You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Today it is being reported that we all need to pay an extra £100 a month towards the cost of the NHS.
Is it worth it ? I am actually not convinced. £100 per month will get you a very nice private health insurance policy that will pay for the the nice stuff the NHS can not provide. The NHS could then continue its Acute core business.
Of course it is no where near that straightforward. As in essence your £100 private policy would have to start funding far more services. So very quickly your £100 per month becomes £200 per month.
Is my response exactly what the conservatives want? Let the public decide that they want privatisation for themselves ??
How much of that gets split between freeloaders who never pay a penny into the system and shareholders who take great delight in ramping up cost for a box of tissues.
No thanks.
But surely they are get a bazillion pound a week after Brexit?
Yes, I'd pay, but only on the basis that control of the NHS is taken away from Whitehall and into the responsibility of a commission.
All the short journey motor vehicle users, heavy smokers/drinkers that do less than two hours aerobic exercise per week... Please form an orderly, very long queue here.
These are the people that are crippling the NHS and lowering the age expectancy of the UK middle aged and upwards population. These are the people that should be subsidising the NHS.
Oh, not to mention the tax evading companies and individuals. 😉
Surely it wouldn't be £100 each - it would be a sliding scale based on ability to pay, just like any other tax.
I would pay.
The level of services that the NHS provide compared to 20 - 30 years ago, mean it's got to cost more.
However, all that PFI bollox needs to go.
£100 per month will get you a very nice private health insurance policy
Not if you're over 70 it won't
It's a bottomless pit the more you put in the more it will cost. The service will always be on the brink as costs will increase to match the revenue.
The costs could be controlled if the government were prepared to do something about diet and obesity by tackling the food industry. About 10% of the NHS budget is for treating diabetes largely caused by obesity and apparently 1 in 6 NHS beds are occupied by diabetes sufferers.
I'm sure there are other areas of "lifestyle" health issues which ought to be tackled and scope for increased expenditure on screening and health checks to reduce the need for treatment later.
But what do I know? I'm sure Mr. Hunt has it all sorted.
There is no need for this. If all the richest people and companies were taxed properly -ie in line with incoming EU rules - we would have an NHS that would be funded beyond our wildest dreams , these ****ers pay no tax and the loss is more than double the UK total annual budget.
it's just another way of the rich bastards making the small people pay when they pay for **** all.
All of the arguments put by others in the posts above amount to nothing if everyone was taxed properly, we have all been conned into blaming lifestyle choices, lazy workers, wrong bacon, anything but the fact that the top 1% are milking us dry.
I am actually not convinced. £100 per month will get you a very nice private health insurance policy that will pay for the the nice stuff the NHS can not provide.
That private insurance is just paying for a nicely decorated room with free sky TV.
The doctors are the same as those in the NHS ward next door & the acute stuff is the expensive stuff that the NHS has to carry out anyway, including if the private provider can't do the complex stuff or something goes wrong.
Phillxx is right though, it's freeloading pensioners who are by far the biggest burden to the NHS & this won't effect them
And again even the Tories are admitting that their privatisation & reforms of the last decade have severely damaged the NHS
Surely it wouldn’t be £100 each – it would be a sliding scale based on ability to pay, just like any other tax.
Well it will need to include a realistic tax on wealth, not just income, and we know how that worked out the last time it was as suggested by the Conservatives in their election manifesto.
We as a country can’t keep increasing the tax on the younger generations whilst ignoring the wealth that has been built up in housing stock and pension funds.
Strange that one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world, is been made to look more expensive than private health.
The US system is almost double!
2014 data from https://www.rferl.org/a/26600117.html
We as a country can’t keep increasing the tax on the younger generations whilst ignoring the wealth that has been built up in housing stock and pension funds.
It is not even this, look at the offshore wealth that has not even been taxed.
Taxes need to go up to pay for the costs of Brexit, and the stall in the rise of tax revenue because of reduced growth.
The NHS could then continue its Acute core business.
Under current funding, if you did this the NHS would run out of money.
Strange that one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world, is been made to look more expensive than private health.
Exactly^^^
I've not been able to see the actual papers yet but it was presented on the beeb as "households could be paying up to £2000 extra per year". Then they mentioned as an afterthought "in 20 years time". Not quite as scary if that info's included. Still not easy to fund with our dismal GDP forecasts though, if only there was a way to help with that.
As for the diabetes thing, see the governments repeated rolling over to the food industry lobbying & the consequences...
The UK loses at a conservative estimate 300billion a year in the shadow economy, ie tax lost from big buisness offhsoring.
Some estimate it to be 3-5 times as much.
UK annual budget is 800billion. Of which that 300 billion would add another 37% of our budget. This blows all other arguments away.
Get rid of self serving government members
Get rid of PFI on the boards of which many of the self serving scum sit in fact.
Why not make it to hold a public office position you aren't allowed to have any financial interest in government funded projects.
3p on each of income tax, VAT and NI to pay for it is the solution posed in the report, other variations can acheive the same.
At least someone is now talking about the need for tax rises across the board (i.e. not just rises for "other people").
Phillxx is right though, it’s freeloading pensioners who are by far the biggest burden to the NHS & this won’t effect them
Well if you're going to blame them I think it's only fair you include workshy spongers (AKA the unemployed) and probably immigrants and asylum seekers too!
Yes, I’d pay, but only on the basis that control of the NHS is taken away from Whitehall and into the responsibility of a commission.
Mmm... whilst political meddling is bad, I’m not sure that some sort of unelected, body most likely made up of people with professional backgrounds and relatively privilidged lives are the long term best plan. Nor does it necessarily make sense for those who spend the budget, those who decide on the taxes and those who select policies with long term strategic health benefits to be separate bodies with competing interests.
These are the people that are crippling the NHS and lowering the age expectancy of the UK middle aged and upwards population. These are the people that should be subsidising the NHS.
If they die young though they are no longer a burden on the NHS... are you sure holier than tho people who never pay excise duty for their sins, get treated for their depression and MTB injuries in their middle age and then live long enough to get hip replacements (agrivated with all their running) before dieing of some expensive to treat cancer don’t actually cost more over their lifetime (especially vs their contribution), than the obese guy who dies of a heart attack at 65.
Well if you’re going to blame them I think it’s only fair you include workshy spongers (AKA the unemployed) and probably immigrants and asylum seekers too!
Most studies show that immigrants contribute more in tax than they take in benefits, being young they tend to need less medical assistance.
it’s freeloading pensioners who are by far the biggest burden to the NHS & this won’t effect them
Well the poor ones, who don't earn enough to pay tax won't be able to contribute any more, but all pensioners are subject to income tax (if they earn enough). There's a good argument for removing the NI exemption for pensioners, but that won't pay for the shortfall as most pensioners mainly rely on the state pension.
All the short journey motor vehicle users, heavy smokers/drinkers that do less than two hours aerobic exercise per week… Please form an orderly, very long queue here.
^^ this
I'd also like to see anyone who signed off on prescribing paracetamol etc educated on why it won't do someone any harm to pay the 20p themselves instead of having the NHS pay ten or twenty times that for the same thing.
Besides, make it better for everyone. Organ donor? Have 10% off your contributions. Same for blood/platelet donors.
I think though that if you want a world class service you have to pay for it, and those that can afford it the most should cough up.
Most studies show that immigrants contribute more in tax than they take in benefits, being young they tend to need less medical assistance.
Ah, good thing that none of them will stay, have babies, become old and/or get ill in the future then. Wouldn't want to ever consider future liabilities in our short term accounting, would we?
All the short journey motor vehicle users, heavy smokers/drinkers that do less than two hours aerobic exercise per week… Please form an orderly, very long queue here.
Does that queue go in front of, or behind, the one with the broken legs, arms and collarbones from MTB'ing and the knee and hip replacements for joggers?
Ah, good thing that none of them will stay, have babies, become old and/or get ill in the future then. Wouldn’t want to ever consider future liabilities in our short term accounting, would we?
Which is fantastic news as they will be the ones wiping your arse working for the NHS when you're a free loading pensioner.....
Pointless arguments. We need the NHS… it needs to do more… that will cost more… if we want Brexit we can't rely on significant growth or the government spending less on non-NHS areas, so taxes go up… pretty simple really. Of course, many will see this as an opportunity to turn the NHS into something else entirely… just keeping the logo for lapel badges, buses, and adverts full of blatant lies.
Logans run job done.
Society in the future may just value old people's lives less as society degenerates anyway.
Not to me - the last 3 ops I have had have all been on Cigna or Bupa - 1 of them was in a NHS hospital - but I only had to wait 3 days!
NHS for Emergency medicine and the helicopters + Mental Health and Disabled Patients
Everyone else can take out insurance
Society in the future may just value old people’s lives less as society degenerates anyway.
I'm beginning to think I'm glad I'm as old as I am. I've had some very good times and I'll be dead before it all turns to shit.
I'm struggling to understand how the NHS has successfully operated for 70 years but is suddenly unsustainable now?
Is it worth it ? I am actually not convinced. £100 per month will get you a very nice private health insurance policy that will pay for the the nice stuff the NHS can not provide. The NHS could then continue its Acute core business.
I'm not one for national pride, but I am glad that I grew up in a country offering national services equal for each individual. That's how it should be in my opinion. Quite often, those who can't afford it are those who need it most. And you will only get better healthcare privately because someone else is missing out. I'd prefer to keep it in the NHS.
Interesting that by far the biggest cost factor in the NHS is staffing, of which 30%, goes straight back to the inland revenue.
Paying hugely high interest rates of PFI schemes due to "risk" is a bit bonkers as well. Given they are government backed. Wouldn't it have been better to use NHS Pension Fund money to fund PFI
Outsourcing the NHS's purchasing, warehousing & delivery organisation to DHL has also been a massive disaster, as their "cost+" pricing disincentivises them from agressively persuing better prices
I also wonder about the cost to the American economy, of having a half-fit workforce, carrying ailments they are unable to pay to have treated.
I would rather the government generated any additional funds from clamping down on tax avoidance, corporate and personal offshoring and non dom status.
NHS budget should be based on a calculation of number of people in country, age groups of those people and likelyhood to need healthcare along with average cost
The fact that is not done is what leaves us with a shortfall every year and now a need for a what appears to most people and out of plan increase. If the increase were in line with need over the last 40 years it would just be expected and accepted
I’m struggling to understand how the NHS has successfully operated for 70 years but is suddenly unsustainable now?
We used to expect old people to die, now we try to keep them alive.
I love what the NHS stands for but it has got to the point where it is miles removed from its original purpose. The amount of people who abuse the system for their own means is shocking, the waste internally is shameful and the whole PFI shambles is, or should be, a national embarrassment.
Cut the system back to its core services and sort out the waste, then we can see how much it really costs. If that means I have to take out an insurance policy to enable me to go biking then so be it. I have a few friends who work in he NHS - 2 nurses, 1 GP and 2 ambulance paramedics - and the stories they tell me of how inefficient the system is shocks me, even after years of hearing the same thing over and over again.
If any more funding does get chucked into the NHS then I guarantee it will be swallowed up by the unions demanding instant wage rises etc. I'm not arguing that the staff don't deserve their wages at all, they more than earn their pay and if it was possible I'd want then to be paid handsomely, but it's a finite amount of money that needs to go around the whole system.
Never w to f we could find a way to make Google, Facebook, Amazon and Starbucks pay their taxes coreectly then I'd be more than happy for every penny of that to be sent directly to the NHS coffers. Pretty sure that would be a much larger cash injection.
How much of that gets split between freeloaders who never pay a penny into the system and shareholders who take great delight in ramping up cost for a box of tissues.
No thanks.
Also, those massive conglomerates of the Drugs industry charging £88 for a box of aspirin... and let’s not forget those self absorbed conglomerates also support this current contard government... so, as is always the case, whilst you have a bunch of retards “ruining” the country becuse of thier own political narrow minded self centred the normal citizen has to pay more ... for less.
Some of you voted the retards in.
Health and social care costs huge amounts across Europe and N America whether it is paid for through tax or insurance or both.
UK spends just lower than average of most developed countries (and significantly lower than Germany/France) as proportion of GDP and we get what we get. Figure 3 in link below shows figures
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9186
Also shows how massively expensive the US system is! Interesting that UK is not massively out of step in terms of public/private spend proportion with rest of Europe.
OECD ranks UK system at the upper end of efficiency not least because insurance systems increase transaction costs and creates perverse incentives between providers and commissioners of healthcare.
The bottom line is that good healthcare costs increasingly more as technology improves and lives lengthen. The choice is how good we want it to be and how fair. I am big on fairness personally, it is part of what defines our national identity.
On the PFI point - the Govt can borrow at very low rates - certainly less than 2% - whereas PFI has commercial capital costs built in - so has to deliver efficiency over public capital worth more than the difference in capital costs. This is the irredeemable economic flaw in PFI - the other issue is one of intent. Private companies are there to maximize profits whereas public sector should operate on an ethics of maximising public good.
ninfan, in 1960 average life expectancy was 71, it's now 81. What age would you like to die at?
@Milky1980, are "core services" just the ones you understand the need for, and benefit of, as a lay person?
@Olddog, "fairness" has been redefined in this country, to mean the wealthy not being mandated into helping those less fortunate… (especially by those who don't release that they are one of the people who benefit from such a system… if not now, then before their end of life).
I’m struggling to understand how the NHS has successfully operated for 70 years but is suddenly unsustainable now?
It blew it's budget by 50% in the first year and has always needed more money that it had...
A good read if you're really interested is:
It is also generally acknowledged that as societies get more advanced, they spend a higher proportion of GDP on health care, partly as they value life more and partly as more and more treatments become available. All the big 'easy wins' like penicillin and small pox immunisation have been had, so we're into diminishing returns now....
@Kelvin - true, bolstered by constant and hugely unbalanced narrative about wasteful public sector, welfare scroungers and lazy fatties. Not about massive systematic tax avoidance. The narrative promotes individual self serving rather than collective benefit.
In terms of healthcare the fact that private healthcare is less efficient is lost in the "I'm alright jack" attitude promoted
Application of fair progressive taxation - and a coherent cooperate tax regime - to fund public services.
Then an then honest discussion about how much needs to be spent ( not just health, but social care education policing etc which are all really struggling)
No, the NHS is not worth an extra £100 per month.
true, bolstered by constant and hugely unbalanced narrative about wasteful public sector,
also factually incorrect narrative, every study looking into efficiency concludes that the NHS is very efficient compared with insurance based schemes like the USA.
Then an then honest discussion about how much needs to be spent ( not just health, but social care education policing etc which are all really struggling)
The main reason they are all struggling is Austerity, which is a political decision to starve them of cash based on two beliefs: one, that public spending is a sin and two, the best way to recover from a recession is to cut back investment and starve the country back to health.
The costs could be controlled if the government were prepared to do something about diet and obesity by tackling the food industry. About 10% of the NHS budget is for treating diabetes largely caused by obesity and apparently 1 in 6 NHS beds are occupied by diabetes sufferers.
Please be careful how you word things...this refers to Type 2 diabetes, not us poor buggers that have Type 1 which is not self induced.
As for tackling the food industry, how about being draconian and making people responsible for their own health, obesity has **** all to do with genetics, just self control.
A £100 a month is more than my NHS “Pay rise” over the next 3 years.
They need to close down tax loopholes before they start hitting the public.
I’d be interested to see if you happened to change your view on that, cinnamon_girl, if someone you cared about was denied treatment on the grounds that it was too expensive
They need to close down tax loopholes before they start hitting the public.
They need to do both. We all will have to pay more in the long term.
However, the current Hard Brexit direction is also starving the UK of investment, so we're reducing GDP at the same time, which is a strange political decision.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">scotroutes
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Surely it wouldn’t be £100 each – it would be a sliding scale based on ability to pay, just like any other tax.
</div>
What truly progressive taxes have we? Income tax, and that's is surely. Thatcher and subsequents made sure of this...
They need to do both. We all will have to pay more in the long term.
“Before they start...”
😀
If you think the NHS isn’t worth it then sit down with a cuppa for a little while and watch this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0b3gfth/heart-transplant-a-chance-to-live
what do you class as a "loophole"
is the ability of a company to register in another EU country, in order to avail itself of a lower corporate tax regime, a loophole? I mean, its guaranteed by EU treaties, so is it really an abuse of tax laws?
I mean, its guaranteed by EU treaties, so is it really an abuse of tax laws?
Except for all the ones the EU has ruled break the rules and have forced extra payments eg
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3701_en.htm
Plus, you can always change the rules, or though post Brexit we won't have any say in that now we've chosen to go it alone, nor would benefit from any EU rulings; and have a much weaker bargaining position.........
Footflaps - I fully agree the austerity programme is wrong headed ideologically driven nonense.
Any attempt to have a sensible discussion about the levels of spending to deliver good quality services is constantly undermined by the "wasteful, scroungers" narrative from the right and most of the media. Let's see how long before the push back comes on the IFS proposals from the right...
@kelvin - no, it's for a panel of experts to decide that. If it means something that I have is not on the list then so be it, I'll either go private via insurance or cough up the cash myself. If I cannot afford to do that then I will let nature take it's course, no-one is immortal.
fifo - I'm currently funding two health conditions, one of which is life-long. Oh and I also funded diagnostic testing for said conditions. That's your question answered.
If I cannot afford to do that then I will let nature take it’s course, no-one is immortal.
Let the poor die, and the rich live on. Nice.
All the short journey motor vehicle users, heavy smokers/drinkers that do less than two hours aerobic exercise per week… Please form an orderly, very long queue here.
These are the people that are crippling the NHS
..and not the people who don't turn up for very expensive appointments such as NM, CT or MR scans??
A heavy smoker pays at least £100 a month more in tax than I do and is likely to die sooner so claim less of a pension than I will. Get puffing.
Let the poor die, and the rich live on. Nice.
the american dream
fifo – I’m currently funding two health conditions, one of which is life-long. Oh and I also funded diagnostic testing for said conditions. That’s your question answered.
Bit of a difference between open heart surgery and what you have. AND you will most likely have been seen under the NHS before your crusade anyway.
First port of call before people who don't like what they heard head off k owing better.
Get puffing.
Cost to the NHS is not only related to length of life, but also to the amount, and cost, of treatment, while alive. Do you really think it follows that a smoker dying at 60 will use fewer, or cheaper, NHS services than a non-smoker dying at 70?
Do you really think it follows that a smoker dying at 60 will use fewer, or cheaper, NHS services than a non-smoker dying at 70?
Only an anecdote, but a chap in my office is a 60 yr old ex smoker (stopped as it nearly killed him). He's in and out of GP / hospital monthly now until he dies, which could be another 5-10 years. He stopped before it killed him, but with enough major damage to his body that he's dependant on regular medical intervention all of which seem to have side affects which means he has more issues to deal with etc. In fact he's in hospital today, for the 2nd time this week...
Kelvin - point is not always as simple as people like to make out. However, a smoker dying at 60 will not claim a pension, a non-smoker dying at 80 can claim 13 years of pension and will probably have a few costly conditions requiring medical treatment. I'm not aware of any cost comparison studies between early death smokers and longer life non-smokers
knee and hip replacements for joggers
Running doesn't cause increased joint wear. Even if it did, a one-off treatment is far cheaper in the long run than treating lung cancer / chronic obesity / diabetes etc in a population that's not ageing well.
You could fund the extra through the motorist, anyway. Have a per-mile charging scheme that penalises you for going 2 miles or fewer - automatic £20 penalty every time you do. You could also have £500 fines for driving with lights out / parking in bike lanes / speeding / stopping past ASL at traffic lights / parking outside schools etc etc.
Get enough people walking or onto bikes and you go a long way to fixing the problem without needing to increase taxes.
philxx1975 - I answered the q, didn't realise it was about open heart surgery. Yes, I was seen under the NHS but was misdiagnosed by a number of doctors and left to rot. Crusade? What's that about?
Knowing nothing about your condition CG, I’m glad that through one way or another you have a means to fund its treatment/management. Others may not be as lucky.
fifo - who said I have the means? I've resorted to selling my bikes and bikey stuff in Classifieds, other stuff has gone on Ebay and have also down-sized my property. I feel like sh*t every day, life is just peachy.
The most effective, efficient, consistent, predictable way to raise revenue is to tax everyone a little more. Yes clamp down on avoidedce but that will never bring in the consistent, predictable revenue required.
Have a per-mile charging scheme that penalises you for going 2 miles or fewer
I would like to do something like this but I think it would need a clause of "if a time >n hours at destination" as it's easier to motivate people to walk or cycle 2 miles to work when they spend 8 hours there but if you are traveling some where for 10 min or driving 2 miles pick up some thing, drive another 2 pick up again etc until you are ,10 miles away it's harder to achieve or motivate people to do.
This will only ever work as a nudge rather than a revenue raising method though.
The most effective, efficient, consistent, predictable way to raise revenue is to tax everyone a little more.
The problem is in a "me, me, me" society such as ours has become people tend to vote for low tax policies.
On the PFI point – the Govt can borrow at very low rates – certainly less than 2% – whereas PFI has commercial capital costs built in – so has to deliver efficiency over public capital worth more than the difference in capital costs. This is the irredeemable economic flaw in PFI
You are forgetting that government borrowing has to go on the balance sheet as national debt/deficit and so looks bad. PFI is off the books and so you get shiny new facilities without it hitting the national accounts.
What truly progressive taxes have we? Income tax, and that’s is surely. Thatcher and subsequents made sure of this…
Is VAT not actually progressive? You pay based on your ability to buy. Your audi driving, santa cruz riding middle class bloke with a high level of disposable income is going to be paying a shed load more VAT than someone who's pay packet goes no further than rent, food and leccy bill.
Ultimately healthcare is really expensive - the link I posted above shows we are relatively modest spenders as an economy.
All the stuff about deserving or not deserving care is nonense to distract from the fundamental point that a large chunk of GDP will be spent however funded and a big chunk of that is always public
Even the most extreme version of insurance based healthcare in the US spends huge amount of public money on healthcare for the elderly who could not afford the premiums.
I believe it's more efficient to have a comprehensive and coherent NHS funded from taxation.
Is VAT not actually progressive?
No, are you kidding?
VAT is fairly progressive given that most 'essential' items are zero rated/exempt/lower rate.
.
There is still a load of waste in the NHS. Wife works in a PFI hospital. To change a lightbulb the contract says they must get the company to do it, they have to send someone from Glasgow and it cost £147. In any other organisation the janitor would have a cupboard full of bulbs at £3 a pop or whatever and just do it themselves in five minutes.
This is just one example, coupled with the fact that most of the £100 a month extra, plus a fair chunk of what we already pay, is paying for fat people who've eaten too much. I'm voting against any party who wants to increase tax to pay for the NHS,. Quite how we differentiate between deserving and undeserving is an interesting topic but it really needs addressing, we can't go on paying at this rate for self inflicted issues.
VAT is fairly progressive given that most ‘essential’ items are zero rated/exempt/lower rate.
That's what I was implying. And thereafter the more you are able to spend on non essentials the more VAT you pay. It is also much better than income tax at extracting monies from those with disposable wealth not gained through conventional or declared means. The self employed that are creative with their tax return, the wealthy retired folk with in theory a small income but a lavish lifestyle and the 'failure to launch' brigade living with mum and dad and spunking the lot on a big lifestyle all pay heavily on VAT.