Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by spike7451, Oct 3, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Will it work without tax increases I wonder?
I'm curious why thins idea has appeared just now but not years before?
If the numbers are sound why hasn't the insurance industry already created it?
What happens to the cost of the premiums when life expectancy increases?
If people pay their tax and national insurance why should the state act as if it believes that the right thing to do is p*ss away every penny and the wrong thing to do is buy an enduring asset: two blokes on the same money, p*ss artist gets free care, homeowner pays for house and then gets hit again.
We're a parcel of rogues in a nation.
I thought we paid a little thing called national insurance for our future, though I am aware it is used to pay for the fecklessness of those who don't contibute.
The scheme could be paid for by slashing the overseas development budget, Indias Space Programme doesn't need our money after all.
Because before their wasn't the prospect of getting taxpayer's money to guarantee their profits when the scheme turns out to be economically unviable but simultaneously unscrapable. See 'Railtrack' for further details.
I'm really confused now. I though the Tories were the party of small government and minimum interference in the market?
Could it be just populist soundbite to be discarded once the votes are in? Surely no politician would behave in such an underhand manner...
Separate names with a comma.