Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Did you miss the part where I said LARGE companies?
Did you miss the part where I said LARGE companies?Well in a company of 100 people all on PHI it would
So it's affordable for companies to give it to the people that can afford it for themselves? And let me guess, you reckon in no way should shareholder returns be compromised to benefit the workforce...
Who are the first people to complain about absenteeism and people off sick? Companies. They claim it costs the UK economy over £100bn a year! Public health services are getting ever larger backlogs so those off sick are getting larger and being off for longer.
Bit like when the likes of Salt and Cadbury building their own worker villages. People said it was madness and would bankrupt them. Ending up being a massive benefit for them.
P.S. I love it when you call my ideas stupid - it reaffirms my belief that they most definitely aren't. If anyone is renowned for shit-takes on here it's you.
I guess that depends whether the government of whatever day this approach is approved recognise that there would be a benefit worth more that the P11D potential.They would like it even less when they get a P11D bill for an extra £1,500
Did you miss the part where I said LARGE companies?
I guess that depends whether the government of whatever day this approach is approved recognise that there would be a benefit worth more that the P11D potential.
Nah I wasn't but it’s a global company with plenty money to spare to be fair.
Is ther much wrong with that if it ends up with better access for everybody.It’s ultimately a nonsense argument as ironically it’s going down the route of privatising healthcare for the masses
Is ther much wrong with that if it ends up with better access for everybody.
For a large company that is practically nothing. Especially when they will also get at least some of that back.It’s insane. The average cost to a company for such a scheme is around £7,000 an employee.
I couldn’t have afforded it myself but still had £1,500 deducted from my salary every year and claimed once in 28 years
Large companies do have long term sick policies which is totally different to PHI - if employees have cancer it makes zero difference - it’s the amount of critical illness they allow under their contract
You said it should be the same as pensions. Employees contribute massively to pensions so you’d I assume agree they would to this?
The more pertinent point is that natural monopoly services do not benefit from privatisation and energy, transport and utilities are all natural monopolies.
From a company point of view, it's a difficult sell to a company to say you need to continue to make NI contributions and recommend you also pay for PHI provision for your staff. I know some large companies do it as part of their benefits package but most do not and probably couldn't afford to.
For a large company that is practically nothing. Especially when they will also get at least some of that back.
As for having some form of employee contribution with the majority being covered by the company, it would be an option to be discussed. As with pensions maybe it could be an opt-out if they choose. But there are plenty of other potential options involving tax benefits for both employee and employer.
I get the impression you're just snobbish and don't think plebs should get decent healthcare.
I think they would if the alternate was a long and painful wait for their child. If provided free.The whole debate is stupid anyway as surely trade unions would absolutely object to schemes which did not support the NHS as the free at the point of return for health. No socialist worth his salt would want private treatment
Would they?
Of course the plebs should get decent healthcare.For a large company that is practically nothing. Especially when they will also get at least some of that back.
As for having some form of employee contribution with the majority being covered by the company, it would be an option to be discussed. As with pensions maybe it could be an opt-out if they choose. But there are plenty of other potential options involving tax benefits for both employee and employer.
I get the impression you're just snobbish and don't think plebs should get decent healthcare.
They have a new way to impoverish the country.
It’s insane. The average cost to a company for such a scheme is around £7,000 an employee.
I couldn’t have afforded it myself but still had £1,500 deducted from my salary every year and claimed once in 28 years
Large companies do have long term sick policies which is totally different to PHI - if employees have cancer it makes zero difference - it’s the amount of critical illness they allow under their contract
You said it should be the same as pensions. Employees contribute massively to pensions so you’d I assume agree they would to this?
Boy, your tiny little brain will explode when I tell you I work for a firm with over 10,000 UK employees and all have private health insurance. What’s more, it’s free of charge for employee.
It’s insane. The average cost to a company for such a scheme is around £7,000 an employee.
I couldn’t have afforded it myself but still had £1,500 deducted from my salary every year and claimed once in 28 years
Large companies do have long term sick policies which is totally different to PHI - if employees have cancer it makes zero difference - it’s the amount of critical illness they allow under their contract
You said it should be the same as pensions. Employees contribute massively to pensions so you’d I assume agree they would to this?
How much could he have been expected to achieve at 13?You may need to ask yourself why no one has considered this great initiative of yours?
You do seem a very bitter man dripping with resentment. Despise the rich, despise the pensioners, despise the management.
You hate your lack of achievement don’t you?
I am aware that when retired pensioners would lose access to this. But hopefully due to the reduction in working age people accessing the service they should receive better/more care from the public health service.I think they would if the alternate was a long and painful wait for their child. If provided free.
Pensioners would be denied access to this approach as they don’t have employers. Thank goodness they are all millionaires. If only they had contributed to healthcare provision through, I don’t know, let’s call it national insurance and / or income tax. If only they continued to contribute in some way.
First point seems to have been answered quite nicely by someone telling you that their large company pretty much does exactly that.You may need to ask yourself why no one has considered this great initiative of yours?
You do seem a very bitter man dripping with resentment. Despise the rich, despise the pensioners, despise the management.
You hate your lack of achievement don’t you?
Doesn’t the UK government collect a percentage of employees salary and a Value equivalent to a percentage of that employees salary from the employer? Don’t they call that National Insurance?It’s not the same thing, but Germany’s mixed system does collect 7% of employee’s pre-tax salary and that’s matched by employers.
One of Germany’s systems issue is ironically an oversupply of staff, equipment and so on.
Particularly in Europe, there’s a mix of public, non-profit and private hospitals but in the UK, the public sector crowds out both of sectors.
So you don’t maximise your potential income as a matter of choice, and then basically blame boomers for having everything handed to them on a plate (which they had probably worked very hard for). You can’t be very happy in reality else you wouldn’t need to be regularly having a go at boomers.First point seems to have been answered quite nicely by someone telling you that their large company pretty much does exactly that.
As for it not gaining traction, because we're too in thrall to those with money, and therefore power. We have a society that has been taught to believe that the rich have to be rich so that the can provide money and jobs to those who aren't. Not because it's true, but because it's what the rich need people to think to maintain their favourable status quo. If you want a decent society you build it from the bottom up, not the top down.
And I'm extremely happy with my life thank you very much. I enjoy my work/life balance and have as much as I need. Of course, I could have been like my old boss who just worked all the time and earned lots of money. Except for the fact he had a heart attack at an age younger than I am now and by the time he was a pensioner pretty much did nothing but sit in a chair all day because he couldn't do anything his health was so poor. Yeah, so wish that was me!
Number of people in this thread apoplectic if their tax goes up £5/mo, desperately begging to pay £500/mo extra in healthcare costs.
It’s probably closer to £100 and the cost to me is the income tax in that value. In reality, it’s probably £20 a month, if that when I account for pre-tax deductions.
Now, is that a good trade? Absolutely. On my last NHS appointment, the doctor apologised because I was lost in the system. Thankfully, I was in a position where I could go private. Likewise, I needed another procedure that I’d put off 2-3 months and when I eventually called my insurer, the pre-authorisation was given over the form and I’d book with the provider when one week. The value for money is fantastic.
Employer insurance schemes are essentially ‘socialised’ across the business.
For anyone who’s actually experienced private healthcare, the service is much better and you get seen to quickly. It’s not all perfect but anyone who is working age should absolutely be signposted to PHI (either individually or as a group i.e. employer) and the tax incentives should be there to support that.
It’s rather odd that there’s a few posters who are dead set against the private sector when they’ve got no experience of it as a consumer.
It wouldn’t be the same capacity. It may well be the same consultant grade staff, but they will have worked their NHS contracted hours. So that is extra capacity. The NHS could “buy” additional consultant capacity by offering additional sessions. These days, however, consultants may well tell their Trusts to fuck off, either because they aren’t being offered enough money or because they have read about your ex boss.I am aware that when retired pensioners would lose access to this. But hopefully due to the reduction in working age people accessing the service they should receive better/more care from the public health service.
The biggest issue with that of course is capacity, and creating additional overall capacity rather than at the moment, which appears to be the same capacity and more being diverted to private healthcare. But that is an issue whatever system you look at.
You are correct, phi wouldn't cover everything. I don’t know of any private hospital that has an A&E department for example. Private health tends to be very good for elective care which is preplanned ( possibly mainly on Friday judging by the number of car park spaces in hospital staff car parks across the country, including UHCW.)It’s that much because you won’t be covered for a whole bunch of stuff. I pay like £20/mo or something through my employer but that’s not comparable to a fully private system that doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything. For that you’re looking at hundreds a month unless you’re young and fit.
I'm not 'anti-boomer'. My parents would have been boomers.So you don’t maximise your potential income as a matter of choice, and then basically blame boomers for having everything handed to them on a plate (which they had probably worked very hard for). You can’t be very happy in reality else you wouldn’t need to be regularly having a go at boomers.
I made a comment on this thread a while ago about my generation having worked hard for what they got when younger, and immediately got jumped on by people saying that they also work hard. It would appear that you, for one, don’t and are extremely happy with your life and have everything you need. If that is the case, why are you having a pretty regular “go” at boomers.
Be careful what you wish for, even if it is in jest.
Because they do. The difference is that an honest day's work doesn't get you as much as it did in the past and the work itself is generally less secure with worse conditions and benefits. No coincidence that this took place at the same time as a collapse in workplace organisation.So you don’t maximise your potential income as a matter of choice, and then basically blame boomers for having everything handed to them on a plate (which they had probably worked very hard for). You can’t be very happy in reality else you wouldn’t need to be regularly having a go at boomers.
I made a comment on this thread a while ago about my generation having worked hard for what they got when younger, and immediately got jumped on by people saying that they also work hard. It would appear that you, for one, don’t and are extremely happy with your life and have everything you need. If that is the case, why are you having a pretty regular “go” at boomers.
Be careful what you wish for, even if it is in jest.
What generation are the Tik Tok slurpers? What generation watch them slurping? What’s stopping you becoming a semi professional slurper?Because they do. The difference is that an honest day's work doesn't get you as much as it did in the past and the work itself is generally less secure with worse conditions and benefits. No coincidence that this took place at the same time as a collapse in workplace organisation.
My PhD stipend is sub-minimum wage and there are people raking it in because they make slurpy noises on TikTok. Make it make sense
What generation are the Tik Tok slurpers? What generation watch them slurping? What’s stopping you becoming a semi professional slurper?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?