more funding for the NHS - a good idea?

[carlajean]

As we're coming up to an election, all the parties seem to be competing to offer the most money for the NHS. But am I alone in thinking that this isn't the answer?
The NHS was created when there were fewer of us, we died earlier, and we weren't as fat. Medical science was fairly primitive compared to now. the NHS is a bottomless bucket, it will always need more and more money.
I would vote for a party that, instead of promising to throw more money at the problem, said that it would set up a cross-parliamentary committee to discuss what the NHS should treat, and who they should treat.
The alternative is dealing with crises of underfunding all the time.

[niceguy2]

I agree Carla. The NHS is already costing us a lot of money. About £1 in every £6 spent is on the NHS.

The problem over the last 10-20 years is politicians have taken incredibly poor decisions. PFI anyone? A £46 billion IT system that doesn't work??

Whilst I appreciate people are living longer, I am worried that currently all we seem to be doing is throwing money at the problem and not asking ourselves if the money we're already spending can be spent better?

But the problem is that most of the electorate don't have the time/inclination to read and examine the points. We're in the soundbite generation.

So when it comes to soundbites. "Vote for us and we will spend £100million more on the NHS" sounds a lot better than "Vote for us and we will not spend anymore money but review if we're spending money at the right things"