advertisement


The Future of the NHS

ks.234

ks.234

Half way to Infinity
A suitable moment for a Brian Bilston poem that popped up in front of me this morning:

NHS Test Results

Please do take a seat. I appreciate
this must be a very difficult time for you –
waiting is never easy – so let’s crack on
and take a look at these results.

The cuts you have sustained are severe.
Life-threatening, even. The bruising and soreness
consistent with a prolonged period of abuse
and neglect. It’s no wonder you feel run down.

To address these concerns, I prescribe
a decent pay rise and an immediate change
of government. That should also help to sort out
the malignant lump you were worried about.

But the good news is that your vital organs
are still working well. More than well, in fact.
Your heart, in particular, is remarkable.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen one so large,

so strong and healthy, as it pumps out blood
and love and kindness, eighty millilitres
to a single beat, two thousand gallons every day,
flowing, always flowing, supporting all that life
 
Coincidentally I remarked to my other half this morning that I've twice now read/heard disturbing choices of words on the BBC in relation to the NHS.

The first was something along the lines of 'Love it or hate it, the NHS is here to stay' and the second one this morning was 'Whatever you think about the NHS.....' (followed by something positive about the staff that work within it). It feels like preparations are being made for something.
 
calorgas said:
Coincidentally I remarked to my other half this morning that I've twice now read/heard disturbing choices of words on the BBC in relation to the NHS.

The first was something along the lines of 'Love it or hate it, the NHS is here to stay' and the second one this morning was 'Whatever you think about the NHS.....' (followed by something positive about the staff that work within it). It feels like preparations are being made for something.
Click to expand...
Yes, and a big part of those preparations will be regurgitating false myths about where government spending actually comes from.

The truth is that government spending comes from, er, government. Nowhere else.
 
since its very inception it has been necessary to ration and prioritise the treatments available to everyone due to the funding available and this is something that the " I want it now " public need to come to terms with. If we want this service then we need to pay for it but be realistic about what we can expect from the pittance of the national insurance that we pay individually. As a retired section manager in a large radiotherapy department one of the most difficult things that I had to wrestle with was that we had to manage all of our resources within the means available. At times consultants would demand a higher quality of treatment than was efficient to produce and on more than one occasion I had to ask these consultants which patients of theirs should we not treat in order that some of the patients could get fewer side effects. Needless to say there had to be compromise. The stress of managing 62 and 30 day wait cancer targets was one of the main reasons that I took early retiral.

We need a government that is willing to tell the public that they have to pay more for these services for the benefit of all.

Rgds
Stuart
 
Last edited:
calorgas said:
Coincidentally I remarked to my other half this morning that I've twice now read/heard disturbing choices of words on the BBC in relation to the NHS.

The first was something along the lines of 'Love it or hate it, the NHS is here to stay' and the second one this morning was 'Whatever you think about the NHS.....' (followed by something positive about the staff that work within it). It feels like preparations are being made for something.
Click to expand...
Ye, the BBC is very much part of the campaign to undermine the NHS.
 
stuwils said:
We need a government that is willing to tell the public that they have to pay more for these services for the benefit of all.
Click to expand...

Neighbouring European governments spend significantly more on healthcare than the UK does and have similar levels of taxation.

The idea that the we can't 'afford' the NHS simply isn't true.

It's not about whether the funds are there - it's about the government choosing to run down the service. Setting it up to fail.

xx7BTr7.png
 
stuwils said:
since its very inception it has been necessary to ration and prioritise the treatments available to everyone due to the funding available and this is something that the " I want it now " public need to come to terms with. If we want this service then we need to pay for it but be realistic about what we can expect from the pittance of the national insurance that we pay individually. As a retired section manager in a large radiotherapy department one of the most difficult things that I had to wrestle with was that we had to manage all of our resources within the means available. At times consultants would demand a higher quality of treatment than was efficient to produce and on more than one occasion I had to ask these consultants which patients of theirs should we not treat in order that some of the patients could get fewer side effects. Needless to say there had to be compromise. The stress of managing 62 and 30 day wait cancer targets was one of the main reasons that I tool early retiral.

We need a government that is willing to tell the public that they have to pay more for these services for the benefit of all.

Rgds
Stuart
Click to expand...
No, we need a government that tell the truth that the NHS is not funded by the taxpayer.

The problem is that the myth that the ‘public will have to pay more’ is the tool that the right wing are using to push the NHS deeper into crisis until we have a US style Health system
 
stuwils said:
since its very inception it has been necessary to ration and prioritise the treatments available to everyone due to the funding available and this is something that the " I want it now " public need to come to terms with. If we want this service then we need to pay for it but be realistic about what we can expect from the pittance of the national insurance that we pay individually. As a retired section manager in a large radiotherapy department one of the most difficult things that I had to wrestle with was that we had to manage all of our resources within the means available. At times consultants would demand a higher quality of treatment than was efficient to produce and on more than one occasion I had to ask these consultants which patients of theirs should we not treat in order that some of the patients could get fewer side effects. Needless to say there had to be compromise. The stress of managing 62 and 30 day wait cancer targets was one of the main reasons that I tool early retiral.

We need a government that is willing to tell the public that they have to pay more for these services for the benefit of all.

Rgds
Stuart
Click to expand...

We need a government that is willing to spend the money.
Underfunded Understaffed Underpaid.
Most medics think the gov.is planning to destroy it,managed decline.
"Banfield (bma chair) said the NHS is in a state of “managed decline” because recent governments had made “a conscious political decision” to deny it adequate resources or tackle staff shortages.

He added: “It was a conscious political decision to underfund and undervalue the NHS as a national asset and its staff – not just doctors but [staff] across the board.”"

Most doctors think ministers want to destroy NHS, BMA boss says | NHS | The Guardian
 
We do need to have a mature, measured and considered national conversation about the NHS, health provision, care, and preventative medicine. Unfortunately, with our elected leadership (on both sides of the house) as it stands, we're not going to get one.

Without wishing to appear to endorse any Tory (or Labour right) position, we do need to look at the scope and extent of what we are prepared to fund as that scope has grown organically over the decades. We may (and I hope we are) be mostly fine with that, but gauging the national appetite for health funding would be a useful start. I'd prefer that we use something like Citizens' Juries to take the national temperature on this stuff, though, rather than the usual public or Parliamentary inquiry route.
 
This is State revenue (all direct and indirect taxes) as a percentage of GDP: (These statistics are always a bit arbitrary since there are many factors that vary from one country to another, so basically just a rough indicator)

France: 46.2%
Italy: 42.4%
Germany: 37.5%
UK: 33.3%

So there would seem to be ample scope for the UK to increase taxation to increase financing of the NHS. If a government wants to penalise a State health system in favour of the private health sector is another matter.
 
It’s not just the Tories with creeping privatisation. Starmer and Streeting are now openly talking about privatising parts of the NHS. Telling us (quietly) that. “We cannot afford it without substantial changes to the system.”
No doubt their bosses, US private health care and hedge fund managers who are funding the pair to the tune of tens of thousands of £££s will be rubbing their hands.
 
PaulMB said:
This is State revenue (all direct and indirect taxes) as a percentage of GDP: (These statistics are always a bit arbitrary since there are many factors that vary from one country to another, so basically just a rough indicator)

France: 46.2%
Italy: 42.4%
Germany: 37.5%
UK: 33.3%

So there would seem to be ample scope for the UK to increase taxation to increase financing of the NHS. If a government wants to penalise a State health system in favour of the private health sector is another matter.
Click to expand...
The word ‘revenue’ comes from the French for ‘return’. Your tax has no existence after it is returned. It does not fund the NHS or anything else.
 
PaulMB said:
This is State revenue (all direct and indirect taxes) as a percentage of GDP: (These statistics are always a bit arbitrary since there are many factors that vary from one country to another, so basically just a rough indicator)

France: 46.2%
Italy: 42.4%
Germany: 37.5%
UK: 33.3%

So there would seem to be ample scope for the UK to increase taxation to increase financing of the NHS. If a government wants to penalise a State health system in favour of the private health sector is another matter.
Click to expand...
There needs to be a proper debate about taxation and what you get from it, and how we compare with other European countries.The Daily Mail screams that we are taxed to the hilt, but taxation was higher and more equitable under Thatcher. She was acting to change that, of course. My wife’s sister and her husband moved to Belgium 40+ years ago (they now have citizenship) and before they retired he told me that they paid more than 50% in local and national taxes (they were teachers, not hedge funders) but the crucial thing is they were completely relaxed about that - ‘we get superb services’.
 
The wider question is not so much 'how heavily are we taxed?' but 'how affordable is life after taxation?' In other words, what is the spread of net income, and how much of that is taken up in non-discretionary spending? If, say, the tax burden went up by 3%, but this corresponded to a reduction in non-discretionary spending of >3%, people would be better off, on the whole.

There are all sorts of ways that could come about. Greater health spending could result in a healthier population, which would in the longer term, reduce healthcare costs, but which would also translate into less lost earnings through sickness and disability. Greater spending on infrastructure and public transport could reduce the costs for commuting and other travel, and reduce the dependency on cars. Returning key infrastructure and services to national ownership could easily have similar outcomes over the medium to long term. Greater/better spending on policing, justice and law enforcement could result in reduced crime and a better overall life experience for many, not to mention reduced insurance premiums. Greater/better spending on welfare and benefits could have similar outcomes to the policing stuff, and also on health, esp mental health.

So it's not a zero sum game, and indeed better, smarter and, yes, higher taxation could well result in a society we'd all prefer to live in, and which, ultimately, cost us less per head than the extra taxation. Nobody in power ever talks like this, though.
 
Locheeboy said:
It’s not just the Tories with creeping privatisation. Starmer and Streeting are now openly talking about privatising parts of the NHS. Telling us (quietly) that. “We cannot afford it without substantial changes to the system.”
No doubt their bosses, US private health care and hedge fund managers who are funding the pair to the tune of tens of thousands of £££s will be rubbing their hands.
Click to expand...
At this point, I'm convinced that Labour is more likely to increase privatisation in the NHS than the Conservatives.

MPs like Wes Streeting actively want this,and they're more likely to get away with it because Labour is widely viewed as "the party of the NHS".
 
Where all that money is going from the (large) hike in Corporation Tax seems to be a mystery as it was claimed to set it back on target from memory

https://www.resolutionfoundation.or...-a-generation-to-fund-an-nhs-dominated-state/

I can't see this happening under this or the next government either :-

https://keepournhspublic.com/factcheck-4-there-isnt-enough-money-to-fully-fund-the-nhs/

"The Sunday Times Rich List in 2021 stated that a combined wealth of almost £600bn was owned by just 171 people, all billionaires. Taxing the super-rich is possible if there is a political will to do it and effective public pressure on politicians.

The Wealth Tax Commission concluded that a one-off wealth tax was feasible and could raise between £80bn and £260bn over five years, depending on how it was designed.

Fixing other, existing wealth taxes could raise additional revenues. Moreover, the Commission found that the public, when presented with options, favoured a wealth tax over alternative tax rises with three quarters of the public wanting to see such a tax introduced."
 
stuwils said:
since its very inception it has been necessary to ration and prioritise the treatments available to everyone due to the funding available and this is something that the " I want it now " public need to come to terms with. If we want this service then we need to pay for it but be realistic about what we can expect from the pittance of the national insurance that we pay individually. As a retired section manager in a large radiotherapy department one of the most difficult things that I had to wrestle with was that we had to manage all of our resources within the means available. At times consultants would demand a higher quality of treatment than was efficient to produce and on more than one occasion I had to ask these consultants which patients of theirs should we not treat in order that some of the patients could get fewer side effects. Needless to say there had to be compromise. The stress of managing 62 and 30 day wait cancer targets was one of the main reasons that I tool early retiral.

We need a government that is willing to tell the public that they have to pay more for these services for the benefit of all.

Rgds
Stuart
Click to expand...
I too was reading just this week that the UK spends less per head on health than most European countries. I think we in the UK have become used to a large disposable income and have become conditioned into thinking happiness comes from acquisition of big shiny consumer items. If we were taxed more heavily to fund the NHS we'd adjust to not changing cars so often, so many foreign holidays etc, I don't believe we'd feel hard done by. As someone who has passed from my earlier years of health invincibility to someone all too aware of my morality I can put a value on my health that is far greater than any consumer items.

We just need a personal reset of priorities. However given the huge revenue ploughed into advertising that tells us we need to consume to be happy/better than our peers I am not sure all would agree with my viewpoint.

There would be a switch in the fortunes of companies manufacturing the consumer luxuries to those providing medical goods and services. That would ruffle feathers in many quarters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top