My former employer didn’t contribute 20% to my pension pot but given they paid double my contribution then “far outweighs” (in my case) was accurate. Also where did they say that they were moaning about the contribution from their employer? The link was about them saying they cannot afford to work extra shifts. Put the goalposts back. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 5:21:19 GMT
Tough tits. I'm sure they can do an electronic verification at point of purchase. You have a rather naive faith in the ability of the UK to be able to seamlessly electronically integrate into the online platforms of all the insurance providers globally and assess a travellers insurance details and whether they have an adequate level of cover. “Naive” or “stupid” I cannot tell which but for obvious reasons it would never happen. Probably why no other country does it! All made up. Airlines can check visas electronically so checking valid insurance cover should be a piece of piss. Why would the government or the airlines need to assess cover? They'd just need to set a standard and get the insurance companies to go through accreditation, like any other contractor. You don't actually have a defence, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 5:21:53 GMT
Oh I know a lot remains unpaid, but that does not mean, as some have reportedly suggested, that we should not at least try and charge foreign nationals for service they receive. Canada certainly charges. I've never bought into the Daily Mail's assertion health tourism is a massive thing, I know it happens, but its on a much smaller scale than the rivers of piss from the Mail and their ilk try to suggest. Its always worth remembering, those who are trying to do down the NHS have a long standing agenda to sell it off so they and their rich friends can make as much profit from health care as possible. The Mail has led a campaign against the NHS since its conception, so I doubt them and their useful idiots such as baloo will be changing tack any time soon. After all they don't care moving to a US style system means poorer outcomes for patients, all they see is the US pays more than double per capita than the UK for similar levels of health care, and that's a sh*t load of profit going to waste as far as they can see. Who has said the NHS should not charge overseas nationals? I have heard people argue that it’s not for doctors to spend time assessing a patient’s right to treatment but not anybody saying the NHS should be free to the global population? I do wonder if it’s a load of whine over nothing though. Like what is the % spent on foreign nationals as a proportion of the whole? And will it just be a quid pro quo as Britons will have unpaid medical bills in other countries. The BMA have said exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 5:23:10 GMT
Agreed. It's completely rational and fair to charge people for a service that other people contribute to. I don't see why that's even faintly contentious. Is it contentious? Yep. Why are you just posting random tat? |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 11, 2019 5:35:51 GMT
Far outweighs was the exact quote. But here from the ONS In 2017, almost half of private sector employers with defined contribution schemes contributed less than 2% of pensionable earnings, compared with around 6% in 2012. I'm not whining about them getting more, but if your employer is paying 10x the national average please don't be moaning about it. Especially when I'm paying for it. “Far outweighs” =\= “20%”. My former employer didn’t contribute 20% to my pension pot but given they paid double my contribution then “far outweighs” (in my case) was accurate. Also where did they say that they were moaning about the contribution from their employer? The link was about them saying they cannot afford to work extra shifts. Put the goalposts back. In your case but it is far from common. They say they cannot afford it because the massive pension contributions from their employer are generating them a tax bill. If you earn £200k as a Dr the NHS are putting in the equivalent of £40k to your pension. That generates a tax bill. If they got the average 2% it would be £4k going in and no tax bill. For reasons best known to themselves they feel they should have the money and not pay tax on it. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 5:48:43 GMT
Also, in what way can they be said to be "losing money?"
Where is the loss?
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 11, 2019 6:17:40 GMT
The issue is this:
if I earn £200k and the NHS pay £40k into my pension that generates a £12k tax bill for me. (it's slightly different with the NHS because it's a final salary scheme but the principle is the same)
I then moan because I'm 12k out of pocket rather overlooking the fact I've gained £40k in my pension. The obvious answer if you can't afford the £12k tax bill is not to take the £40k but the Drs feel they should have it all tax free.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 6:32:36 GMT
Not too tricky.
Poor old Van. Have another go, dear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 6:46:08 GMT
“Waaaah, I don’t get it why should they!” Bloody hell why are so many private sector workers so pathetic? If you get f**k*d over that doesn’t mean other people are wrong for not being f**k*d over too. What are you babbling about? OOTLG said pretty much everyone gets that. I'm just pointing out they don't. Nope. I was pointing out that most were subject to the same system. I accept the figures may vary from place to place, but have to agree with van - where's the problem? You want a larger retirement pension, look for a job that provides it. Many jobs offer(ed) low wages but a good pension - the civil service was noted for this (don't know if it still applies though). |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 6:46:14 GMT
"Yonder Travel Insurance in the US has published an update, showing that Ecuador is the latest country to mandate proof of travel insurance as an element of visa requirements. It is a trend that seems set to continue, as countries seek new ways to relieve themselves of the financial burden of medical bills left unpaid by tourists, whether that is travellers taking advantage of free healthcare or simply making a swift exit without paying their bills.
Other countries that require compulsory travel insurance include Austria, Belgium, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey (though this list is by no means exhaustive)."
Something else that Little Miss Thicky doesn't have a clue about.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 6:48:22 GMT
What are you babbling about? OOTLG said pretty much everyone gets that. I'm just pointing out they don't. Nope. I was pointing out that most were subject to the same system. I accept the figures may vary from place to place, but have to agree with van - where's the problem? You want a larger retirement pension, look for a job that provides it. Many jobs offer(ed) low wages but a good pension - the civil service was noted for this (don't know if it still applies though). The problem is the misrepresentation: they are not "losing" money in any meaningful way. That's just cringey. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 11, 2019 6:55:22 GMT
What are you babbling about? OOTLG said pretty much everyone gets that. I'm just pointing out they don't. Nope. I was pointing out that most were subject to the same system. I accept the figures may vary from place to place, but have to agree with van - where's the problem? You want a larger retirement pension, look for a job that provides it. Many jobs offer(ed) low wages but a good pension - the civil service was noted for this (don't know if it still applies though). There isn't one, but if the pension contributions are too large it generates a tax bill. it's the same for everyone. If i decide that ming enterprises is going to pay me all my wages as pension contributions I can't get them all tax free and nor should I. if the NHS pays too much into their pensions they get taxed on the excess. It's like having a company car. you get taxed on the benefit. it';s really that simple. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 7:01:44 GMT
The 'problem' as I see it is that pensions are an unknown, so to speak, as one might never benefit from them. Whereas a 12k tax bill's an immediate hit to the pocket.
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 7:02:05 GMT
If you pay tax on a company car, it's because you have a company car. It's hardly a f**k**g punishment.
If you can't live with that, don't have a company car, use your own and claim the mileage.
It really is that easy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 7:08:13 GMT
Er, that's what everyone's saying.. glad to see you caught up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 11, 2019 7:09:47 GMT
The 'problem' as I see it is that pensions are an unknown, so to speak, as one might never benefit from them. Whereas a 12k tax bill's an immediate hit to the pocket. Well that's the choice you make jam today or more jam tomorrow. Either option is open to them. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 11, 2019 7:10:34 GMT
I haven't been confused. My position has been the same throughout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 11, 2019 10:23:16 GMT
“Far outweighs” =\= “20%”. My former employer didn’t contribute 20% to my pension pot but given they paid double my contribution then “far outweighs” (in my case) was accurate. Also where did they say that they were moaning about the contribution from their employer? The link was about them saying they cannot afford to work extra shifts. Put the goalposts back. In your case but it is far from common. They say they cannot afford it because the massive pension contributions from their employer are generating them a tax bill. If you earn £200k as a Dr the NHS are putting in the equivalent of £40k to your pension. That generates a tax bill. If they got the average 2% it would be £4k going in and no tax bill. For reasons best known to themselves they feel they should have the money and not pay tax on it. This is you making it up again? All this has said is they are cutting back shifts as they cannot afford to work the extra shifts. |
|
