P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 But the bigger the jackpot the more tickets that sell , the more tickets that sell the more money that good causes get. You see this when there is a multiple roll over and the queues at the lottery stands get huge. Human greed is a great motivator, the 6 million quid wasn't worth buying a ticket for but 20 million I'm in lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 The lottery should not be used to pay for the NHS, it was always designed to fund causes not prop up Government spending. Thats what this is for https://www.healthlottery.co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Perhaps "greed" sums up this whole topic. As for good causes, I can't think of a better cause than a cash strapped NHS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 It is a good cause but it has its own funding and its own lottery. Giving every penny from the entire budget to the NHS , to the detriment of everything else, would be stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 We already use the lottery to fund the NHS (in part), through taxing it. Think good causes begin with the essentials; and one essential is the NHS and it's associated care services - might just be a rumour, but there appears to be a crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Indeed there is s crisis but creating shortfalls everywhere else is a short sighted way of looking at things. A penny on tax would raise more if more is needed. The Lotyery was never intended to fund the NHS and shouldn't be either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 It's money, and this topic has been about using it for the common good; unfortunately that entails priorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Can't just pour all the countries money into the NHS, at the expense of everything else. Shortsighted knee jerk reactions rarely work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 didn't say "all". Some lottery projects aren't necessarily high priority either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Lottery money is outside the Chancellors grasp, right where it needs to be. It was never set up to fund the NHS and it shouldn't be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Some NHS expenditure isn't priority either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Say that to those queuing for treatment ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Do you mean A and E? If so that is a priority, many NHS expenditures are not. Seems you agreed last week, another flip flop? The last news item I saw, said a survey at one A&E, showed 30% were there with trivial, non-urgent issues. For contagious problems, like flu; the last place to go is a crowded A&E, or even a GPs surgery for that matter; perhaps more advice over the phone could relieve some pressure? I would agree, that mis-spends exist (depending on one's point of view); that's why I think there's a need for a public conversation as to just what the extent of the NHS should be. Should it for example; provide sex change operations, IVF, cosmetic surgery, joint replacements with a lifespan of 15 years to 90 year olds? Should proof of contributions be a requirement for treatment, and should all funding be based on NI contributions? And perhaps most importantly; should politicians be kept totally out of using it as a political football, by making it an arms length organisation, run by independent clinicians? Then of course, there's the question of complementary services such as elderly care, or preventative medicine,. and whether some degree of integration is required? Think most of us have discerned the nonsense nature of current funding, which allows the politicians to play games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 24, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Still maintain that position; but I doubt such areas of savings will cover the huge costs associated with an aging demographic; which are not just an NHS issue but includes Social Services too. Bedblocking occurs when there's nowhere to send elderly patients, and this (as we've seen) backs up to A&E. Havn't we strayed into NHS, from the wealth gap?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 24, 2015 Report Share Posted January 24, 2015 Perhaps because of this ? The lottery is an example of the obscene nature of distribution; huge top prizes; rather than having say a top limit of a £million and more pay out lower down. As for taxing it, fine; but if that tax was ring fenced, say for the NHS, it might be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 I was answering your question, Haven't we strayed into NHS, from wealth gap?, by pointing out the post that took us there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/MDG/english/UNDP_MDGReport_EN_2014Final1.pdf Here you go Fugs. Hmm, and yet... http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/super-rich-make-415m-a-day-as-poor-get-poorer-1-3588270 If things are getting a little better for some of the very poorest then I'm glad to hear it, but it isn't all the world's poor and it won't stop the divide getting bigger. From my link, the cheif economist of the BoE says: “There is rising evidence that extreme inequality harms, durably and significantly, the stability of the financial system and growth in the economy.”, which is pretty much what I've been saying here. But what does he know eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 25, 2015 Report Share Posted January 25, 2015 Ah yes, Oxfam. That super rich "charity" which pays it's top executives what many would call obscene salaries, is looking for new ways to twang people's heart strings into giving them more money, and has hit upon wealth inequality as the way to go. And combine this with a friendly economist giving his opinion with the catchall "there is rising evidence". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.