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?

Exactly, I’m one that wants to work, but unfortunately it is not realistic, unless it was based on me working perhaps 6 months out of the year because I get ill a lot, combination of mobility problems and very bad immune system.

Which middle class?
There used to be a middle class, but since the cost of living crisis (thanks to all the many ongoing wars, on top of the aftermath of a pandemic, and most importantly, the total lack of real leadership in the world), but now, there is only unable to cope/ barely coping/ struggling to cope/ struggling families gradient. Then come the super-rich, in a completely different league.
I think quite a lot of people have not realised that many of those around themm are much much worst financially than they were just two years ago. For no fault of their own.

Who needs to pay more tax are the coorporations that amass wealth, the financial services that abuse the system they create themselves and the hyper-rich , who are about to break Capitalism due to the severe unfairness of the current wealth distribution.
You do not live here. Good. No property here, no work here, no profits from here, no rights here. Tough, but someone needs to wake up. Do you want your business in UK, a job in UK, a house in UK...? Well, then pay taxes in UK. Nope, then bugger off to pay taxes somewhere else and UK gets to use the assets left behind. Really, it needs to be an international effort. Pay your damn taxes where the asset is. Have a factory in the country you sell. Live in the country you work, or at least, pay taxes there. No more tax heavens.

I shall add, the problem is not the 50 something year old who has severe health issues and cannot work at present. Mostly due to the massive waiting lists in UK. Or a severely disabled child. Or someone with a terminal illness. Or someone who is unemplyed, bit wants to work.
The problem is that the top guys are taking far too much money off the bottom. And it is disappearing to Barbados or whatever place they want to.
We should manufacture our own goods and keep our money in the country.
And address what we are going to do with an aging population.
And stop blaming those who are worst off.
Yeah, there are some piss takers, but really, not that many.

I think the real way to break the cycle of entitlement would be to stop entitled small minded people (like yourself) raising the next generation of entitled small minded people. That would leave a gap for people with genuine intellect and talent in the work place.

but now, there is only unable to cope/ barely coping/ struggling to cope/ struggling families gradient. Then come the super-rich, in a completely different league.

Thats a ridiculous assertion, there are many not super rich people who aren’t struggling to cope. I’m very far from super rich, not a particularly high earner and managing just fine, most people I know personally are in the same boat. As a social worker the families I work with are certainly struggling for various reasons but the idea that everyone is either super rich or struggling is a fallacy that feeds the idea that if you just tax the “rich”, or higher tax earner more to support those struggling it’ll all be fine.

Oh yes, a combination of eugenics and compulsory sterilisation. Always helpful.

Who do you think would be paying the tax to provide if that happened?

I'm sure you'd be more than happy with that suggestion if I replaced 'you' with 'poor people'. The majority of us higher earners that do not share your small minded beliefs. And the people that would replace you in the work place, as I've said. Those that got there through hard work.

I would not and I object to the assertion. You on the other hand brought it up and must think about it.

If you wish to assert that I've never worked hard, that's entirely your prerogative but for someone who claims to gave significant intellect, you are stooping rather low.

May I suggest you offer your own solutions to address the issue that are different from the prevailing solutions. Come now, with your tremendous intellect, capacity for hard work and broad mindedness, let's all hear them. Or is that harder than hurling personal insults?

Obviously, it is not a genuine solution. But I think those that have been born into high paying roles that offer little, bleed companies dry and take away from those with genuine talent are the issue at the moment. Look at the government over the last 10 years for examples. The Veruca Salts are the problem with the country, not the poor, most of which are employed.

Sick to death of governments spending money like water.

But it is not.
A wage that was a good one back before covid had srunk to struggling for many of us. Same job, same effort, same commitment, but it does not stretch far enough to support other business, like coffer shops,local shops... it just does not. You should look into the real inflation terms, the individual inflation regarding an average household mortgage, bills, phones, internet and food shopping. Then you will see howmuch is left of tge "average- good" wage for clothes, shoes and transport. You will find many budgets end there these days. No savings, no holidays, will barely afford repairs on cars/ white goods/ house essentials and may need to borrow.
If you do work in social srvices and ypu do not see this...well. Not the real world.

They do need to spend it on the right spots.
Wasting it is the sin.
Or even worst.... allowing the services and assets of the country to deteriorate due to lack of maintenance and support, while they waste the money on Rwanda schemes, Liz Truss catastrophe and peers for our ex Prime Ministers, for example.
Hard work = good compensation
Smart revolutionary thinking/ work = excellent compensation= promotion

The rest, they can get lost, please.

If you do work in social srvices and ypu do not see this...well. Not the real world.

As I said, I see plenty of people who struggle, you said every family now falls onto a spectrum from barely coping to not coping. While people may see less for their money, that doesn’t necessarily equate to struggling - people are still buying clothes, eating out, going on holiday. Not every family is either super rich or struggling.

You are missing the point that a large number of families have been moved towards the struggling pile, when they were middle class just two years ago. There are plenty of examples in mumsnet itself.
The middle class has shrunk in the wash.... like to a toy size, baby doll size

The erosion of the middle class makes it easier for the elites to have dominion.
The middle classes (compared to those below them) have better access to education which (in combination with economic power) gives them some ability to push back against corruption.

OK

Since 2011 our welfare bill has risen 1 percentage point of GDP.

Expenditure is set to rise around 20 billion/year over the next few years. The MAJORITY of this will be to those claiming pension aged benefits (pensioners currently claim 50% if the welfare bill in the form of state pension, pension credit, housing benefit and winter fuel allowance. Yet more is spent on concessionary travel usage (around 1 billion - 90% of that is free bus passes for pensioners) plus disability related benefits - a significant proportion of which is claimed by, you guessed it, pensioners.

Then we have the adult social care bill - in 23/24 just over 50% of the expenditure was on pensioners.

Then we have the our NHS - more than 40% of expenditure is spent on…pensioners.

What proportion of the uk are 66 or over

20%

So twenty percent of the population are taking 50% of the expenditure across welfare, health and social care and concessionary transport

It’s fairly obvious where the issue is - but pensioners are a sacred cow.

Disclaimer - I Actuallg don’t begrudge pensioners having some level of reasonable living standard either - but let’s not pretend that the people who are draining society are working aged people.

Im no economist - I don’t know what the answer is - but it certainly isn’t pointing the finger at a demographic who are draining far less than the demography who is smaller but draining the most.

The measure if a civilised soviet is in how it treats its vulnerable.

Oh, and by 2070 that 20% (today’s pensioners population) with be 25%.

We need to invest in working aged people and children - and we need to do something about stagnant wages.

The idiots who call themselves politicians are the ones who need to be figuring this out.

Oh dear OP . Tell me you know nothing about health inequalities without telling me. 😂

Seriously you actually don’t get it do you?

Have you read it? They've done some seriously dodgy jiggery pokery, assuming pensions rise by 4.5pc every year.... but without also taking inflation into account . Which is a bit ridiculous, given that the triple lock is the highest of inflation, wage growth or 2.5pc. and real-terms wage growth isn't all that healthy...In fact, recent experience is actually that COL is increasing faster than the triple lock, so it doesn't make any sense at all.

You get a certain 'value' of pension each year, and - certainly during the COL crisis - what you can buy with that pension is going down, not up. So if anything they should apply a negative percentage.. If you're already dead, you don't need to buy groceries at the inflated rate 10 years later.

So let's stick to this year's rates, and to be generous assume that the value stays the same (maybe the COL crisis won't go on forever).. State pension is £230.25 per week maximum. Which comes to £11,973 oer year

19 years of state pension in Hampshire would give a pensioner there with life expectancy £227487. And they're pretty likely to be paying tax on that at least at basic rate, possibly at higher rate, which would take it down as far as £136492.

The Blackpool resident with 10 years of state pension would get £119,730. Might not pay any tax on it, and may even get some means-tested benefits to bump it up.

So the Hampshire resudent gets a maximum of £107,757 more, but net of tax it's likely to be as little as £17k difference.Add in the means tested benefits, and the Blackpool resident almost certainly nets more in real terms from the state during their pension years, despite the lower life expectancy.

Ok. You want to spend less on pensioners. Fine. But what do you want to spend the money on?

Isn't this what already happens? I can only talk about at a West Midlands level but all the hospitals here (with the exception of Sutton Coldfield) are generally in poorer areas? New super hospital - Smethwick, existing hospitals - Dudley, Walsall, Heartlands, Wolverhampton etc. QE you could say is borderline depending if you come in on the A38 or via Edgbaston! They closed the proper hospitals in "nicer" areas years ago. So to me this already happens.
Re giving GP's extra responsibility - yeah that's going to work really well....

What an incredibly odd attack on @RosesAndHellebores !

You have absolutely no idea about her at all: just one thread where you disagree. Yet you accuse her of not having genuine intellect or talent?! And suggest eugenics against her!!?!

It's your own level of intellect which is apparent here...

The article is about the ideas to shake up the NHS for what is required now and going forward.
Making better use of developing technologies, healthcare to the communities rather than centralised hospitals, getting diagnosis earlier, which is cheaper with better outcomes.

What is the problem here?

The ideas that work will be expanded across the country, if you can spread work and industries out a bit more then our children, whilst we all care about their health obviously, but they also need a vibrant society to live within all their lives.

Something needs to change, and this seems like an attempt to do that.

And how much tax do you pay OP?

How many children do you have?
£6-7K per year for each child will be going towards their school. So you are getting a chuck of your tax money back with your child's schooling.
Some of YOUR tax OP will be going towards your children's vaccinations, the births you had in hospital, they are expensive, roads, police, fire.

If you have children you will be benefiting from a fair chunk of the tax you pay. So try and not feel too hard done by.