Is the NHS now about treating 'shi t life syndrome'?

[mids2019]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/03/the-guardian-view-on-labours-nhs-plan-it-is-right-to-celebrate-medical-science-but-delivery-is-the-hard-part

A Guardian article but it seems like this push to reduce health inequality is making the NHS look like part of our benefits system. While I agree with good health for all is this strategy going to appeal to a middle class tax payer base who are a lot of their tax going to a struggling NHS with the money ultimately flowing from their pockets to more deprived areas? It seems like the poorer the area the more snazzier and funded your health service will be and I just wonder if ultimately this may too the balance towards a more health insurance based syatem?

It is not and it was once the old system that used to apply to allocations in the NHS.

Do a good enough job and the prize posts come later. Like every field in life. It’s what you do as a doctor

They’re probably best of going abroad tbh. I’d rather not have entitled, rigid doctors in the U.K. who don’t have the drive and flexibility to give what they’re offered a go, see what they learn from it, and appreciate how such a scheme might be beneficial for the country / cohort as a whole. They sound a bit “me me me wah”.

A small hospital in a Northern Town

A Northern Town

Awful.

And this bit

I have 2 children in child care and so have an effective 80 something percent tax on a portion of my pay. It's pure BS... just like this Labour policy. The very least they can do is introduce some / any policies that benefit me and my family given I'm one of the work horses keeping their shitshow on the road

doesn't even make sense.

I’m amazed you think that improving the health of the nation is a poor use of tax money.

Even if you take out the moral issue of whether poor people deserve decent healthcare, if services were improved in deprived areas, that’s a net benefit as it will reduce the numbers of people who can’t work, or are relying on social care. It will show an overall reduction in costs to the NHS.

Of course it's unusual. If you insist on telling employees where to live, don't moan when they say no thanks and find something better.

Well yeah. Because somewhere further away might suit them better. It's the lack of choice that's the problem. You want the best and brightest in Northern towns, make the jobs more attractive.

No it isn’t. Are you new? This was the system 20 years ago and before.

And now, not 20 years ago, it is very unusual in any field. The world is a different place, no use harping on about the past because you aren't recruiting Dr's 20 years are you?

How can your boys with their stellar qualifications not known that this did happen and has happened to doctors in the UK for years? That is ridiculous

I used to live in another country, where doctors and teachers had free university education, with support, but on graduating were allocated to work in various regions for a period of several years, after which they were free to choose. I thought it a good solution to the inevitable inequities in education and health are.

I’m mean it’s a state job, employee has little to no choice. Absurd. How can you get through a medical degree and not know this? You get the good stuff later if you show you are good

I think this is misleading. huge misconception. Firstly it’s 10%, not 5%, but more importantly this is only income tax. Income tax is a progressive tax (meaning higher earners pay more).

However other taxes are regressive. For example poorer people spend more of their income on day to day costs and therefore pay VAT on the majority of their income. Whereas wealthier people are able to save and invest and there is a much lower tax on that portion of their income.

Estimates from ONS and IFS show this pattern for overall tax burden (as a share of income):

• 🔹 Bottom 10%: Pay about 35–45% of their income in total taxes.
• 🔹 Middle-income groups: Pay 30–35%.
• 🔹 Top 10%: Pay 33–35%.

So you can see that overall the tax system is regressive meaning that lower earners pay more tax as a share of their income. As I’m sure you can imagine, this makes life incredibly difficult given their income is also much lower to begin with.

Yes overall, the wealthier contribute more tax in cash terms, but they’re in a privileged position to do so. Poorer people are working long hours, paid a pittance and a larger proportion of their income is handed over in tax as more of their income goes on day to day survival.

If you take away what is given in benefits, the poorest 45% still contribute over £100bn in taxes each year.

Most state jobs tell you where to live do they? Like which ones?
Either way, you can try telling people they have no choice, but you can't force them to do it.

Ah the sharp elbows of those who largely have more privileged lifestyles because they benefit from inequality, inheritance, growing up in more affluent parts of the country and all the rest of it, believe they are there purely on merit and resent any suggestion of resources being equally shared, even though evidence tells us that inequality is extremely harmful for everybody.

And below those sharp elbows are little clenched fists punching down at the feckless working-classes who apparently don’t take care of themselves and don’t pay enough taxes, and don’t keep the country running. Middle-class people would never not work or neglect to take care of their health.

No you can’t. But to not know that your clinical experience will be allocated and hence where you live is truly ignorant. You aren’t working for a company but a state organization who can and do tell where your employment will be.

This happens to soldiers, diplomats, civil servants and many others. You don’t have to do it, but you also accept it’s part of the deal. Public service doesn’t have much room for a barely experienced prima Donna, so yes looks they will be headinf elsewhere. Are they a loss if they don’t get their hands dirty with actual experience? Perhaps not

What do you suggest? I mean isnt the nhs for all isnt it also about preventative conditions? Living in poverty comes with challenges and difficulties i know you can't comprehend this, i am sorry that you are the way you are it must be torturous knowing you are "having" to help the underprivileged.

Millions taking the piss, eh?

Of the around 11 million of working age economically inactive people, 1.6 million are unemployed and seeking work, a further 1.8 would like to work but are unable to for various reasons (caring responsibilities, illness, disability etc)

That leaves around 7.6 million people.

2 million are students
1.2 million have taken early retirement on a private pension and/or savings
1.3 million have caring responsibilities (largely women caring for children or parents)
2.1 million are unable to work through disability (largely between 50 and 64)
Around a million people are not working because they don’t need to work, they are financially independent.

Of the 11 million economically inactive people, who are not looking for work, the number of people the taxpayer is supporting is not “millions”. The government and the tabloids want you to believe there are millions sponging off the state, but the statistics do not bear that out. If everyone who is able and claiming out of work benefits and returned to work, there would still be about 9 million working age people who are economically inactive.

It is simple to find this information for anyone who is bothered enough to work.

That contribution of £100bn doesn’t even cover the National Debt interest.

But they contribute in other ways, often doing hard, dirty jobs that are essential to the running of the country, for very little money. It's really not all about the tax-take.

It benefits us all of society is healthier and if I am lucky enough ( as through most of my life I have been) to be in the position to pay tax to help others I am glad of it

how can you stand by and watch people suffer and die just so you can afford another holiday ?

Good old Liz Truss
But hey, with the salary she was on she was officially a net contributor so we all owe her a huge debt of gratitude

Getting the country healthier has so many benefits for society we should not begrudge paying for it. The alternative is a failing NHS swamped by treating chronically ill people for decades. And supporting people too sick to work and pay taxes

Her salary and lifetime 6 figure allowance is paid for by our taxes. Definately a net beneficiery of public funds

Which millions are just sitting on their arses? Where are you getting your figures from?