NHS should be a co-pay system.

It a well funded funeral service, it largely depends whether you want a return to slums and working class people dieing at 40 from treatable conditions

It's not the worst by any stretch because it offers care that is largely unavailable in most countries. It does this at some of the lowest funding per capita in the western world.

How it's funded is a matter of how you want to access care. At the moment you pay very little in but can access anything from emergency care to state of the art cancer care for nothing. So no matter what your financial situation you can always get treated. CO Pay would require you to pay up front and either the provider or the patient then has to claim something back. You could take insurance for the liability but again relies on you having the money to do it.

I will give you an example of (PUMA) in France. You could find up to 30% of the costs. So if you need heart surgery you could find yourself with 50,000 euro bill which is why many people are simply better off not working and get it for nothing. The same in Ireland.

In America where it's funded solely by insurance people die all the time because they have no insurance. The cost of insurance is over 600 dollars per month per person at the moment....so please tell me you could afford that? The adverts you see about 20 pounds a month would leave you wholly under insured.

Absolutely. We’d soon see a quick change in how the country looks after itself. Or it could become a pay and refund service. But money has to change hands.

But we pay national insurance…

The change isn't a couple of years it's from something around 75 years in 1990 to an expected 83 in 2026.

Another 8 years. And that change has mostly been achieved by medical advances stopping people from dying, so it's a double whammy of another 8 years of ill health and NHS cost.

It's a real issue.

Tell me what bit ive misunderstood and how? I assume an aging population is when the average age in a country is increasing.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of ‘aging population’

Definitely this, there shouldn’t be anyone who doesn’t contribute at all, there’s many many people on benefits only income who have much more disposable income than someone who works full time

I talking about big user bases like the autoimmune disease community who used to get old drugs that cost pennies but when those don't work well are now on biologics that cost hundreds of pounds a week and are delivered in a refrigerated van service. The moderately high cost times the very high number of users come to an eye watering fee.

A an older person i want, and I know lots more want, the choice to die quietly without pain if we decide we don't want our non-terminal ailments treated. But it's going to be a very, very long time before we can have that in this country.

I do get your point, but I'd be bloody furious to be an otherwise healthy 80 year old who's paid taxes non stop since I was 18 to be refused a hip replacement needed to stay mobile on age alone!

@Imdunfer That's what NICE is for - although they have recently been bullied by the US into accepting more expensive drugs as within cost level.

NICE should be stringent in conducting cost benefit analysis.

If there is limited benefit and a large cost then the answer is no. If you really want this then you'll have to fund it yourself.

I would cut a large amount of procedures that are currently on the NHS, especially for those over 80.

I know - ageist, but throwing endless resources at the old is killing the young.

Which isn't sustainable - it WILL all fall down at some point - it's inevitable.

I can't see that anyone has mentioned anywhere the other thing that's sending NHS spending soaring. That's the expansion of what it covers: complex procedures that used to be impossible (uterus transplant being a very recent one) , new drugs for common illnesses like rheumatoid arthritis that cost hundreds of pounds per dose, expensive drugs expected to be given to cancer victims to extend life by a few months, home dialysis machines instead of sharing a hospital one, etc etc etc None of these things are wrong but cumulatively they cost an absolute fortune compared with when the NHS was established.

My question wasn't just directed at Erin1975. Can anyone provide an answer?

The number i listed was 16-50, 2 million should be able to work.

Doesn't matter if they contribute tax if it costs more to build the infrastructure to look after them

Why can't we incentivise the youths in education to study medicine?

Your link showed 300K 'other'. Why can't they take the lower level NHS jobs such as porters?

There are not 2 million people in the UK who are able to take up a job.

The UK has 9.3 million total people who are ecconomically inactive. The vast majority are either in education, early retirement, long term sick or have caring responsibilities.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591

Agree with co-pay. On the proviso that everyone has to pay something, relative to their income (unwaged - inc UC/pension credit, low waged, inc state pension, waged )

Otherwise those who pay nothing will exploit the system as they have no incentive not to.

Payments for those on state benefits could be taken off their next month's benefits to ensure access at point of need.

I don’t know what the answer is but I was in A&E with my grandma last week and it was bedlam. People on drips in the corridor and no seats in primary care as it was that busy. My grandma had broken her arm, needed seeing, but could easily have contributed £100 to be seen.

So many drunk people there too giggling and being loud and some even sat with a takeaway.

When I went for my ectopic pregnancy I could have paid to be seen (would have been better than the 10 hour wait). I would worry for those that wouldn’t go if it meant paying though.

No, the uk has 9 million economically inactive people under the age of 50. Just a couple million of them working would make up for it.

Why can't the existing population take the jobs?

But without immmigration we go bust. The UK has built an economy that requires continual growth to finance pensions etc.

Did you even read the stats I put down? 50 billion in 2000 to 250 billion in 2026

Is it better now? Sorry for your loss.