Fund the NHS adequately

[El Cid]

Fundamentally, until we are appropriately taxed, as in higher on our income for example, the government will never be able to fund the NHS properly.

 

So everyone who is complaining about the NHS not being adequately funded. Stop complaining unless you're prepared to get taxed more for it.

 

As of Q1 (the first quarter of) 2015, UK government debt amounted to £1.56 trillion, or 81.58% of total GDP, at which time the annual cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt amounted to around £43 billion (which is roughly 3% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income).

When we have reduced our debt, things will be much easier. I think the Government should reduce how much money they give people, instead of reducing council and NHS spending.

Its not always a good idea to take more money from people via the tax system, so just give people less, we cannot afford it.

[melthebell]

Fundamentally, until we are appropriately taxed, as in higher on our income for example, the government will never be able to fund the NHS properly.

 

So everyone who is complaining about the NHS not being adequately funded. Stop complaining unless you're prepared to get taxed more for it.

paying bosses 166 million in bonuses doesnt help...surely?

[tinfoilhat]

paying bosses 166 million in bonuses doesnt help...surely?

 

Given the budget of NHS England alone is £101 BILLION I'm not sure stopping those bonuses will turn the tide.

[Anna B]

The people who have answered the 'would you pay more tax' question, have said they would, as long as it's spent wisely. There's the rub.. Do you think it will be when much of it is now privatised and the bosses are paying themselves bonuses which should go back into the pot. The guy that runs Motorbility, dealing with transport for the disabled, paid himself a £1.7 million salary last year, when a lot of disabled people have had their mobility payments cut or stopped altogether. This is a lifeline for them and false economy because it means in some cases they can no longer travel to work. This is not the end that needs cutting.

 

I believe UK already has a much lower per capita spend than many other EU countries so there's, not much to spare. However I suspect that if the Tories raise taxes the bulk of it will find its way into the pockets of the already rich in terms of contracts etc.

 

Profit has no place in the NHS, unless it is ploughed back in to improve services.

[ECCOnoob]

Fundamentally, until we are appropriately taxed, as in higher on our income for example, the government will never be able to fund the NHS properly.

 

So everyone who is complaining about the NHS not being adequately funded. Stop complaining unless you're prepared to get taxed more for it.

 

Deliberately playing devils advocate (and being the inevitable voice of the Daily Mail brigade), another important question to be asked is whether there are enough people actually paying into the system in the first place as against the numbers of people using it and taking it for granted.

 

Its all well and good ever increasing taxes on us who pay tax. But, what about all those generational jobless types or those with self inflicted ilnesss types or those serial breeder types or those who dont pay a penny in but still (often reguarly) take from it.

 

"Free" at point of use. "universal" healthcare. "universal" treatment is all well and good until the money runs out.

 

Highest earners contribute the most is of course the right system but what happens if they get fed up with constantly subsidising service for other people who continuinally and through their own choice contribute nothing. This must be present. Even more so when those highest earners are likely to use services the least by choosing to go private either having access to schemes or directly paying outside of the NHS system.

 

What about all those "free" at point of use and completely taken for granted auxilliary services. Are they really so essential? Do we really need all these community facilities / minority citizen services / quangos / awareness campaigns / support groups really coming out of the budget. NHS should be for essentially healthcare and I see no reason why support services such as the above shouldn't be financed through other means.

Edited February 10, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Mister Gee]

Deliberately playing devils advocate (and being the inevitable voice of the Daily Mail brigade), another important question to be asked is whether there are enough people actually paying into the system in the first place as against the numbers of people using it and taking it for granted.

 

Its all well and good ever increasing taxes on us who pay tax. But, what about all those generational jobless types or those with self inflicted ilnesss types or those serial breeder types or those who dont pay a penny in but still (often reguarly) take from it.

 

"Free" at point of use. "universal" healthcare. "universal" treatment is all well and good until the money runs out.

 

Highest earners contribute the most is of course the right system but what happens if they get fed up with constantly subsidising service for other people who continuinally and through their own choice contribute nothing. This must be present. Even more so when those highest earners are likely to use services the least by choosing to go private either having access to schemes or directly paying outside of the NHS system.

 

What about all those "free" at point of use and completely taken for granted auxilliary services. Are they really so essential? Do we really need all these community facilities / minority citizen services / quangos / awareness campaigns / support groups really coming out of the budget. NHS should be for essentially healthcare and I see no reason why support services such as the above shouldn't be financed through other means.

 

Are you one of them?

[ez8004]

paying bosses 166 million in bonuses doesnt help...surely?

 

Isn't that the going rate given the size and budget of the organisation?

 

You have to pay competitively in order to attract people of the right competency.

[tinfoilhat]

Isn't that the going rate given the size and budget of the organisation?

 

You have to pay competitively in order to attract people of the right competency.

 

Are they competent?

[ez8004]

Deliberately playing devils advocate (and being the inevitable voice of the Daily Mail brigade), another important question to be asked is whether there are enough people actually paying into the system in the first place as against the numbers of people using it and taking it for granted.

 

Its all well and good ever increasing taxes on us who pay tax. But, what about all those generational jobless types or those with self inflicted ilnesss types or those serial breeder types or those who dont pay a penny in but still (often reguarly) take from it.

 

"Free" at point of use. "universal" healthcare. "universal" treatment is all well and good until the money runs out.

 

Highest earners contribute the most is of course the right system but what happens if they get fed up with constantly subsidising service for other people who continuinally and through their own choice contribute nothing. This must be present. Even more so when those highest earners are likely to use services the least by choosing to go private either having access to schemes or directly paying outside of the NHS system.

 

What about all those "free" at point of use and completely taken for granted auxilliary services. Are they really so essential? Do we really need all these community facilities / minority citizen services / quangos / awareness campaigns / support groups really coming out of the budget. NHS should be for essentially healthcare and I see no reason why support services such as the above shouldn't be financed through other means.

 

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

The UK government only spends less than 10% of GDP on the NHS. The EU countries with fully funded health care systems such as France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands are all +1% greater than us.

 

1% might not sound a lot, but what does it really mean in money terms. That's roughly £20 billion extra per year that we need to match their equivalent funding levels.

 

This is where you might say, but what about Norway? They have a fully funded system but they only spend 9.4% of GDP. True, but they spend nearly TWICE per citizen compared to us. How? You might say. The fact that they sit on the worlds largest sovereign wealth fund of +1$ Trillion might have something to do with it.

 

---------- Post added 11-02-2018 at 00:30 ----------

 

Are they competent?

 

If my budget was hamstrung to a deficit of 10% of what I need, then I would say they are miracle workers with what they are providing now.

Edited February 11, 2018 by ez8004

[mikeG]

Despite what is being spent to keep the NHS running - today, I feel that money has to come from somewhere to plan and build new hospitals or waiting lists and ambulance queues will become unmanageable. Our population is growing.