Means tested services

Certain services such as the Health Service are clearly either significantly underfunded and/or not cost efficient. We should not have to accept a Health Service with vast waiting lists. It would appear that more money is needed but at a time when it is not available without raising further funds. Raising tax rates is not politically or economically viable and so the only alternative is to bring in charges for services. However, this is not acceptable unless the poor and vulnerable are protected. The only apparent solution is means tested charges.

It is not likely the politicians will sanction this as they will be worried the public mood would not accept this, However the alternative is a Health Service that continues not to deliver due to resource constraints. There may be efficiency savings possible and these should constantly be sought (which no doubt they are already perhaps) but it would seem they would not be big enough to resolve the deficiencies.

Why the contribution is important

A growing working population is needed to fund public services. A deficient Health Service will not attract the people we need to grow our population, so it must be improved. The only way is to raise revenue by means testing or introducing charges across the board with exemption for the poor and vulnerable.

by agerrard on May 06, 2017 at 12:29PM

Current Rating

4.0
Average score : 4.0
Based on : 2 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Yukiyama May 06, 2017 at 15:52

    And means test the grants to landowning farmers who watch grass grow.
    The other alternative to paying for health is to reduce spending in other areas. Grants to farmers, stop tax free lump sums to Civil Servants. Reduce bloated Cabinet Office.
    There is plenty of fat to trim.
  • Posted by LeanGreen May 06, 2017 at 17:46

    Or collect more in taxes from people who can well afford to pay.
  • Posted by Yukiyama May 06, 2017 at 18:18

    So collect more tax to fund a bloated Civil Service who received tax free lump sums . . . . Yes that is an alternative.
  • Posted by Buster May 06, 2017 at 21:50

    The present system on paying farmers is certainly not sustainable.
    The 8 million or part should be paid as a subsidy to reduce the cost to the housewife.
    The current scheme is not a subsidy.
    Farmers should be paid on what and quality they produce.
    Nearly half of Braddan is in the ownership of developers and they receive the payment.
  • Posted by Buster May 06, 2017 at 21:51

    If it is to continue as is, then it should be subject to means testing
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics