wotsupcas wrote:Which budget it comes from is irrelevant. The Govt has a pot of money to spend and , among other things,it comes from tax and NI . It's the amount that counts. Now you can argue that you want a republic and that's fair enough but the fact is we spend more on health tourists than we do on the royal family. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the return on the royal family or what the actual cost of health tourism is but the fact remains we spend more on one than the other.
It's relevant to me; as I said, I'm quite content that if someone has a medical emergency whilst in the UK, we treat them - and the numbers who are deliberate co-called 'health tourists' are so vanishingly small, as to not be worth pursuing.
The decision to spend 70 million quid on an inbred, extended family who have inherited wealth and privilege because their ancestors oppressed and enslaved poor people, is an entirely different thing; so aside from the morals of it, you're creating a false equivalence.
bren2k wrote:It's relevant to me; as I said, I'm quite content that if someone has a medical emergency whilst in the UK, we treat them - and the numbers who are deliberate co-called 'health tourists' are so vanishingly small, as to not be worth pursuing.
The decision to spend 70 million quid on an inbred, extended family who have inherited wealth and privilege because their ancestors oppressed and enslaved poor people, is an entirely different thing; so aside from the morals of it, you're creating a false equivalence.
True colurs on show, envy, nothing more. Diddums, did they steal your Whippet (in developing news, the earth isn't flat)
bren2k wrote:That's a good attempt - but the argument about the health tourism lie, was about the estimated figure, as a proportion of the overall NHS budget.
The "return" for the Royal Family is difficult to quantify, because there are some rather arcane calculations used in most cases; personally, I object to them at a more fundamental level than just the money.
I object to health tourists as a matter of principle not just the cash
bren2k wrote:It's relevant to me; as I said, I'm quite content that if someone has a medical emergency whilst in the UK, we treat them - and the numbers who are deliberate co-called 'health tourists' are so vanishingly small, as to not be worth pursuing.
The decision to spend 70 million quid on an inbred, extended family who have inherited wealth and privilege because their ancestors oppressed and enslaved poor people, is an entirely different thing; so aside from the morals of it, you're creating a false equivalence.
Although as a human being I get the emergency thing,however it still sticks in my craw that we wouldn't get the same courtesy in other countries I could name.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
bren2k wrote:Forbes:
"According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year. It has also emerged that the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, the official residence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, cost £2.4 million of public funding, despite the fact that it was a gift provided to the couple by the Queen."
"According to the latest Sovereign Grant accounts that were published last week, taxpayers in the UK are forking over more money than ever for the Royal Family. The monarchy cost £67 million ($86 million) in 2018-19, a 41% increase on the previous financial year. It has also emerged that the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, the official residence of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, cost £2.4 million of public funding, despite the fact that it was a gift provided to the couple by the Queen."
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
wotsupcas wrote:Although as a human being I get the emergency thing,however it still sticks in my craw that we wouldn't get the same courtesy in other countries I could name.
But you would in some others. So why are you obsessing so much on this rather than the Tories drive to outsource so much of the NHS, which is truly criminal?
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
tigertot wrote:But you would in some others. So why are you obsessing so much on this rather than the Tories drive to outsource so much of the NHS, which is truly criminal?
If it is "criminal" why don't you make an official claim to the police, who would then spend a few minutes laughing at you and move on to something else.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 17146 Location: Olicana - Home of 'Vark Slayer
IR80 wrote:If it is "criminal" why don't you make an official claim to the police, who would then spend a few minutes laughing at you and move on to something else.
Why don't you try & produce something constructive in your pathetic little life? Just an idea.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.
tigertot wrote:But you would in some others. So why are you obsessing so much on this rather than the Tories drive to outsource so much of the NHS, which is truly criminal?
I'm afraid the NHS going forward will have to reform or die. The fact is research is finding more and more ways to keep us alive and it comes at a cost. I truly believe that a complete and honest review is needed instead of tinkering around the edges. We all (i hope) want a properly run and funded NHS. How we do that without bankrupting the country I have no idea. It can't be just throwing money at it or the extra cash will just get swallowed up. And I no I will get derided for this but maybe we need to get back to basics and stop funding, for example, IVF or gastric band operations, sex changes etc
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 158 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
