[Closed] What to cut to fund the NHS?

I've not read most of the thread, but to answer the OP, I fail to see why someone doesn't just put National Insurance contributions up. I'd gladly pay more.
Also, I'm not knocking the service they provide but by god the NHS is a lumbering beast. I'm currently having some fairly simple treatment and everything has to go through about 3 people and 3 appointments every time. It seems nobody is allowed to make a decision, even through it's fairly obvious to everyone involved.

The percentage of funding coming from tax and NI is alread at a high (>98%) PPwhile paying for services is <2%. It's not rocket science. We have to start contributing more directly in charges. And why not? Nothing is more important is it?

What happens when you raise NI and who loses?

If people want to play at making points with graphs they should see how UK trends in funding/GDP compare internationally (oh, look there's a trend) and ask themselves whether the spike was driven by the numerator or the denominator? Gosh, its 2009/10!!! Alternatively apply for a job at the Daily Wail as a columnist.

+1 for what PP says but if my dad is anything to go by the NHS doesn't stand a chance against a tide of bored internet browsing self diagnosing pensioners

With 60%+ of the population being overweight or obese then we're clearly not are we? We may be trying to, but it's not effective...

Malthusian population crisis backed up by some sort of semi-extinction event should sort that out nicely. Hard to be overweight when you're reliant on catching your own irradiated bunnies for food.

People have too much money. Are wedded to their cars. Can't be arsed to walk to the shops to buy a pint of milk. Consume too much rubbish literally and figuratively. If you have a society and economy which is fundamentally about encouraging consumption to drive it, what you end up with is a bloated population.

We've been brainwashed into thinking everything is about buying 'more stuff' and endless unsustainable growth to drive share dividends to keep a small number of very rich people very rich.

Taxing sugary drinks more heavily isn't going to change any of that.

We've been brainwashed into thinking everything is about buying 'more stuff' and endless unsustainable growth to drive share dividends to keep a small number of very rich people very rich.

erine's chart is actually more meaningful

No, because if you measure funding against GDP you would conclude that reducing GDP improves the NHS.

The absolute value is the one that matters in terms of what the NHS can do - or even better the absolute value per person who has access to the service.

Once the effects of Brexit hit, you can be sure that we'll look back on the NHS as it is now as the golden years. Enjoy it while it lasts.

We've been brainwashed into thinking everything is about buying 'more stuff'

We haven't been brainwashed - most of us quite like it, so we want to believe that.

The absolute value is the one that matters in terms of what the NHS can do - or even better the absolute value per person who has access to the service.

Afaik, the NHS is very efficient, just underfunded.

Efficiency depends very much on the chosen measure. By some measures the NHS is very efficient, by others it looks pretty poor. There are high excess (i.e. avoidable) deaths for one thing. And efficiency doesn't equal overall capability.

There's almost certainly a mix of inefficiency and underfunding. Pick one depending which side of the political spectrum you are on (which is why it will never get fixed, because only one ever gets looked at at a time).

It's no good, I can't concentrate on work this morning. Ernie's charts have quite upset me. It's a bloody outrage. Under these nasty Tories, health spending as a percentage of GDP is going to go back to the highs recorded (per-crisis) both those bloody Labour folk. If we can't trust the Toires to protect us from Labour levels of spending, who can you trust? The Lib Dems???

It's all ideology and privatisation don't you know....a national disgrace. Where the address for the Daily Mail letters page?

Under these nasty Tories, health spending as a percentage of GDP is going to go back to the highs recorded (per-crisis) both those bloody Labour folk.

ernies's charts show that the UK can afford the NHS, the point being funding needs increasing and management needs to be better. Long term medical outcomes should form the basis of the future of the NHS not political targets and teams there to bend the stats to the target.

Agreed so why all the bllx about the Tories? Ok, Hunt doesn't Inspire confidence I do accept that.

NI should be like actual insurance, the British have shown that they are not responsible enough for proper socialised medicine. I want to see contributions go up based on age and lifestyle factors eg how morbidly obese you are or whether you smoke or drink too much.

how far back are you looking?
The stuff about the tories was their 10bn claim which was properly shot out of the water. Claiming to have given 10bn over a number of years to an organisation with a 116bn budget also shakes a few things up. It's not actually that much money to make a huge difference but as the Brexit stuff showed, once a number reaches a certain size it's assumed it's near infinite. People are impressed but have no idea what difference it will actually make.

I want to see contributions go up based on age and lifestyle factors eg how morbidly obese you are or whether you smoke or drink too much.

Anyway care to explain how the UK has failed to be responsible enough?

"Long term medical outcomes should form the basis of the future of the NHS not political targets and teams there to bend the stats to the target."

Indeed, and that can't happen while Politicians are running it.

...or maybe I mean while voters are running it.

Easy Mike, any sport that reduces public health burden is excempt.

I think we should then just cut tqx on booze and fags like the Russians, to kill as many idiots off as possible.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Easy Mike, any sport that reduces public health burden is excempt.

which sports are they? Looks like it's going to be a tough one to call, how much is a cruciate op? Whats the balance between exercise and injury and long term damage?
I thought you wanted to tax the unhealthy lifestyles of people but now you want to cut the tax?
Are you applying for Jeremy Hunt's job?

Id be happy to pay insurance to cover the risk of DH.

Id be happy to pay insurance to cover the risk of DH.

how far back are you looking?

Not too far, its gets even scarier then. Heaven forbid that we should return to the levels of the mid 2000.

The stuff about the tories was their 10bn claim which was properly shot out of the water.

Indeed. No harm in pulling the Tories up for false claims. Happy with that.

Let the people who supply the cover (that we will all end up having) compete for ways to incentivise us- they will be the innovators not politicians. It already happens - in all places - in the life (yes life) insurance market for HIV positive people in SA. But that required good old private equity to fund that brilliant model. Not Zuma "Have a Shower"!

Our first born had a serious and rare condition that no doubt cost the NHS a lot of money to treat (in fact there was some uncertainty that the second lot of treatment would even be signed off). It was genetic, so we had to think carefully about having more kids. Long story short, we have 3 wonderful children and, although the first child still has some challenges, they are healthy and well.

I often wonder how different our life would be under a different health care system to the NHS and I will be eternally grateful for everything they've done for us over the years.

I often wonder how different our life would be under a different health care system to the NHS and I will be eternally grateful for everything they've done for us over the years.

My experience of the NHS has been awesome, too, but the majority view is it's crap because it's run & funded by Government which never allocates sufficient resources to it. (Many people say for malicious reasons!) That view has been unchanged throughout my lifetime. The only way to keep everyone happy is to take it out of Government hands, then everyone gets exactly the quality of service they want.

outofbreath - Member

erine's chart is actually more meaningful

No, because..............

Really? Are you sure that it's not more meaningful than a chart which shows no spending at all for the first ten years of the NHS, or that makes no distinction between costs in 1950 and costs in 2020?

Do you also go shopping with a ten bob note then?

Really? Are you sure that it's not more meaningful than a chart which shows no spending at all for the first ten years of the NHS,

You're being a little obtuse. Nobody's saying it was zero, it's just doesn't show on the graph. It would be easy to produce the same graph on a different scale.

or that makes no distinction between costs in 1950 and costs in 2020?

You can factor that out/in yourself if you wish. (Although why would you, costs aren't fictional items, they should be included.)

Comparing to income is mental. By that measure my car becomes twice as good if my salary halves!

The only way to keep everyone happy is to take it out of Government hands, then everyone gets exactly the quality of service they want

Do they? Surely cost then becomes an issue that the individual has to worry about rather than the government. My fear of a privately run health care system where you pay a premium based on risk is that, in our circumstance, the risks of having more kids would have been deemed too high by someone in an office with a spreadsheet and hence our premium would have been unaffordable. I know this is all pure speculation, but our health is not always completely in our control.

You're being a little obtuse. Nobody's saying it was zero, it's just doesn't show on the graph. It would be easy to produce the same graph on a different scale.

Have you not had a debate (sic) with Ernie before?

Dont worry most people understand scaling and if they dont

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1940_2020UKb_16c1li111mcn_10t

here's the data source for Jambas chart

Nobody's saying it was zero, it's just doesn't show on the graph.

Which obviously makes Jamba's graph even more meaningless than mine, ie, there was clearly spending for the first ten years of the NHS.

I'm glad we've got that sorted out - thank you.

Carry on.....

Which obviously makes Jamba's graph even more meaningless than mine, ie, there was clearly spending for the first ten years of the NHS.

...but Earnie, aren't you just proving my point. You don't trust me to assess the resources going into the NHS. Yet I'm one of the voters who are determining the resources dedicated to your healthcare.

Much better for you to take me out of the equation and provide it for yourself, then you get *exactly* what you want.

Which obviously makes Jamba's graph even more meaningless than mine

Dont undersell yourself Ernie - your graph is a stark warning that we cant trust the Tories not to return us to Labour levels of spending. That's a valuable message, thank you.

teamhurtmore - Member

Have you not had a debate (sic) with Ernie before?

I gave up attempting to have sensible debates with you THM as the result of silly and puerile comments such as this :

teamhurtmore - Member

I know people don't like this Hunt bloke, but he must be really bad if he thinks that underfunding a business and running it into the ground would make it attractive for privatisation? Is this some new kind of strategy for preparing a company for the market? Still haven't seen any prospectus yet though? Even odder still......

Posted 1 day ago

Dont undersell yourself Ernie - your graph is a stark warning that we cant trust the Tories not to return us to Labour levels of spending. That's a valuable message, thank you.

It doesn't matter which party it doing the harm.

If you have a system where the key decision maker is deliberately sabotaging something, you need to take them out of the equation and do in another way. BUPA might not be perfect, but at least they're not actively trying to provide bad healthcare!

If there were two coffee shops in town, one where a succession of owners are deliberately doing it badly for malicious reasons and one where the guy is doing the job with the sole aim of getting more customers so he can cream off profit it's clear which one's gonna be better.

I gave up attempting to have sensible debates

True, and you dont like having false points exposed either!

how about "silly and peurile" comments such as no spending at all.....sensible debate???? no really!

still always amusing to see the ingemar stenmark of internet debating in full flow.

Is it me or is this thread turning into this?

[img] [/img]

No it's not just you.......that's me on the left in red.

Is it me or is this thread turning into this?

That GIF is considerably more entertaining than watching Tae Kwon Do at the Olympics

The idea that contributions to the NHS should be based on lifestyle is a slippery slope (regardless of the statistics mountain biking is perceived as an extreme sport and would be one of the first to attract a premium even if its statistically safer than more main stream sports or activities).

It also assumes that everyone has an equal choice in their lifestyle. The past 30 years has seen a vast increase in jobs which combine poor pay, little security, and irregular hours, which leave a lot of people without a control over a routine into which to fit family life let alone regular sport or activity.

The NHS needs to decide what its for (what are its priorities and what are its boundaries) and social care needs to be more closely aligned and funded from the same pot so it can be better coordinated. This is a debate which politicians have been ducking for years because if its an honest debate no one is going to come out of it without scars.

I'm no great fan of the military, or how politicians have taken to using it to increase their toughness credentials, but at the moment under current trade rules its one of the few ways a government can subsidise high tech domestic research and manufacturing.

The most important thing about NHS spending is that it is MUCH higher under the Tories than Labour proposed at the 2015 GE. The increase under the Tories is 5 times greater.

The idea that contributions to the NHS should be based on lifestyle is a slippery slope

Yes I do get that however we buy sports insurance which say covers only on piste skiing and more expensive which covers off piste

As I posted before we in the UK pay far less in terms of personal / private health cover than the rest of Europe.

As I posted before we in the UK pay far less in terms of personal / private health cover than the rest of Europe.

Any party which stands on a platform of "you need to pay more" isn't going to do very well.

Such is the nature of the British voter (same for most other countries).

It's easy to say we can spend more money, finding it is a bit harder. Even here, someone said earlier you could cut MP's expenses but I don't think that even amounts to a drop in the ocean compared to NHS costs. The scale of most things passes by your average voter.

It also assumes that everyone has an equal choice in their lifestyle. The past 30 years has seen a vast increase in jobs which combine poor pay, little security, and irregular hours, which leave a lot of people without a control over a routine into which to fit family life let alone regular sport or activity.

Many of them still find the money to drink and smoke though. Perhaps they could jog to the newsagents and the offy?

If they did neither, they'd be fitter, and the NHS would be a bit better off too.

Yes I do get that however we buy sports insurance which say covers only on piste skiing and more expensive which covers off piste

The thought of private health insurance working this way terrifies me. Life would become full of decisions based on whether you could financially afford the consequences based on what level of cover you have.

Try my local road gap? No, I'm not covered for that activity and can't afford the medical bill if I stack it. Solo that VS I've done dozens of times before at the local crag? Nope, if I fall I'm not covered and I'll have to sell the house to pay the medical bills. Take my lad on the Fort William downhill track? etc

I'm sure many people would argue that this is entirely right and fair, but it would be a huge change to become accustomed to when all I'm really trying to do is keep my mind and body healthy.

The most important thing about NHS spending is that it is MUCH higher under the Tories than Labour proposed at the 2015 GE. The increase under the Tories is 5 times greater.

It would be interesting to see the data behind that conclusion.