What are Health Services like in your country?

[Marble-eye]

2 minutes ago, WilliamG said:

The former may need foodbanks or struggle financially, the latter do not.

People earning £36000 a year do not need food banks, only irresponsible people who cannot budget. There are many people earning a fraction of what they get that are not greedy enough to use food banks. I can't remember food banks in the 50s and 60s when people were earning a pittance because those people didn't buy things they couldn't afford.

[WilliamG]

21 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

People earning £36000 a year do not need food banks, only irresponsible people who cannot budget. There are many people earning a fraction of what they get that are not greedy enough to use food banks. I can't remember food banks in the 50s and 60s when people were earning a pittance because those people didn't buy things they couldn't afford.

If a nurse on £720 a week has got three school-age children to feed healthily and clothe, needs to run a car to get them to school, needs good broadband so the kids can all do their homework at the same time, then I can see that there would not be a lot left for weekend. But, yes as you say, proper budgeting is the answer.

[Onthedimside]

NHS is far better in uk if your an illegal immigrant or in prison , same a housing , illegals jump queues and uk homeless left on streets but politicians feel that are helping because their voices get heard where their pockets can be filled , NHS managers should be reduced and stop the diversity and over non productive bs,  NHS should be legally protected against lawsuits, so not need lawyers , if you got problem with that go private , let the money be spent on doctors nursing and medications 

[Pinetree]

UK and its sxxt, not fit for purpose, inefficient, a black hole for public funds and, frankly,. dangerous to many of its patients.  And just try to get a Doctors or Dentists appointment;  bloody good luck with that ambition. 

[Pinetree]

On 2/14/2023 at 8:30 AM, WilliamG said:

If a nurse on £720 a week has got three school-age children to feed healthily and clothe, needs to run a car to get them to school, needs good broadband so the kids can all do their homework at the same time, then I can see that there would not be a lot left for weekend. But, yes as you say, proper budgeting is the answer.

Then don't have kids or cars.  Its not rocket science.  Don't live above your income and if its not enough, then change your job.  

[Pinetree]

On 2/13/2023 at 10:45 AM, Marble-eye said:

People earning £36000 a year do not need food banks, only irresponsible people who cannot budget. There are many people earning a fraction of what they get that are not greedy enough to use food banks. I can't remember food banks in the 50s and 60s when people were earning a pittance because those people didn't buy things they couldn't afford.

Quite right 

[Marc26]

On 2/12/2023 at 7:45 PM, Marble-eye said:

People earning £36000 a year do not need food banks, only irresponsible people who cannot budget. There are many people earning a fraction of what they get that are not greedy enough to use food banks. I can't remember food banks in the 50s and 60s when people were earning a pittance because those people didn't buy things they couldn't afford.

Come on

"Earning a pittance" when you could buy a house for 20k

 

But I do agree that they didn't buy things they couldn't afford and we, as a whole, are very guilty of that 

[Marble-eye]

16 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

Come on

"Earning a pittance" when you could buy a house for 20k

But I do agree that they didn't buy things they couldn't afford and we, as a whole, are very guilty of that 

Most people in the 50s and 60s probably rented, my personal circumstance as an apprentice engineer I was earning £2 a week and a pound of that went to my mother for board and my food, and to put things in perspective a pint of beer was 1 and 8pence, 1 gall of petrol was 3s and 6pence. Yes it was a pittance Mark, did you live through those times? 

 

[Marc26]

9 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

Most people in the 50s and 60s probably rented, my personal circumstance as an apprentice engineer I was earning £2 a week and a pound of that went to my mother for board and my food, and to put things in perspective a pint of beer was 1 and 8pence, 1 gall of petrol was 3s and 6pence. Yes it was a pittance Mark, did you live through those times? 

No I'm not that old

 

But millions of people were able to afford to buy houses in the 50-60's on the wages back then

 

And it's a lot harder now to buy a house for people 

[Marble-eye]

27 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

No I'm not that old

But millions of people were able to afford to buy houses in the 50-60's on the wages back then

And it's a lot harder now to buy a house for people 

 

10 hours ago, Marc26 said:

 

"Earning a pittance" when you could buy a house for 20k

 

Maybe in the US you could but in the UK your figure of 20,000 if we convert it to £s would equate in todays money of nearly half a million pounds, still quite a tidy sum would you agree. 

But you originally questioned my remark of "earning a pittance" which by todays standards was a pittance. 

 

The 1950s were the 'never had is so good' years. Wages were rising quickly, but living standards were well below today's.

On average people earned a lot less than they do today, even allowing for inflation.

In 1950 the average weekly wage was £5.60. In 1959 it was £8.90, an increase of nearly 60%. 

https://www.retrowow.co.uk/social_history/50s/earnings_1950s.php#:~:text=The 1950s were the 'never,today%2C even allowing for inflation.&text=Today average weekly earnings are £570.