When you consider that the UK population is over 60 million and a 1/3 of UK households are single occupied residencies then 9.4 million subscribers really isn't impressive.
Close to insinuating? That would mean that's not what I'm saying at all then.
What I am saying, and I don't see why it should be such a problem, is that in my opinion access to a public service should not be restricted by a licence and the best way to provide a public service without requiring a licence is to fund it from general taxation.
just realised - you forgot to answer my question :
if the council tax was £300 per year for every household, would that be better for lower income households because it was less?
or would it be worse for lower income households because it was regressive?
When you consider that the UK population is over 60 million and a 1/3 of UK households are single occupied residencies then 9.4 million subscribers really isn't impressive.
was the private healthcare £10 per person per month, or per household per month?
did anyone ever answer if that covered things like chemotherapy or heart bypass surgery?
Iain
I'm not sure but since this part of the debate started with Sover_99 claiming that disbanding the NHS because we have private healthcare wouldn't be prohibitive to people as £10 a month (similar to the licence fee) is affordable for the vast majority.
I'm therefore assuming that this £10 a month is for everything that the NHS currently provides.
I'm not sure but since this part of the debate started with Sover_99 claiming that disbanding the NHS because we have private healthcare wouldn't be prohibitive to people as £10 a month (similar to the licence fee) is affordable for the vast majority.
I'm therefore assuming that this £10 a month is for everything that the NHS currently provides.
And, if comparing to the licence fee, per household not person.
The fact private health care is as affordable as the LF.
The majority could easily afford top coverage if that's how they choose to spend their disposable income.
Perhaps you can provide a link to show the cost of "private health care" that provides the same service as that of the NHS for everyone, no matter what their medical history, medical needs or care required etc...
PS
Does this include, families, those out of work, pensioners etc etc
And, if comparing to the licence fee, per household not person.
When comparing the two, that should be correct but I think the FM has, instead, opted for the per person route, not per household....which as we all know, would result in the fee being much more than £10 per person, per month as I don't think they've considered babies/children, unemployed, disabled, pensioners, etc.
I'm not sure but since this part of the debate started with Sover_99 claiming that disbanding the NHS because we have private healthcare wouldn't be prohibitive to people as £10 a month (similar to the licence fee) is affordable for the vast majority.
I'm therefore assuming that this £10 a month is for everything that the NHS currently provides.
i'll stand corrected, but that sounds very unlikely.
just realised - you forgot to answer my question :
if the council tax was £300 per year for every household, would that be better for lower income households because it was less?
or would it be worse for lower income households because it was regressive?
Iain
Any regressive tax is worse for lower income households. There is some relief available to lower income households for council tax I believe - about 25%.
i'll stand corrected, but that sounds very unlikely.
Iain
All I stated was that private health care cover starts from £10 a month and as the vast majority can afford that then I questioned could we get rid of the NHS, along the basis that it may still be a public service but one only available to those that pay into it and the amount is not prohibitive.
With over £600 discretionary income available any figure upto £400 a month would not be prohibitive to the average household.
I said an average household had a discretionary income of £160 / week.
Apologies too, I also misread.
Still doesn't help though, does it?
If private health was spending the same as the NHS and providing the same service (not that it would), it would still blow the monthly disposable income of a family.
Just for your info, a real worls example from America. I just did a search.
Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack says the average yearly health insurance premium for Maine families skyrocketed from $6,915 back in 2000 to $13,927 in 2009
So, on XR of 1.65 thats about £8500 PA or £700 month or £176 / week.
Thanks. I do know what it means, I just wanted you to clarify what you meant. So, after all essential outgoings, you'd promote an average family having approx. £16.50 each, per person, per week to spend after necessities?
Edit: Before the thread gets closed, can we stray back on topic. With all the talk about the NHS, have you not seen how silly it would be to compare paying for the NHS vs. paying the licence fee?
Discretionary income is income after subtracting taxes and normal expenses
(such as rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, medical, transportation,
property maintenance, child support, inflation, food and sundries, &c.)
No mention of paying off household debt in that list of 'normal expenses', then!
Comments
just realised - you forgot to answer my question :
if the council tax was £300 per year for every household, would that be better for lower income households because it was less?
or would it be worse for lower income households because it was regressive?
Iain
LMAO...haven't you just demonstrated that you haven't got to grips with the figures?
How has the average discretionary income of £160 per household, per month suddenly shot up to £664 per household, per month?
did anyone ever answer if that covered things like chemotherapy or heart bypass surgery?
Iain
indeed, good point.
I'm not sure but since this part of the debate started with Sover_99 claiming that disbanding the NHS because we have private healthcare wouldn't be prohibitive to people as £10 a month (similar to the licence fee) is affordable for the vast majority.
I'm therefore assuming that this £10 a month is for everything that the NHS currently provides.
And, if comparing to the licence fee, per household not person.
Perhaps you can provide a link to show the cost of "private health care" that provides the same service as that of the NHS for everyone, no matter what their medical history, medical needs or care required etc...
PS
Does this include, families, those out of work, pensioners etc etc
If £10 a month is paid by 60 million people it will raise £7.2 billion a year.
The current NHS budget projection for 2010-11 is £102.3 billion.
Yes, I know.
When comparing the two, that should be correct but I think the FM has, instead, opted for the per person route, not per household....which as we all know, would result in the fee being much more than £10 per person, per month as I don't think they've considered babies/children, unemployed, disabled, pensioners, etc.
Apologies, it wasn't a dig a you - just a careless repeat of a point already made by someone else
I should read threads more carefully
Not to worry, I thought that would be the case.
i'll stand corrected, but that sounds very unlikely.
Iain
Get comfy, I don't think you'll be standing for some time....:cool:
Any regressive tax is worse for lower income households. There is some relief available to lower income households for council tax I believe - about 25%.
I said an average household had a discretionary income of £160 / week.
Because it is per week not per month.
Ah you did, apologies, I misread that one too!
I did ask too what you considered discretionary income. Do you mean the money available for non-essential items?
All I stated was that private health care cover starts from £10 a month and as the vast majority can afford that then I questioned could we get rid of the NHS, along the basis that it may still be a public service but one only available to those that pay into it and the amount is not prohibitive.
With over £600 discretionary income available any figure upto £400 a month would not be prohibitive to the average household.
Apologies too, I also misread.
Still doesn't help though, does it?
If private health was spending the same as the NHS and providing the same service (not that it would), it would still blow the monthly disposable income of a family.
Just for your info, a real worls example from America. I just did a search.
http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineHeadlineNews/tabid/968/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3479/ItemId/8597/Default.aspx
Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack says the average yearly health insurance premium for Maine families skyrocketed from $6,915 back in 2000 to $13,927 in 2009
So, on XR of 1.65 thats about £8500 PA or £700 month or £176 / week.
Discretionary income = Gross income - taxes - necessities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable/Discretionary_income
I found the DI figure from here.
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/20072009/325/disposable-income-7-8-percent-june-survey.html
Thanks. I do know what it means, I just wanted you to clarify what you meant. So, after all essential outgoings, you'd promote an average family having approx. £16.50 each, per person, per week to spend after necessities?
Edit: Before the thread gets closed, can we stray back on topic. With all the talk about the NHS, have you not seen how silly it would be to compare paying for the NHS vs. paying the licence fee?
Average household debt in the UK is ~ £9,240 (excluding mortgages).
So, your affordable health insurance is funded by increased household debt!