SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[caLLous]

I think I'd be more embarrassed that my parents landed on Kizzi-Rae as my name.

 

[Scouse]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skLAZPZsmTc

 

[Scouse]

Disabled people need right to travel abroad, say UK MPs amid ‘ridiculous’ restrictions row

Outcry over ‘brazenly discriminatory’ funding practices among NHS care boards and local councils, with wide variations in rules

www.theguardian.com

So, should we fund everything? Or should a severe disability come with a sad acknowledgement that public funding only goes so far, and whilst nobody is restricting you from doing a thing, the public purse will only go so far?

 

[BloodOmen]

Disabled people need right to travel abroad, say UK MPs amid ‘ridiculous’ restrictions row

Outcry over ‘brazenly discriminatory’ funding practices among NHS care boards and local councils, with wide variations in rules

www.theguardian.com

So, should we fund everything? Or should a severe disability come with a sad acknowledgement that public funding only goes so far, and whilst nobody is restricting you from doing a thing, the public purse will only go so far?

Tbh, the NHS needs a massive audit in general. There’s so much waste throughout the system from people abusing it and gaming the system. I’m not talking about the article specifically, but the NHS as a whole.

You’ve got people taking the piss at all levels, from people trying to get procedures that arguably shouldn’t be prioritised by the NHS, such as cosmetic surgery, to allegations of people travelling here specifically to take advantage of NHS maternity services and immigration loopholes. And that’s just a couple of examples. There are undoubtedly many other loopholes, scams and areas of waste that could be identified with a proper audit.

I genuinely think that with a comprehensive audit and some common sense changes to close loopholes, tackle abuse and prevent people from exploiting the system, billions could potentially be saved and redirected back into the NHS. The money is desperately needed, so it makes sense to look seriously at where it’s being wasted and where the system is being exploited.

 

[Gwadien]

Disabled people need right to travel abroad, say UK MPs amid ‘ridiculous’ restrictions row

Outcry over ‘brazenly discriminatory’ funding practices among NHS care boards and local councils, with wide variations in rules

www.theguardian.com

So, should we fund everything? Or should a severe disability come with a sad acknowledgement that public funding only goes so far, and whilst nobody is restricting you from doing a thing, the public purse will only go so far?

It's their money?

 

[Scouse]

It's their money?

Nobody could stop them spending their own money.

The question is what should the taxpayer fund? Where should the limits be?

You're disabled, need carers to go with you on a holiday to Greece? Yeah, we'll pay for that in this postcode. But we won't pay for this expensive cancer treatment because NICE rules it out as "not value for money".

We've finite resources. Where should the limits be?

 

[Gwadien]

Nobody could stop them spending their own money.

The question is what should the taxpayer fund? Where should the limits be?

No, they're allocated a budget that they can take out.

The article states that one of them works, so he probably doesn't need the money for day to day living so wants to use the money so he can pay for his carer to go with him (which could be nice for the carer too, you know, bottom of the pile people) and the NHS has said no you can't in one area and yes you can in another to another person in another area.

Again, I don't understand why we're attacking the poorest and/or most vulnerable people in economic bad times.

Some kids cost the tax payer £300k a year each to go to school and there's some CEOs of really nice cushy trusts earning pretty much that, why are we not questioning that?

Why are we not questioning the care home owners who have million pound cars on their drives thanks to the tax payer?

Judge a society based on how they treat their most vulnerable.

 

[Raven]

No, they're allocated a budget that they can take out.

The article states that one of them works, so he probably doesn't need the money for day to day living <snip>

I can't read the article, and will not be giving the tax dodging Guardian any money to do so. But if he works, and doesn't need the money, why is he getting the money?! There are millions of hard-working people that cannot afford to go on holiday, a holiday is a luxury.

 

[Scouse]

No, they're allocated a budget that they can take out.

Based on postcode - one guy gets the budget, another doesn't - based on postcode.

The question itself seems to upset you.

a holiday is a luxury.

Yes. And if we're denying cancer drug treatment based on cost, should the taxpayer be funding luxury?

 

[Scouse]

Another one, relevant to this:

Speaking to a lad at work yesterday. He's got a 90 grand electric KIA via salary sacrifice at work. Sacrificing about 700 quid a month. That brings him under the take home pay where he keeps his child maintenance benefits (nursery shit) - which are worth about 1400 a month.

The lad gets paid well. The taxpayer is shelling out a shitload so he can keep his kids in nursery, whilst driving a massive 7 seater tractor that can go from 0-60 in, like, 3.2 seconds.

There's an argument that nobody with kids should get benefits. And if companies want to hire people with kids, then they should pay them enough to fund their life choices. But they don't have to - because of taxpayer subsidy.

 

[DaGaffer]

Based on postcode - one guy gets the budget, another doesn't - based on postcode.

The question itself seems to upset you.


Yes. And if we're denying cancer drug treatment based on cost, should the taxpayer be funding luxury?

No, reading it seems they both get the budget, but Trusts have different rules on how you can spend it.

 

[Scouse]

No, reading it seems they both get the budget, but Trusts have different rules on how you can spend it.

Oh yeah. My bad. It must feel really shitty for him.

Still. The question is - what should we be funding?

If he can afford his own travel costs, but can't afford his two personal assistants, then at what point do we go "sorry, but those are the unfortunate set of cards you've been dealt". When we are making funding decisions on treatments for deadly diseases? "Sorry, you can't have this treatment that could save your life, it's too expensive, and we've got to pay for this disabled guy to go to Greece."

I'm leaning towards "what are we doing here" - but I'm not set on it. Hence the questions. What do other people think?

 

[Gwadien]

I can't read the article, and will not be giving the tax dodging Guardian any money to do so. But if he works, and doesn't need the money, why is he getting the money?! There are millions of hard-working people that cannot afford to go on holiday, a holiday is a luxury.

Because if he didn't work, he'd still get enough money to have a decent life, so why not encourage him to work too?

Plus, i'd imagine he's dipping into his own pocket to go on holiday, and if it's deemed he needs a carer too, I don't think it's fair to expect him to pay for it.

My experience of this in education (and like education) is that it's the wealthier middle class families that are far better at 'knowing their rights' in this regard and get all the correct funding, when they probably don't need it.

 

[Scouse]

I don't think it's fair to expect him to pay for it.

In isolation, maybe. But there's plenty of families that can't afford to go to Greece, and the NICE thing - meds we're not giving very ill people because they don't get value for money for the taxpayer.

I don't disagree that people get shit they don't deserve. Frankly, if you earn above average wage you should get nada. Nothing. Help yourself.

That way health and education would get funded properly.

 

[Gwadien]

In isolation, maybe. But there's plenty of families that can't afford to go to Greece, and the NICE thing - meds we're not giving very ill people because they don't get value for money for the taxpayer.

I don't disagree that people get shit they don't deserve. Frankly, if you earn above average wage you should get nada. Nothing. Help yourself.

That way health and education would get funded properly.

So are you alright with them going to Centre Parcs and probably costing the tax payer more? Or do we restrict disabled people with carers to Skeg in a caravan?

 

[Scouse]

You're so emo.

 

[Tom]

If we're talking about waste in the NHS, we could look at type two diabetes and how much of what's spent on treating that could be avoided if we had a healthier population.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the NHS should be statutory consultees in all local government decisions that affect our ability to live a healthy lifestyle. With potential veto powers. Building a new housing estate? You better ensure it has a safe cycle network to the nearest schools, or we'll say no. Want to make strategic transport changes in an area? You better integrate them with local care facilities, or we'll veto it. You're spending money on a railway station? Fix that fucking staircase and add some lifts, and a 1:20 ramp, or we say no.

 

[Gwadien]

If we're talking about waste in the NHS, we could look at type two diabetes and how much of what's spent on treating that could be avoided if we had a healthier population.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the NHS should be statutory consultees in all local government decisions that affect our ability to live a healthy lifestyle. With potential veto powers. Building a new housing estate? You better ensure it has a safe cycle network to the nearest schools, or we'll say no. Want to make strategic transport changes in an area? You better integrate them with local care facilities, or we'll veto it. You're spending money on a railway station? Fix that fucking staircase and add some lifts, and a 1:20 ramp, or we say no.

There isn't the appetite for preventative measures though.

It's a bit like this - Parents could face prison for child's crimes under justice reforms, minister says

Tories shuttering early support such as Sure Start in 2010... coincidence?