Conservatives closing the gap on reform

Im just thinking how we can sort out the people who can pay for themselves and whether they are on benefits would be a useful marker.

Unfortunately Labour have encouraged more people onto benefits. Perhaps soon 100% of the population will be on benefits given Labour's economic strategy. So it will be a moot point as no one will be earning any money at all.

Of course universal health care for absolutely everyone no matter their ability to pay is a luxury. A luxury this country cannot afford.

In October 2025 we paid £8.4billion in debt interest alone. I rather think your parents generation would be more likely to spin in their graves over this....that generation were a bit better at living within their means....

No it’s because they are paid shit wages.

Nothing to do with benefits.

Well there is that. Labour have got a whole lot more people on benefits so as an awful lot more of us are now sucking from the teat of the state in some way, I suppose our kids and grandchildren are screwed.

Tax funded healthcare isn’t a luxury. It’s unbelievable that anyone in this day and age comes out with this kind of nonsense. My parents’ generation must be spinning in their graves.

People can’t afford private dentists. How are they supposed to afford private healthcare?

On the UK’s shit wages?

Taxpayer funded healthcare for all is absolutely a huge luxury, which has been available in very few countries, for a very small part of human history. It's a luxury which we put a high value on, and I very much hope our children and grandchildren will continue to have access to it.

Healthcare for only those that cannot afford it themselves isn't a necessity. In fact, I don't think that's ever existed anywhere. There have been charity hospitals, but I don't think they were ever comprehensively available, or an entitlement.

I can't imagine the population accepting that such a significant amount of our GDP - funded through general taxation - was used for healthcare that wasn't available to the people paying tax to fund it.

If the NHS stops being universal, then it ends - and we go back to people paying for healthcare themselves when they need it (like most of the world, and most of history)

Nice things. Free health care for all of us no matter our ability to pay is a nice thing to have. Its a luxury.

Healthcare for only those that cannot afford it is a necessity.

If you care about your children or grandchildren then number 2 will be the way forward.

Quick Google says:

Tobacco duties raise significant revenue for the UK, estimated at around £8.1 billion for 2025-26

Smoking-related illnesses cost the UK economy billions annually, with estimates around £15-£17 billion total societal costs, including roughly £2.5 billion for the NHS in England for treatment, plus significant losses from lost productivity, social care, and fires, highlighting a massive financial burden beyond just healthcare.

It doesn't really matter anyway, except for doing a cost-benefit analysis for smoking cessation programs: and the benefits aren't only financial.

If the NHS is to survive, it needs to remain universal. That includes not excluding illnesses where lifestyle increased risk.

Nice things like free health care

Nice things……

The recruits in the war were so unwell it was one of the reasons for setting up the nhs. So the country could defend itself with people who could actually fight.

Nice things..

The cost of treating smoking related illnesses is still half the revenue from tobacco, however you dress it up. Still no evidence of that 30% then?

Most of the savings will come from a reduction in obesity related illnesses - Type 2 diabetes, heart conditions etc.

It is true that smokers contribute in tax - far more than those who over eat. But while it was true to say 40 years ago that the smoking revenue v cost of dealing with smoking related illnesses was pretty finely balanced, it is no longer the case. 40 years ago, lung cancer would kill quickly at around the age of 60-65 at the end of an economically active life and usually after children had become financially independent. So little or no burden on the state. Advances in cancer treatments have changed that. People with lung cancer expect and receive expensive treatment for 3-5 years which prolongs their lives and costs money. So the balance has shifted.

Evidence of that 30% figure? The cost to the NHS of smoking related illnesses is less than half the revenue from tobacco tax - are you sure you want the few remaining smokers (of which I’m not one) to give up?

And we could reduce NHS spending by a good 30% plus if more people took responsibility for their own health: cut back on drinking and smoking, stop taking drugs, eat more healthily, move for 30 minutes a day….At a population level this would make a huge difference and free up resources for illnesses which are not lifestyle driven.

And we also need to revise our attitudes towards end of life health care. Too many demented old people,with no quality of life, being warehoused in grim conditions and kept alive at huge expense - often against the wishes they expressed before they developed dementia.

We really can't afford it. We're already paying more on national debt interest than on education. If we borrow more to spunk on the NHS, it just means bigger interest payments. We're already nearly 3 TRILLION in debt. We're borrowing constantly just to pay for current public services and basically borrowing to pay interest on the borrowing. It's not sustainable. We're just constantly borrowing from our children's futures and they're going to end up with worse public services, lower benefits (i.e. almost certainly no state pension for all), higher taxes, etc.

If you want to spend more on the NHS, it means spending less on other things. NHS is the biggest spend, so it would mean huge cuts to other public spending to make any meaninful increase in the NHS budget. And then the NHS is a leaky bucket and most of the increase would be lost to waste and inefficiency.

Of course we can't afford it. We are just spending money the country doesnt have on nice things like free health care and putting the burden on future generations who won't have that benefit but will still have to pay off ours. Same as pensions. Future generations won't have a state pension (unless you work for the state) but will have to pay off the borrowing costs of money spent on pensions today.

Have a look at the figures.

Wrong answer.

"please read some history on the first world and second world war" 🤣. Bit patronising there. Do you think the Germans waited for the countries they invaded to build up their defences first? Do you think if we get attacked by the Russians or the Chinese they will wait until we have built up our defences? Just so we can spend our time now spaffing money into the bottomless pit of the NHS?

Defence is the main role of government.

But what if you have this wrong?

When we are more equal, is it because no one is getting rich? Just staying poor together doesn’t seem preferable to me.

If some people get rich without lowering anyone else’s position in absolute terms, this seems a good outcome to me. A good outcome on the basis that these rich people will make an oversized contribution to the tax base which helps us all. They also accumulate the funds needed to sustain innovation and entrepreneurship.

I don’t want an equal society. I want a society with lots of opportunities and a safety net.

But that's not true, we can afford it. We can't afford not to fund it....

Health comes first because you can't defend a country when you have people who are too sick to fight..... please read some history on the first world and second world war.......

If we had to chose between the NHS and defence which would you chose?

This post nails it really. With one caveat : healthcare is already a luxury in the USA. I have a study buddy who is a nursing care manager in a major US hospital. When she retires she will have to find nearly $20k from her retirement lump sum to pay for an operation she had decades ago. She had thought it was covered by her employers scheme but no , alas. And if she can get caught out ....It's a disaster and every American Ive met seems to have their own horror story.
In short - save the NHS

We are a health service with a country attached. We spend far too much of our GDP on it and we can't afford it as it is. We need to start thinking about the future and our children not piling on debt for our own benefit for them to pay off down the line. We aren't the ones paying for ourselves. Its just going on the credit card.

Funny that your view of the NHS is not shared by other countries all over the world. In Saudi where I have worked, they have free healthcare funded by the countries rich mineral wealth. France have a system funded by taxation, Australia largely taxation and compulsory deductions, most of Europe funded by taxation.

The NHS is by far the most efficient system that allows research, cheap purchasing of drugs because of its buying power.....but is largely massively underfunded....per capita we spend very little on healthcare. Dentists are now largely private now and look at the mess.....it's taken a Labour government to address funding.

America....funded by private insurance and is now bankrupt with over 1/3 of Americans with absolutely no cover.

I think the British people should actually think about all the things they should be proud of

We certainly should.

The things that spring to my mind are:

• scientific enquiry and discovery: Newton, Darwin, Fleming, the foundations of computer science with Turing, Babbage and Lovelace, creation of vaccination (Edward Jenner), discovery of DNA
• the practicality and get-up-and-go which UK innovators used to turn all those incredible scientific discoveries and inventions into genuine innovative progress (the industrial revolution, telecommunications, the World Wide Web, cloning, IVF)
• the vision to change the world including the rule of law and parliamentary democracy which was encoded in the the Magna Carta, leading the way in abolishing the slave trade, writing the foundations of modern human rights agreements like EHCR, and even the many long-lasting benefits Britain brought to it's colonies - unpopular though that view is now - eg infrastructure, access to markets, legal systems, human rights (yes, really), governance and administrative functions
• Our Arts have influenced the world: Literature (Shakespeare, Chaucer, Dickins, Jane Austin, George Orwell, Tolkien, JK Rowling; Music (the Beetles, Rolling Stones, Queen,Brit pop); Art (Turner, Hockney)
• Many of the world's most popular sports were invented or codified in the UK (Football, Rugby, Cricket, Tennis, Golf, Badminton, Darts, Boxing, Croquet, Snooker, Billiards, Field Hockey)

So much world-enhancing history - from such a tiny country - and so much to be proud of! Isn't it strange that since the 60s, there's been a concerted effort in schools to make kids ashamed of being British, and dissociated from our absolutely incredible, illustrious past!

Our Welfare state and NHS? Yes, sure - that's one in a long line of imaginative, creative innovations the British have brought about. It was an improvement at the time, but has changed beyond all recognition, and developed some seriously negative side effects. It's certainly ripe for being re-imagined and re-worked - and luckily as you can see from that list (far from comprehensive), innovation and transformation are very long-standing UK strengths.