What to cut to fund the NHS?

Home Forum Chat Forum What to cut to fund the NHS?

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 503 total)
  • What to cut to fund the NHS?
  • Why top at 60%? Tax the buggers, none of them deserve it. It’s an outrage.


    so.. get rid of grannies, fatties and trident and sort out the taxation system for business and personal income properly.. anything else? 🙂


    Healthcare for smoking or overeating related illnesses.
    Town improvement plans.
    Council and government officials.
    Subsidised policing of events such as football matches.
    50% of blue badges.
    The £40 shopping voucher and £200 fuel allowance for all pensioners…they should find a cheap way of at least cutting these gifts to the well-off.
    Erm, lots more that I can’t think of right now. But a LOT of the unnecessary spending that local councils do.

    Premier Icon kimbers

    The royals

    Premier Icon dallas95

    Biggest waste of public money ever.

    Never going to be used.

    House of Lords.
    Don’t need them interfering.

    Premier Icon mick_r

    What about them thoughtless twunts who insist on falling off bikes in forrests and on paved rights of way…
    Charge em double

    The surgeon from my one and only hospital overnight was adamant it was much better/cheaper for the NHS to do the occasional quick repair to someone injured whilst keeping fit and healthy 🙂

    I’m not saying it was perfect, but the pro-active health promotion side of the NHS has also been decimated and/or thrown over to local councils who have generally then stripped the budget even further to shore up other services.


    The NHS is failing because it’s not allowed to operate on a level playing field. People are sold shit to eat and drink all day, they take little or no responsibility for their health, then they get ill, so the NHS has to pick up the mess.


    The NHS needs root and branch reform. It was created to suit a very different country and demographic and hasn’t changed since and structurally is unsustainable. I’m all for pumping more money into the NHS but not in its current form – its a waste of tax payers money which is a precious and limited commodity.


    The NHS doesn’t need more money, they just need to spend what they have sensibly rather than pissing and wasting huge amounts of it on things like the ever increasing number of departments with all manner of managers who actually do nothing of any use!

    And that^!!

    We as a country are so used to not having a connection forced upon us about how our lifetyles affect our health due to the fact that it’s ‘free’ to get any ailment or injury fixed. If we had the cost of each set of pills or consultation shown to us at every step then maybe behaviours would change. Us lot on here don’t really reflect the view of the general public about the link between lifestyle choices and health as we generally partake in exercise-bases activities so we have a reason to worry about what we eat, drink and do. The average person sadly doesn’t make the connection with eating junk food, drinking fizzy drinks and doing no exercise with why they have a bad back from carrying too much fat for example.

    One example I have of NHS waste: Every time a battery-powered device is used in a surgical theatre, even if only for a second, the batteries have to be replaced with a fresh set before it can be used again. A sensible thing to do as you don’t want the battery to die at a critical time. So you would think they would use a load of rechargeable batteries with their cycles monitored, like you get for commercial walkie talkies used by security staff in shops for example. Nope, they use single-use AA, C and D batteries from Duracell, Energizer and Toshiba. All very expensive and just thrown away after a single use!! One of my friends works as a Theatre Nurse and she always has a load of batteries rescued from the bins to give out to her friends.

    Premier Icon Northwind

    wobbliscott – Member

    Trident won’t even put a dent in the NHS – the whole 40 year life cycle cost of trident is estimate to be around £100bn,

    Nobody actually believes that though, do they? It’s like Hinkley C will cost us £6bn, and the government will spend £8bn on the NHS.


    I bet they buy the batteries from Harrods aswell.

    I’d raise a small amount of money with:

    A better version of mansion tax.

    Tax on unhealthy foods/drinks.

    Tax on non eecyclable packaging.

    I’d bin trident but spend that money on the armed forces and get them doing nice things around the world. Digging wells/ building schools etc.


    if you want to find money the only place to make cuts is pensions, failing that you have no choice but to raise taxes.

    You need to get away from low tax being a good thing and state being bad.

    If you take NHS funding and compare to other comparable countries, GDP spend is lower, number of beds is lower, doctors lower etc etc etc. Which suggests the NHS has made lots of savings already. Things that ned to be addressed, social care, mental health, and lifestyle.

    Cut the kleptocratic transfer of wealth from public to private:

    1. Subsidies for private companies to run our railways
    2. Deliberately inflated and expensive (for the taxpayer) PFI contracts for schools, hospitals and prisons
    3. Bail-outs of banks who take the nation’s wealth to the casino every night, and occasionally lose.
    4. Wasteful and unnecessary public works. Aircraft carriers with no aircraft anyone? HS2, trident replacement.
    5. Giving our national infrastructure away to foreign interests (public and private) – ie Hinkley Point.

    But why do any of that when you can start at the bottom and hammer the poorest hardest. Roared on by the middle classes, nouveau riche their lackeys and pretenders.

    Premier Icon AD

    No need to cut anything. We’ll have £350M a week shortly.
    Oh wait…


    Drill down and stop the epic amount of waste. Paying over the odds to private companies/Contracts. Cut management/non patient facing staff. Fine people for missed appointments. Greater tax on booze and fags. Tax unhealthy food. Stop f*****g good staff over so you retain staff/fewer staff off sick so don’t have to pay stupid amounts for cover/retraining. Councils to get more money for social care so bed blocking doesn’t happen.

    Oh and a single intergrated IT system that works and who’s creators haven’t taken the piss and are employed by the NHS directly

    *Not a DM reader, previously worked in the NHS (For a private company!) have many NHS employees as friends/family

    So what happens to the level of economic activity (and hence tax take) when taxes are raised?

    What happens to the level of tax revenue when the marginal rate of tax is increased? If nothing, why have we not increased the MRT before (or recently in Scotland)?

    Just a couple of thoughts….

    Given that nearly every aspect of government activity involves some form of public/private partnership why is this so difficult in health? Does the forthcoming privatisation have anything to do with it?

    But why do any of that when you can start at the bottom and hammer the poorest hardest. Roared on by the middle classes, nouveau riche their lackeys and pretenders.

    Yep. A disgusting but persistent false consciousness.

    Oh dear don’t mention the IT system, wonder how the court case went? Badly I’m guessing you never see it in the news, brushed under the carpet it would seem.


    Greater tax on booze and fags

    Nonsense, you want lots more people drinking and smoking, nice premature deaths, inoperable lung cancer with a late diagnosis and poor prognosis, save the country a fortune


    Actually. Just shut the whole NHS down, and I mean everything, for a decade and let natural selection do what it’s meant to do. Let everything settle and sort itself out, then restart afresh


    Abolish the tax loopholes


    According to the eejits that wanted Brexit, the money that isn’t going to Brussels will be spent on the NHS (which was then rejected after they won)…



    Persuade the baby boomers to invest in their children a bit more.


    Given that nearly every aspect of government activity involves some form of public/private partnership why is this so difficult in health? Does the forthcoming privatisation have anything to do with it?

    three letters THM, PFI. How well is it working

    Poorly, true, but that is only one part (albeit an expensive one)

    b r

    I worked for a couple of years in the NHS, they don’t need more money they just need to spend it better – and more importantly stop having an Executive (Govt) that constantly changes its mind and stops bringing in ‘targets’ that are political (4 hour rule in A&E has just resulted in patients sat in Ambulances waiting for admission).

    And as for Managers, they just need better quality ones but at the rates they pay these (plus for other non-medical staff) they aren’t really going to get them.


    close the house of lords,

    abolish the royal family

    get rid of trident

    reduce mps salaries and expences,

    abolish the tory party,

    stop building new roads unless they have a dedicated cycle path along each side,

    strictly enforce road laws and use the cash raised to pay for the nhs,


    Ban the Bake Off.
    Or more seriously for long term benefit to society restrict the time of food adds and regulate the content ie have voice over health info about whatever products they are advertising. Reduce any tax on healthy foods. Bring back home economics classes.

    gordimhor – Member

    Or more seriously………….

    Reduce any tax on healthy foods.

    You can’t reduce tax on healthy foods ’cause there isn’t any.

    Premier Icon jambalaya

    Health Service provision needs radical reform, we need much higher private contributions, we need VAT on food, we need higher taxes across the board at all income levels (all of these things they have in Europe) we need new taxes on GIG economy and online retail.

    There are no cuts which would provide enough money, even if you simply abolished the entire military it would barely be enough (given job losses, manufacturing losses etc) and then we’d be out of NATO too.

    Trident is £3-5bn pa depending on who you believe. That doesn’t even scratch the surface of what’s required. NHs spending rising at 4% a year more than double rate of GDP growth so we need extra taxes every year … forever … unless something fundamental changes

    Here is a chart of NHS spending I posted in the other thread.

    Look at the terrible job the Tories are doing eh ?

    jambalaya – member

    Here is a chart of NHS spending I posted in the other thread.

    Yes and it’s as meaningless now as it was when you first posted it.

    Don’t be fooled into thinking that just because no one could be arsed to point out that it takes no account of increased wages, building costs, etc, ie inflation, and increased population, people have swallowed your Tory drivel.

    Did you honestly think that people would believe that for the first 10 years of its creation no money was spent on the NHS?

    Premier Icon jambalaya

    It’s absolutely not meaningless. Remember Labour promised just £2bn pa extra.

    Health costs are sky rocketing, we are living longer, population is growing and medical costs are rising rapidly. In many areas of our lives technology is reducing costs, in medicine it is raising them.

    No political party of any colour has anything remotely like a plan.

    It’s absolutely not meaningless.

    Well maybe not in Jambaland but I was thinking more of in the real world.

    The NHS was created in 1948, your graph shows that no money at all was spent on the NHS until about 1958.

    Premier Icon slowoldman

    Health Service provision needs radical reform, we need much higher private contributions, we need VAT on food, we need higher taxes across the board at all income levels (all of these things they have in Europe) we need new taxes on GIG economy and online retail.

    I could go along with that given a commensurate redistribution of wealth across the population. Reduced dividends to shareholders, increased pay to employees.

    No political party of any colour has anything remotely like a plan.

    Well we agree on that. It’s not just the NHS either.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith

    yep be nice to see some overlays with population, life expectancy and a few other factors. Maybe even the number of EU migrants working in the front line NHS 😉

    [Read the entire thing and don’t misquote!!]
    In many ways it would work better as a private firm without the massive political interferance that goes on.

    In terms of government savings, collecting the tax owed by the large multinationals, perhaps a collective group of countries all committed to stop companies juggling taxes on an Europe wide scale?

    Some things are a bitter pill to swallow and in a different situation the challenge I come up against with long term HC solutions is the lack of funding and the fact there seems to be no real long term funding solution.

    To take one simple area of chronic health, you have people that will require care/treatment/meeting for their lifetimes (such as diebatic care) if you can put the funding into getting people getting on with their lives and living healthier as it’s very possible to do you reduce the emergency and long term issues these things lead to through poor management. To do this though is intensive up front and probably presents no real savings in the next 5-10 years. Is it worth it for a lifetime yes, worth it for the lifetime of a parliament no.

    Public/Private partnerships may work but will create a 2 tier system where the rich can skip on through and the poor wait. I’ve seen other schemes where waiting lists are stopped and anyone new moves onto an immdeiate next week surgery list as the consequences of waiting till the end of the list are huge for excess cost and long term impacts (the impact of somebody not working for a year etc.)

    I still don’t think throwing money at it is the solution, it needs targeted joined up thinking and people also have to understand the implication when they go to the paper asking for a huge amount of funding for a drug that may have very little impact ( a lottery win type drug) vs waht that money means to 100’s of other people for life. Hence my first comments about it may work better as a private company who can deflect and hide from those things.

    Premier Icon sr0093193

    The ridiculous 10% and any above civil service 1% cap pay increases. 6 million (in wages alone) a year for what?

    None of them have any idea how to sort this shit show out – 0 policies from either side.

    Premier Icon jambalaya

    Ernie £350m in 1950 growing to £1bn by 1962

    I chise 1959 as starting point amd data hardly shows as its so small versus the £120bn of today

    @mike population data is on the same site 50 million in 1950 and 65 million tofay

    Yeah as I said…….completely meaningless.

    Here is a slightly more meaningful graph :

    Note the fall in NHS spending since the Tories came to government – it’s the most significant drop in the NHS’s history. Which clearly contradicts your claims.

    I say it’s slightly more meaningful because it obviously excludes future PFI costs.

    PFI deals will cost taxpayers £209bn over next 35 years

    Premier Icon mikewsmith

    And age, outcomes and life expectancy? Quoting one figure is misleading, did you intend to use that one figure to prove a point or to be part of the debate.
    Population dynamics play a huge role too we have more elderly who are taking more out (as opposed to the young healthy immigrants) people have more chronic illness rather than dying young of death. If you can add that stuff in the your graph has meaning.
    Another factor would be tax revenue over that time, given we have many more 2 income households the benefit of increasing tax spends can offset the growth in demand.

    Premier Icon jambalaya

    My point is that health spending is accelerating for a variety of factors and political policies of all parties are failing to deal with it

    Premier Icon mikewsmith

    Yes is is growing. It as around the world also, erine’s chart is actually more meaningful though as it puts things into perspective. As the UK’s GDP has grown we have been able to fund the NHS to do more things. 30 years ago people were being written off and left to die, these days a lot of those people go on to live full and happy lives, contribute more to tax take and society in general.
    Some stats

    Infant mortality has fallen from 9.4 to 3.9 per 1,000 live births over the last three decades

    Deaths of mothers in childbirth has also fallen, this will allivate pressure on other services to look after children in these cases.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 503 total)

The topic ‘What to cut to fund the NHS?’ is closed to new replies.