Fund the NHS adequately

[willman]

But don't forget those over working age have probably spent a working lifetime paying into the system without taking a great deal out. The majority tend not to need it for anything major until after they get older.

 

I don't think people necessarily want to pay less tax, they just want to see what they do pay used properly. I'd personally like to see the various figures that are bandied about broken down and explained. The figures often seem ridiculous to me for very little. I can only assume vast amounts are going into things like consultation and legal fees and not enough into the practical applications.

 

I don't think we need ID cards when we all have a National Insurance number. As for collecting fees from health tourists, is it really beyond the wit of government to come up with a system that doesn't cost more than it makes? Heaven knows we have enough managers in the system.

 

But you can't save it up for when you need it. You are paying to have it at your disposal not just for treatment.

Any parent will have taken out of the NHS as soon as one of them gets pregnant and continues to utilise the system until the offspring start paying tax.

 

I've spent a lifetime paying tax -but every GP appointment for me and family costs money,every broken arm,innoculation,holiday treatments etc. I genuinely don't expect my contribution to be waiting in a pot to pay for my heart attack.

 

As for tax - show me one Govt in the UK elected to power on a political statement of increasing base rate taxation.

 

I never mentioned health tourism btw others have jumped on the bandwagon, but many European countries have a health card which gets them access to the health services - almost none of which are free for everyone.

[Berberis]

The PM would do good by sending out civil servants to our EU neighbours and see how they manage to keep their social health services going so well.

[psynuk]

Try what happens here in the USA ?

 

Eh?

The USA system sucks, and the NHS couldn't be exported to the USA because there's too much profit involved over there.

 

Which is the bottom line here unfortunately, it's being vilified in the twin names of privatisation and control. Whys hunt going on about foreigners cost, doctors cost, blah...

 

The irony being that as the privatisation expands the cost will rise,

the privatisation occurring because the money wasn't there to begin with and using that deficit as justification.

Yet it will cost more private, so why not just have some political backbone and state this, increase the tax, and actually provide the services needed.

 

But like anything the government does, it will cost far more than it should and still be contracted out anyway. Despair ahoy?

[Douglas J]

 

Per capita spending in England is £2057. The other regions are slightly higher but nowhere near £3600. Yorkshire and Humber data seems hard to find but total public spending is only around 7k per capita.

 

Thanks for the correction. But it does show how much is spent by the NHS per person.

[tinfoilhat]

But don't forget those over working age have probably spent a working lifetime paying into the system without taking a great deal out. The majority tend not to need it for anything major until after they get older.

 

I don't think people necessarily want to pay less tax, they just want to see what they do pay used properly. I'd personally like to see the various figures that are bandied about broken down and explained. The figures often seem ridiculous to me for very little. I can only assume vast amounts are going into things like consultation and legal fees and not enough into the practical applications.

 

I don't think we need ID cards when we all have a National Insurance number. As for collecting fees from health tourists, is it really beyond the wit of government to come up with a system that doesn't cost more than it makes? Heaven knows we have enough managers in the system.

 

I'm not sure all old people, certainly now, HAVE paid into the system. Many women stayed at home to look after the kids, and it's not unreasonable to suggest a percentage didn't work much at all or hadn't worked for years prior to their retirement age.

[truman]

I'm not sure all old people, certainly now, HAVE paid into the system. Many women stayed at home to look after the kids, and it's not unreasonable to suggest a percentage didn't work much at all or hadn't worked for years prior to their retirement age.

 

I'm not sure the amount they paid would pay for very much either..what was the average tax bill in the 60's?

[Michael_W]

It might be uncomfortable but its in no way strange. My post was fairly hyperbolic I grant you but the basis and principle is pretty sound. The main problem with the NHS, is simply that as a nation we spend less than others. It's not in any way, as the government would have you believe, down to thousands of immigrants clogging up A&E. It's the increasing elderly that are the the main issue, particularly in terms of acute A&E admissions. The question, how do we pay for it?

 

Almost half of NHS spending is on over 65s, a proportion of spending that's increasing more than any other. I said before our ageing population is putting an extra £1.2bn/yr strain on NHS resources, larger than any other controllable factor (largest cost is actually inflation of prices and wages). Over 85s cost an average of £7k per year in NHS resources. I used the loan idea partly deliberately. That 7k is not too far shy of the cost of tuition fees for the younger generation (a cost which is imposed for only three years and is advantageous to society in general, but still they must pay) which are basically paid back as an income contingent tax of around £150/month, on average.

 

I don't personally believe that the younger generation can bear any more costs imposed on them to support the older one. We are already seeing real and significant alterations such as lower birth rates because austerity has impacted them disproportionately. Most of the under 35s will likely be working into their 70s to afford to retire, wealth in the UK has been systematically aggregated, by deliberate policy in many cases, in the generation born in the 50s and 60s. Intergenerational inequality is rising, and the most disposable income is in, you guessed it the over 65s.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/03/britains-millennials

 

Drug intake, alcohol consumption and unhealthy lifestyles are all decreasing in the young. The costs of alcohol abuse in particular are increasingly based again in the over 50s.

 

You could mention the cost of translation services if you wish, although you risk sounding a little silly. Because the cost is about £20million /yr. That's around 0.03% of the budget, a drop in the ocean.

 

---------- Post added 07-02-2017 at 23:19 ----------

 

 

Per capita spending in England is £2057. The other regions are slightly higher but nowhere near £3600. Yorkshire and Humber data seems hard to find but total public spending is only around 7k per capita.

 

Ah your not too happy about tuition fees eh

You go on about the younger generation bearing costs, what exactly are these costs that they are bearing that the older generations haven't, do they earn less or pay more tax or Nat Ins ?

The younger generation who have had drug and alcohol issues (binge drinking for example) may find themselves burdening the NHS in the future if and when they get older themselves, and what about burdening the generations that will follow them ?

There are elderly people now who have to fund their own care home fees from their pension and their property, how on earth will paying a few quid more in taxes ever cover the ever increasing cost of health care ?

It won't and no future government will be able to sort it !

As for the 'drop in the ocean' cost of translation services, does that cost cover all the time required to implement translation and interpretation, after all time is money and waiting times are an issue in the NHS.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Michael_W

[RJRB]

The money that us retirees have paid into National Insurance has already been spent on NHS services ,SocialServices andState Pensions of our parents generation.There is no accumulated funds.We are dependant on the younger generations contributions and so it goes on.

The younger generation are being made to work harder and longer because of our extended life expectancy.

Something radical needs to be done to try to make people provide for their old age.Many of us were fortunate to be made or encouraged to pay into Final Salary Schemes.

These are no longer available and to my mind,even worse is the freedom to take a lump sum out of ones pension pot.Such a measure only works for the wealthy,those with a limited life expectancy and the live for today brigade.

I'm wandering off subject here but I really would like all major parties to have a consensus of what funding is require over the next 10 years and maintain it.

[Anna B]

But you can't save it up for when you need it. You are paying to have it at your disposal not just for treatment.

Any parent will have taken out of the NHS as soon as one of them gets pregnant and continues to utilise the system until the offspring start paying tax.

 

I've spent a lifetime paying tax -but every GP appointment for me and family costs money,every broken arm,innoculation,holiday treatments etc. I genuinely don't expect my contribution to be waiting in a pot to pay for my heart attack.

 

As for tax - show me one Govt in the UK elected to power on a political statement of increasing base rate taxation.

 

I never mentioned health tourism btw others have jumped on the bandwagon, but many European countries have a health card which gets them access to the health services - almost none of which are free for everyone.

 

So, my contributions will have gone towards people who needed the help at the time, which is as it should be. That's why it's called insurance. Nobody thinks it's stacked up waiting for them.

 

Incidently we are now more heavily taxed than ever, and certainly more heavily taxed than most of Europe, bar the Scandinavian countries.

[Michael_W]

The money that us retirees have paid into National Insurance has already been spent on NHS services ,SocialServices andState Pensions of our parents generation.There is no accumulated funds.We are dependant on the younger generations contributions and so it goes on.

The younger generation are being made to work harder and longer because of our extended life expectancy.

Something radical needs to be done to try to make people provide for their old age.Many of us were fortunate to be made or encouraged to pay into Final Salary Schemes.

These are no longer available and to my mind,even worse is the freedom to take a lump sum out of ones pension pot.Such a measure only works for the wealthy,those with a limited life expectancy and the live for today brigade.

I'm wandering off subject here but I really would like all major parties to have a consensus of what funding is require over the next 10 years and maintain it.

 

Speak for yourself RJRB, there were also many people who did not have Final salary schemes, and are you seriously telling me that each generation will work harder and longer, when did that all change then ?

At what age do people now start their working life and at what age will they be expected to retire ?

15-65 years or 20-70 years of age = 50 years working !

Each generation will have paid in towards the NHS during their working life, unfortunately the NHS costs far more to run at current demand than however much it is funded, it's a victim of it's own success, keep people living longer and it will cost more. The alternative is euthanasia, I would consider voting for that having seen how some are kept ticking with little or no quality of life.

Edited February 8, 2017 by Michael_W