Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[dugnan]

George Osborne announced that every government department would have to cut spending by between 15 & 20 per cent annually except for health & international development.  Surely, international aid should be cut by the same level that we are having to bear.
 
Included in the announcement was the fact that benefits were targeted to cut the deficit. 
The cost of welfare payments is the biggest item of government expenditure.  It costs more than £150 billion a year including more than £20 billion on housing benefits.
In February this year I wrote to Grant,in his role of shadow housing minister, to point out that in April 2008 the Labour Government replaced the old style housing benefit with a new "local housing allowance" (LHA)
Under the old system councils used to assess the needs of housing benefit claimants, then find them a home to match their needs.  The council paid the rent directly to the landlord.
Under the new system, the value of the allowance was based on the average market rental for properties of the size which a family is deemed to require.  The council paid the allowance direct to the claimant who is then responsible for paying the landlord.
Councils have to use a formula for housing families.  Under the formula no more than two children under 10 are expected to share a room.  Children aged 10-15 are expected to share with one sibling, but only if they are the same sex.  Children over 16 are not expected to share a room at all,  The size of the bedroom does not enter the equation.
This lead of course, to many people being housed in property with rental values well above the national average.
I hope that in his role of Housing Minister, Grant is looking at curbing this expenditure.
 
Another suggestion is that people who are fit, I stress fit and drawing unemployment money or jobseekers allowance should be expected to do some community work to compensate for the allowance they receive.
This would help them value the work ethic and would perhaps persuade the second/third generation on welfare to find employment.

[ADM]

To reduce NHS expenditure...

• No more cosmetic surgery (eg breast enhancement/reduction).
• No more treatment for self-inflicted conditions - alcoholism, drug dependency, obesity etc.
• Charge of £50 for missed appointment - blacklisted until paid.
• No more IVF.
• Freeze all public sector salaries (including GPs).

Discuss.

[Mighty Hatfield]

Target the people that got the country into recession and continue to live very luxurious lifestyles BEFORE hammering the poor and public services.

[jonmorris]

I agree with the idea of penalising people who don't make an appointment, perhaps on a three-strikes basis to give people a chance if they really can't make it - as against can't be bothered.

At the same time though, it should be possible to cancel an appointment easily, and perhaps be alterted by email/SMS to remind you of an upcoming appointment.

Cosmetic surgery should only be considered in exceptional circumstances, not because someone is being teased at school for having a 'big nose' or whatever. Breast reduction could be for medical reasons (e.g. back pain) but I fail to see many good reasons for breast enhancement - on the NHS at least. If someone wants to pay for their own vanity, that's fine - but you pay just like anyone else.

[bbtzs]

Target the people that got the country into recession and continue to live very luxurious lifestyles BEFORE hammering the poor and public services.

Do you get the chips on your shoulder from a local chippy?

Many of those really responsible for the mess were in America as I understand it. The rest were of course the Labour Govt who went on a spending spree that was silly.

[Mighty Hatfield]

Target the people that got the country into recession and continue to live very luxurious lifestyles BEFORE hammering the poor and public services.

Do you get the chips on your shoulder from a local chippy?

Please explain.

[bbtzs]

Target the people that got the country into recession and continue to live very luxurious lifestyles BEFORE hammering the poor and public services.

Do you get the chips on your shoulder from a local chippy?

Please explain.

I guess my comment is understood really. I dont see such a rich poor divide as you seem to. I dont mean in monetary terms but I neither think the rich nor poor should be unduly punished and I certainly dont see why those with money should be thought of as cash cows for the poor.

We all know that certain bankers were responsible for a major part of the economic crisis and that GB kept growing public services and public spending well ahead of the sensible levels of a prudent Government. Such management of resources is an example of how personal spending also can apply. Those who spend too much and borrow too much end up sponging off those who saved and avoided borrowing. With the same pot of money there are people out there having to pay for others who had the same opportunity yet squandered their chances. If tax rates rise etc it is likely the 'rich' will be hammered much more than the 'poor'. As for public services, well it is difficult to know what is a public service, after all we seem to be spending lots on things I would hardly call a service. Look at the quangos and silly spending going on!

[Mighty Hatfield]

Target the people that got the country into recession and continue to live very luxurious lifestyles BEFORE hammering the poor and public services.

Do you get the chips on your shoulder from a local chippy?

Please explain.

I guess my comment is understood really. I dont see such a rich poor divide as you seem to. I dont mean in monetary terms but I neither think the rich nor poor should be unduly punished and I certainly dont see why those with money should be thought of as cash cows for the poor.

We all know that certain bankers were responsible for a major part of the economic crisis and that GB kept growing public services and public spending well ahead of the sensible levels of a prudent Government. Such management of resources is an example of how personal spending also can apply. Those who spend too much and borrow too much end up sponging off those who saved and avoided borrowing. With the same pot of money there are people out there having to pay for others who had the same opportunity yet squandered their chances. If tax rates rise etc it is likely the 'rich' will be hammered much more than the 'poor'. As for public services, well it is difficult to know what is a public service, after all we seem to be spending lots on things I would hardly call a service. Look at the quangos and silly spending going on!

No-one should be unduly punished, however anyone with any sense of what is going on can see that even in a recession, the rich get richer, while the poor are the ones clobbered with cuts.

You might see it if you experienced it.   

[Anne]

I agree with all of you. IMO everything possible should be cut:

• dug's all internation development
• ADM's NHS expenditure
• MH's rich lot
• bbtzs's bankers thru to quangos

We are all going to suffer. And as the rich can forfeit more in one go, I would suggest that they really must cough up! Why?

Because the sooner we get things underway... the sooner things can start to improve. The rich will still be rich, and will still have a better chance to recover...

Then, when things begin to get better, we can start up the international aid in earnest; offer cosmetic surgery (if we must); etc; etc; etc; and even offer tax advantages to the rich...

But not now!

[Geoff]

To reduce NHS expenditure... 

• No more cosmetic surgery (eg breast enhancement/reduction).
• No more treatment for self-inflicted conditions - alcoholism, drug dependency, obesity etc.
• Charge of £50 for missed appointment - blacklisted until paid.
• No more IVF.
• Freeze all public sector salaries (including GPs).

Discuss.

No discussion necessary as far as I'm concerned. Makes perfect sense.

The overriding principle of free healthcare at the point of delivery should be revisited.  I believe Morrison's original blueprint mentioned "HEALTH".  Nothing as I recall about changing the size of your boobs or your nose.

Sadly like most good ideas the damn thing has grown out of all proportion.

[Cassandra]

As a breast cancer patient, I take great exception to the comments posted about 'cosmetic surgery' on the NHS!  Sometimes it's necessary.
 
Why shouldn't those of us who have been badly disfigured due to life-saving surgery be allowed a 'rebuild' on the NHS?  I've never smoked, led a healthy lifestyle, worked and paid taxes for 30 years, so I'm not exactly a non-paying health tourist or scrounger.
 
Yes, it would be fair to make those with self-inflicted injuries contribute to the cost of treating them, but don't deny everybody.

[Kay]

Cassandra - I TOTALLY AGREE with you here.

I know someone who was given cosmetic surgery to reduce her breasts on the NHS a few years back - for medical reasons and MENTAL Health reasons.

It 'gets me' the 'self inflicted' bit!! Alcoholism...... self-inflicted - umm if the person realised what was happening to them in the first place!  Some of those who are alcoholics HAVE been abused in childhood / encouraged to drink with an alcoholic parent / sibling / drink to try and cope with life......  Surely it is in the better interests of those who are alcoholic to receive 'treatment'?  (Same with drug addiction).

Soooooo - obesity also is self-inflicted huh?  Crikey - this subject just keeps coming back (obesity being self-inflicted that is). SOME Obesity is NOT self-inflicted.  A friend I know was given Steroids as part of her Cancer Treatment, she put on an awful lot of weight.  My mother was also obese when she was alive, she hardly ate to be that size and I can guarantee if you saw her in the town, you'd have known who she was because she was always out of breath and having to stop every few yards.

bbtzs - is it really called for - your remark about 'chips on shoulder' directed to MH?  He IS entitled to his opinion and I have to say, I actually AGREE with him on what he said.

NOW - What would I suggest.  (I expect to be called some names from, this!!).

I would suggest the following:

Those from other countries who come to the UK and split up while living here, should NOT be able to stay and claim single parent benefit - but should return to the homeland - the same for a couple who come to ths country to work and then either dies..... A question: SHOULD THEY be given single parent allowances? In effect, be paid to stay in this country?

Those who come to the Country whether from an EU State or not - if convicted of a crime should be returned to their 'homeland - birth place - whatever you would like to call it - to spend the sentence in the prison of their country. That way, it would 'free up' some prison places for those who SHOULD remain in prison. In effect, Prisons have become the Mental Institutions of the past, because there are an awful lot of people in them who have mental health 'problems'.

Saving on Health: STOP people from other countries (including those who were born here and decided to move abroad) from being given treatment in the UK.

CLOSE all loop-holes - that enable people to bank abroad and evade paying taxes!!

INVEST in INDUSTRY in this country to enable people to get jobs, and for this country to become a MAJOR Manufacturer again - instead of one whose sold everything OFF abroad - so the 'GREAT' is put back into 'GREAT BRITAIN'.

Employ more Fraud Inspectors to seek out those who 'swindle' the benefits system.  Especially the Disability Living Allowance!! 

I AGREE with stopping the Child trust Fund - even though my son would be 'due' the 7 yr old allowance this year.  I think this was just a gimmick from, BLAIR to look like a 'nice guy'!!

SCRAP the 'FREE' Computer for children when they get to YEAR 3 in schools - at the moment when a child gets to Year 3 at school, the parent/s can apply to have a laptop. and the Government will pay..... AGAIN, my son would lose out on this, but  that would be fine by me!  Local Libraries offer a service for Computers use and to be honest, the parents who are not likely to take a child to the library to do homework, are less likely to take an interest in their doing homework on a Laptop at home anyway. 

If this doesn't make sense, apologies, it is past my bedtime!

tt4n
Kay

As a breast cancer patient, I take great exception to the comments posted about 'cosmetic surgery' on the NHS!  Sometimes it's necessary.
 
Why shouldn't those of us who have been badly disfigured due to life-saving surgery be allowed a 'rebuild' on the NHS?  I've never smoked, led a healthy lifestyle, worked and paid taxes for 30 years, so I'm not exactly a non-paying health tourist or scrounger.
 
Yes, it would be fair to make those with self-inflicted injuries contribute to the cost of treating them, but don't deny everybody.

[hatchet43]

Whilst I am the first one to agree and support those who are genuinely disabled need all the help and financial assistance the country can afford to give them.  There is one benefit that I know for a fact is greatly abused - motability - yes there are 1000's who need this financial assistance to get them out and about.  But  I stress this, I am sure there are just as many who claim this allowance who can well afford to fund their own mobility.

For those of you who are not aware of what this payment is, someone who claims attendance allowance, can claim motibility payment, either they have a cash sum each month, which also entitles them to being exempt from road tax, or, they can have a car under the scheme, which not only entitles them to exemption from said road tax, all servicing and maintenance is free of charge.
Now, to add insult to injury many of these people are bemoaning the fact they are being asked to pay in car parks.   These permit holders can of course, park for two hours on double yellow lines, where there is no down marking on the kerb.  If most of us did this we would be slapped with a ticket.  The Government needs to look into most of these benefits, and award them on need and not just on  the merit that it is something paid to one and all.

[Cassandra]

Kay,
 
As someone who suffered an abusive childhood in a 'deprived' area of London, parented through my teens by a widowed mother, I'm well aware of circumstances that can drive people to seek refuge in excessive drinking, drugs or other forms of self-harm.  Perhaps I should be considered 'lucky' because I coped without resorting to those forms of 'escape' and just ended up a nervous wreck, suffering decades of hypertension.
 
What I meant by 'self-inflicted' damage being treated on the NHS is illustrated by a case involving the 22-year-old son of a friend of mine, who thought it would be fun one night to have a go on the equipment in a children's playground, along with several friends.  He fell off the top of the ladder attached to the slide and broke his wrist.  As he was a car mechanic, his injury kept him off work for months.  He openly admitted it was caused by his own stupidity, which he bitterly regretted.  He could, and in my opinion should, have been charged at least something for his treatment.  His mother agrees with me.
 
My health has deteriorated during the past few years, since my cancer op.  One problem that developed was severe psoriasis covering most of my body and scalp. Prescribed treatments didn't work, the condition was worsening and I was losing my hair, so I paid £700 privately for light therapy, which  had a remarkably good effect.  I could have had the same treatment on the NHS, but I'd have had to wait many months for it.  I couldn't face suffering through another hot summer and dreaded ending up bald, so the cost was worthwhile, but as I'm on a reduced pension and my life savings were drastically reduced by the economic downturn in 2008, I feel very resentful when I learn of people who have never paid anything towards the NHS being treated free of charge.
 
People take all sorts of silly risks in the knowledge that 'someone else' will pick up the bill if they injure themselves.  Why shouldn't they take some responsibility for their actions and pay up?
 
There are many causes of obesity, and prescribed hormone treatments have, unfortunately, put me in that category. Dieting and exercise don't do the trick for many people, so if medical help is necessary, I don't see that it shouldn't be provided, especially as help is freely available to smokers (who choose to do it initially).
 
I agree with your points about overseas visitors being treated free of charge on the NHS.  I think everyone who enters a country that provides free health care should have to take out insurance against needing medical help while they're in that country.
 
The problem with the UK's finances is that too many people dipping into the pot for too long, and too few people putting something in. 

[disgruntled]

How about NOT increasing spending in Afghanistan as cameron has just committed to.

So, we cannot afford to educate our kids, nor fund the NHS.

But we can spend more money on an unwinnable war in a country where we are not wanted by the people we are pretending to protect, whilst killing them in large numbers through "Collateral" damage.

Anyone else nauseated by this?