To want someone to link to any evidence which says the Tories are planning to get rid of the NHS?

[bruffian]

As I haven't seen any, and yet if Facebook memes are to be believed they are going to get rid of it as soon as they get back into power? The only costings I can find seem to suggest they are planning to fund it about as much as labour is.

No. I've not seen any evidence which says that the Tories are planning to get rid of the NHS.

I've seen information about privatisation - different issue

I've seen the Naylor report - again, different issues

I've seen evidence which points strongly to wanting the NHS to remain but to become more efficient.

It is odd to assume that the Tories want to get rid of it.

Daily Mail readers use the NHS as well you know!

It's crazy isn't it op the scare mongering from the left is immense.

OP, privatisation is getting rid of the NHS. The core principle of the NHS is that it's a nationalised service - that's what enables it to be free at the point of delivery and for everyone to have equal access. Once services are privatised, the companies that own them are entitled to run them like any other business. In the area where I live, the majority of sexual health services have already been privatised; they're run by Virgin. Virgin saw that some of the clinics weren't turning a profit so they closed them down. Which is sensible in terms of a business decision but has had ramifications in public health terms for the borough, because everybody isn't able to access the remaining services.
The question isn't so much "Are the Tories planning to get rid of the NHS?" as "Have the Tories actions to privatise the NHS this far been good or bad for the public, and do we want more of the same going forward?"

No, that's YOUR question.

It's not what I asked.

No, the commitment is to keep the NHS free at the point of use. Why does that mean every bit must be owned by the state? does the NHS make sheets? Does the NHS use networks? Why is the supply of these ok by a private company and not any other element? The obsession with vertical integration and state ownership of every part is part of the reason why the NHS whilst efficient compared to others, still needs reform if it is to continue to provide free at the point of use services when the demands are increasing.

and as for starved of funds the NHS budget has been increased by 11bn - only a scaremonger can call a budget increase of 11Bn a cut. Thats right the annual budget has increased by 11bn a year. In 2010 it was 111Bn. Its now 122. Please do spin this as a cut - I am desperate to hear. I gather as well since 2010 an extra 300,000 staff have been employed. It now employs 1.7m people. Nasty those cuts arent they

No, that's YOUR question.
It's not what I asked.

Fair enough, apologies for putting words in your mouth. Your question was for evidence that the Tories are planning to get rid of the NHS; my reply was that they've already started, by privatising. Is that not good enough evidence that they'll continue?
If they replaced all the police forces with private security companies wouldn't you say they've got rid of the police? Or if they closed your local pub, renovated the building and turned it into housing wouldn't you say they'd got rid of the pub? Sure, there'd still be a structure in its place but it's entirely in function and form.

Privatisation is the selling off of a state owned business to shareholders. I havent seen any bits being sold - yes we have seen 3rd parties being brought in to provide services. But I cannot buy shares in the NHS. Can you? What are they trading at?

Oh you mean a different model of service provision? Sorry you seem to be quite confused there.

Labour has been bleating on about this for years, but after 7 or 8 Tory prime ministers (i kind of lose track before Ted Heath) here it still is. Amazing. Though if you are dim enough to swallow what pours forth from the labour spinners then more fool you

Privatisation is the selling off of a state owned business to shareholders.
Well, not exactly. Privatisation is the transferring of ownership from the public to the private sector. Selling directly to private shareholders is one way of doing this; another way is selling to private businesses who then sell shares to individuals. Which is what the NHS is doing. Just because it hasn't been decimated overnight doesn't mean it's not happening.

But I cannot buy shares in the NHS. Can you?
No, but I can buy shares in Virgin, Care UK, Spire etc. who own increasing portions of UK healthcare services.

If you are dim enough to swallow what pours forth from the labour spinners then more fool you
I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to name-calling.

But I cannot buy shares in the NHS. Can you?
No, but I can buy shares in Virgin, Care UK, Spire etc. who own increasing portions of UK healthcare services.

This is exactly why increased privatisation is not a bad thing - the NHS is not accountable to anyone by any stretch being a public service. Private companies are incentivised to perform well to retain contracts (through meeting NHS targets) and be efficient to satisfy shareholders. If it means patients get better care, what's the issue?

I'd personally rather see a private medical practitioner with adequate resources and time to do a good job so I don't have to go back than spend hours waiting for an NHS appointment only to be got rid of as quickly as possibly and end up back in the system down the line.

No direct plans on getting rid of the NHS maybe but plenty of evidence of destroying it piecemeal.

Ealing Hospital for one

www.ealing.gov.uk/news/article/1588/public_meeting_on_hospital_downgrade_plans

The point is they dont own it - they provide it under contract to the NHS

The NHS provides the service to you. Free at the point of consumption.

That is not privatisation it is breaking down of vertical integration.

Should the NHS have textile mills to make sheets for the beds you lay in? No. They are made and provided by a profit (heaven forbid) making company. Same applies. The NHS doesnt make laptops or computer screens or scalpels. They are provided to the NHS who then provide it to you.

Get it?

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-cost-cutting-plans-conservatives-leaked-campaigners-election-2017-a7775571.html

In the end of the day of course there is no evidence that the conservatives are looking to get rid of the NHS.

Having said that they are looking to implement further austerity measures which includes continuing to slash budgets for education, police and of course the NHS.

Even if the conservatives did not have austerity as an excuse for cuts they fundamentally believe in a smaller state it is part of their ideology.

If you want to vote conservative that is of course your choice but be honest with yourself and realise you are voting to shrink the state which will include a less well funded NHS, education system and police force.

If you can afford private schools, private health and private security then you and your children will be fine. If not then you are probably not doing yourself any favours.

The rest is just semantics and noise.

as for hospitals - like ealing - there is a distinct move to more specialisation and to alter the way services are provided. Hospitals close, new ones get opened. People are much more mobile than they were when most hospitals were built.

Older buildings are much harder to maintain and become reservoirs of difficult infection. Sometimes it genuinely is easier to move and rebuild.

But pumpkin - the government is already spending far more than it can afford. Taxes have gone up and spending is down - but the debt that has to be paid for and by my take on the IFS figures - it is 40bn a year in interest. The Tories inherited an annual deficit of 153Bn. The NHS budget at the time was only 111Bn. The entire defence budget and NHS budget was being put straight into the national debt.

Since then the NHS annual budget has been increased by 11bn and the deficit is down to 43Bn.

Unemployment was 8% - its now under 5% which is apparently technically called full employment.

This has been achieved with those on the lowest incomes being taken out of tax altogether.

(2010 the tax free allowance as 6475) it is now 11500.

bruffian, Jeremy Hunt co-authored (with other Tory MPs) a book on dismantling the NHS and replacing it with a health insurance system similar to the US:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-hunt-privatise-nhs-tories-privatising-private-insurance-market-replacement-direct-democracy-a6865306.html

"But pumpkin - the government is already spending far more than it can afford. Taxes have gone up and spending is down - but the debt that has to be paid for and by my take on the IFS figures - it is 40bn a year in interest. The Tories inherited an annual deficit of 153Bn. The NHS budget at the time was only 111Bn. The entire defence budget and NHS budget was being put straight into the national debt. "

The national debt has increase from £.7 of a trillion to £1.7 trillion since 2010.

How much debt do we need to incur before we admit austerity does not work.

I feel like a stuck record but WE SPEND LESS ON HEALTHCARE THAN ALMOST ALL OTHER G7 countries.

If we are so poor as you suggest how can we afford tax cuts for the rich? How can we afford to have some of the lowest corporate taxes in the western world?

How can we afford to open up new academies when schools are having their budgets slashed.

How can we afford to sell of national assets at discounted rates?

The conservatives are not talking any figures in this election why is that do you think? Because the numbers look horrible for the government right now.

Does it not suggest to you something when the Labour has pledged not to increase taxes for the 95% where as the conservatives have pledged not to increase taxes for the richest 5%?

The fact is there is money there we are just choosing to spend it unwisely.

Outsourcing =/= privatisation, just saying.

Why not? If there's a private company who can provide the same services to the NHS for a better price than the NHS themselves, why shoukdn't that be an option?

Because there's no evidence that they do it better.

If we are so poor as you suggest how can we afford tax cuts for the rich? How can we afford to have some of the lowest corporate taxes in the western world?

On both counts, lower rates mean greater volume of people/companies being taxed at this level and overall greater tax receipts. Simple economics.

How many different types of Tax do people on low incomes pay? Maybe a bit of income tax and VAT. The richest people (not even just millionaires these days) will be paying income tax, probably capital gains tax, additional stamp duty and then potentially inheritance tax.

The Health and Social Care Act allows for further legislation to charge for healthcare services in England. That has massive implications and signals a very clear policy direction.

I live in a country that is intending to decrease taxes on big business progressively over the next 10 years. They aren't doing that because it's bad for the economy...

Where is the proof that lowering corporate tax rate increases the overall amount of tax received?

I have heard this claim before but never seen any evidence. There are many wealth countries with a healthy economy that have higher tax rates than the UK so surely the opposite could be argued just as successfully.

What is a fact is that people with less money save less than people with more money. So if you increase wages to the less well payed jobs that money mostly gets put back into the economy which does equal more tax. Simple economics.

You see my economic theory even makes mathematical sense.

Problems with privatisation start when a service has been privatised, but then it can't be made to turn a profit so no private companies want to run it when the original contract expires. It can be a quick way to build in more capacity, for neat defined jobs, but for the more complex services it usually doesn't work.

Then Government has to get involved again to try to make the contract more attractive so someone will offer to run it for the sums offered - if they're doing all that the Govt might as well run the services themselves.

SuperBeagle

Care to be any more vague?

Your statement is less than worthless as just because a policy exists and is being practised it does not mean it works.

Labour are only planning to raise corporate tax rates to where they were in 2010. Which will still be considerably lower than most other countries.

Pumpkin - the debt has gone up because the deficit is so high. How could you get the deficit down - simple cut 153Bn overnight.

The plan was as I saw it - increase taxes, grow the economy and cut. Reduce the deficit as much as possible. Sell off the bank shares and pay back some expensive debt and refinance as and when possible.

In order to keep the economy and employment growing - you need to encourage business - you do that with low employment taxes (employers NI) and low corp tax. No secret that all the companies we bash on mumsnet are based in Ireland - nice low tax rate there. That increases employment, reduces the welfare bill and increase vat take and income tax.

Reduce benefits as much as possible - like child benefit for higher rate tax payers. Make it harder to claim and encourage more self employment and watch unemployment decrease almost by half in seven years.

"Taxes is about getting the maximum amount of milk for the minimum amount of moo"

In the meantime - put the squeeze on all government spending.

It is a tough gig - much easier to say to give everyone sweets