My point is that finding more funding may or may not be possible and may or may not be acceptable to the electorate whatever our own personal political stances on the matter..

Perhaps we could have a referendum.

“Should we pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS – yes/no”

But politicians don’t seem to like devolving power to the people 🙁

I would be willing to pay more tax to fund the nhs, but you raise a good point. Build some **** houses drive down prices and we could pay more tax and be better off…it will never happen though.

“Should we pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS – yes/no”

This is a serious question: At what point is the NHS properly funded?

Didn’t the Labour years tell us that simply throwing money at the NHS in bucketfuls didn’t solve the problems? Stafford etc. happened when Funding was at an all time high after years of growth:

somewhatslightlydazed – Member
“Should we pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS – yes/no”

Yes.

Yes.

How much of the bucketful of money ends up in the massive scam of PFI?

Ninfan, nice graph. Doesnt show anything about improvements to the NHS, I thinks its fairly well accepted the nhs improved during 2000-2010 isnt it. Thats my impression anyway.

Only the dashed line matters on that plot. And it would be interesting to overlay France.

I think we get the health service we pay for. And be sure we pay, just not as much as other countries.

Free at the point of delivery, fine. But I am also happy with modest profits for better service.

But I am also happy with modest profits for better service.

You have that option – private insurance, in the UK?

A_a – my point was more to question what ‘properly funded’ means? Where do you stop? £200 billion? £300 billion?

Would increased funding to the n’th degree have prevented Stafford, or are there other deeper issues issues within the NHS that need to be tackled to prevent disasters happening? is funding really the issue or is it a panacea?

NHS transformed from 1990s to now. One example – max waiting time from years to 18months to 18 weeks and max 2 week (or is it less now?) cancer wait. People used to die on waiting lists. And hospital buildings are generally unrecognisable from the Victorian nightingale wards of the past. There are many more examples.

But how much is enough is a valid question. There will always be tension between tax and publuc services and that is where a legitimate political battle is fought, and why the NHS can’t be independent of Govt. I want someone who I is ultimately accountable to me spending £100+bn of my taxes.

Would I pay more tax – yes
Would i redesign tax system
Would I link tax revenue to specific public service eg cig tax to health or VED to roads- No

as in most things the answer is no doubt some of each, funding alone wouldnt stop things like stafford but the endless pursuit of “outcomes” at the expense of care could be helped by freeing up nurses time.

simply throwing money at the NHS in bucketfuls didn’t solve the problems?

There are two issues here
1. you have cheery picked a failing one and ignores all other outcomes.
2. The graph needs to show some sort of medical outcome v price as that is irrelevant to [whatever the hell it is] the point you are trying to make.

Utter FAIL

Yes I would pay ore tax for a better healthcare system and for many other things as well – better education in your case 😉

EDIT: seeing as you have posted whilst I made my brew

As others note money [ or the sector you are in ]wont stop some people being shit at their jobs….see Tescos “finance department” for example.
I would imagine they are only related at the point at which a service has to little money to operate and after this point it is thelaw of diminishing returns

A debate on how much we pay to fund it is totally different from how we fund it it.

Ok junky – its a simple question

At what point is the NHS properly funded?

What is the point you are trying to make here with this question ?

TO describe that as a simple question is laughable.

At what point is the NHS properly funded?

Simple answer – At the point it is able to deliver the sort of service you expect.

Junky:

The question was posed

“Should we pay more tax in order to properly fund the NHS – yes/no”

So, At what point is the NHS properly funded?

somewhatslightlydazed – Member

Simple answer – At the point it is able to deliver the sort of service you expect.

Right, but we’ve accepted above that ‘the sort of service you expect’ does not necessarily have anything to do with money, because its often down to other things, like the pursuit of “outcomes” at the expense of care, or like people being shit at their jobs. cf. Stafford.

We could spend ten times as much as we do now and still be unable to deliver the ‘sort of service you expect’ !

yes ninfan everyone knows there is no relationship between what you spend and what you get – look at private schools all that money and yet no better outcomes – same goes with private healthcare

An excellent point and well made

Could you at least make sense or a point in your musings as I am reaching my boredom threshold.

Yeah, just as soon as you tell me what you think ‘properly funded’ means?

accepted above that ‘the sort of service you expect’ does not necessarily have anything to do with money,

But I don’t accept that. I believe it has quite a lot to do with money, amongst other things.

I am reaching my boredom threshold.

Is this a first?

Its not a phrase I used I said i would pay more money for a better service

PS if it was me I would have denied the claim I was not making sense 😉
Exits thread

Right, but we’ve accepted above that ‘the sort of service you expect’ does not necessarily have anything to do with money, because its often down to other things, like the pursuit of “outcomes” at the expense of care, or like people being shit at their jobs. cf. Stafford.

Problem is it does necessarily have something to do with funding, other variables are involved of course.

Health is the only thing that matters. Without we are dead.

So how do we prioritise our resources? £2k on a season ticket to wendyball, £xxx on Murdoch TV, £3 for a cup of hot brown refreshment with some sickly syrup in it – no problem.

A small contribution to health care. What? Are you serious? £10 to check the things we see with are ok. That’s a scandal, that’s 3 cups of coffee or 1/9th of a replica shirt….

You have that option – private insurance, in the UK?

Indeed (for some), but if you want to know how it should be done…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands

As I said, I think we get what we pay for, possibly a little more due to some economies of scale, but we don’t pay enough as a nation.

Good article on Circle’s franchise at Hinchingbrooke.

As he says, smoke and mirrors.