To think we should all just pay 1-2% income tax to help fix the nhs

[Ieatcake]

Lots of health professionals are saying it's like a third world country. We need more beds and more money for socialcare. Not many would even notice a tiny tax rise and it would help fix it ASAP.

I wonder how many politicians have private healthcare. There was also an issue a few years ago with St Thomas Hospital giving MPs private rooms and a VIP service so they didn't have to face the public.

I like pinkcrystal's idea of the NHS lottery. If even half the country bought a £1 ticket every month, and we had a prize of £1,000,000, we could raise about £348,000,000 a year!

there is a lot of virtue signalling about people wanting to pay more tax, as the assumption is always that the burden will fall heavily elsewhere. Pretty much the same as those who advocate socialism they don't picture themselves as a factory worker but in the upper echelons.

Again, I am not sure where this comes from. Do you hear a lot of champagne socialists saying, "I envision a future with many factory jobs, but I will be a member of the Nomenklatura - smoking good tobacco and driving the Volga."

I agree with this, but I don't agree with the inefficiency. There has been calls of its monolith inefficient status for decades, there is a reason why Labour flooded it with middle managers after all, the problem is that the "Envy of the world" (which it really isn't) has become such a sacred cow that any talk of reform is met (as is on this thread) making assumptions that we will be going down the US route.

This is the weird thing; I would agree with you, except that independent international bodies say it's the most efficient care system in the world. Then again, that may say rather more about the gross inefficiency of other systems than pay any compliment to our own. I do suspect that when you have an insurance system alongside, the costs of administering that boost costs markedly. But they may also increase efficiency in terms of demand, if there are threshold costs over eg seeing a GP. I don't know. I do think that allowing party after party to come in with some grand scheme that just leaves the staff with whiplash achieves nothing worthwhile.

My feeling is also that we're all rather head in the sand on care. We need a lot more investment in elder care, especially. A lot of NHS beds and funding is tied up in looking after people who do need care, but don't need an acute hospital bed. We need an adult conversation about how to fund care for our aging population, given the piecemeal private patchwork we currently have is not really working. The mess over homes being sold, a dementia tax... someone has to fund this, but it's such a political hot potato neither party can afford to be honest. And we need a proper conversation on how, because while it's sub-par the NHS is picking up the pieces, and at unnecessarily inflated cost. It's another Royal Commission, perhaps.

I do wish it were possible to vote per policy rather than per party. That way we wouldn't be stuck with labour or the tories kicking the NHS around the House of Commons like a football!

Voting per policy means several referenda every year. No thanks.
Someone needs to grasp the nettle and encourage a grown up conversation about the NHS.

Oh, I know it's not remotely practically possible. I'd just prefer being able to vote for an education policy; a healthcare policy; a defence policy, rather than having to just pick the party that's most closely aligned to what I believe to be right (er, none of them!!).

independent international bodies say it's the most efficient care system in the world.

No one wants to address this point?

Jezza will sort it out though

Ah St Jezza of Islington (of whom nobody raving about him now had ever heard until recently, despite his career beginning in 1562) and his noble steed, McDonnell!

Will they slay the fire breathing dragon that keeps burning its own feet?! Or will the dragon evade their pesky lances and go on to lay waste the countryside?

No one wants to address this point?

Care to point one out that puts us first for efficiency?

We are usually first for things like Equity and Care process, mid table for efficiency and usually near the bottom for care outcome

And by pointing one out, I mean many of these Independant International bodies?

The first thing we should all remember is that the NHS will not be fixed by Mr Jeremey Corbyn of the Labour Party.

£10 to see a doctor or A&E visit would free up a lot of appointments and beds. If your drunk and visit a hospital the fee is £50

If you are not a U.K. resident or U.K. tax payer you pay for your treatment.

NHS would run like clockwork inside 6 months

Sure. Commonwealth Fund just found we scored highest on that front.

Unfortunately we don't top any tables for outcomes, which would be my preferred area of excellence. As the article puts it, we're not so great at keeping people alive.

Oops, sorry, that was from '14. Will find last year's (May declared they'd found us best in the world again? I remember wondering if it meant fewer people died avoidably...)

Given that, can we all agree proper levels of funding are called for?

Or shall we race the US to the bottom?

just gone. Notably they say most affordable, rather than efficient, this time, so you're probably right and we have slipped on that front.

There's a diagram for efficiency for 2017. We don't do badly, to put it mildly.

I wonder if its best in the world (or whatever!) because its free - full stop. You then look at the abuse, what it covers, how it is managed etc and then its not so great.

if Labour get their hands on it I seriously think many qualified people will leave the country. They wont be able to get money from the Googles and Starbucks. They will be far too clever for that.

The super rich have always had people to help them become as tax efficient as possible. Do you remember the film production tax dodge whereby you could put in money tax free and offset it against film losses? Many so called socialists were caught up in that.

Over history the Labour Party leaders were famous for sending their children to private schools and at the same time shutting down the options for the rest of us. I had a friend who went to school with Shirley Williams daughter. Yet, she decided to close grammar schools for others who couldn't hope to afford private education.

Do we really think that you will be sitting next to Corbyn or Abbott if god forbid you find yourself in hospital?

So, instead of finger pointing lets have a cross party decision about whether charging is a possibility for SOME services. Why on earth they haven't started charging for being drunk and turning up to A&E but I suspect someone will come along soon and claim they couldn't help themselves, they had a bad upbringing and drink to forget and so on.

We are all grown ups - some have more than others for all sorts of reasons fair and unfair. That is just life.

I suspect Labour will not have an appetite for a cross party project. They are good at telling us what should happen and really bad at delivering it.

Surely is there something in-between being completely free and a US system?

Sure. Commonwealth Fund just found we scored highest on that front.

Yes, that report puts us third for efficiency, which is what we are talking about. You stated we come top on multiple national independent reports, which we don't, and as you say almost always near the bottom for care outcome, so this lauded "envy of the world" is nothing more than treating it like a sacred cow.

As I said, many senior Dr's have on record been saying that the NHS is inefficient and needs structural reform for decades, Labour tried to deal with it by kicking the can down the road, the current shit show are firefighting with people assuming we will become a full US model. There is no middle ground.

Surely is there something in-between being completely free and a US system?

Yes, basically every other country has a system "in between". Yet those who think the NHS is sacred always just lazily refer to the US as the alternative. It's not. There are other options such as France, Australia, etc which are a mix of paying, state funded and insurance, whose residents appear happy.

They wont be able to get money from the Googles and Starbucks. They will be far too clever for that.

Free pass for the rich?

Private sectors awful as well - and I think half and half is the worst of all - look at NHS dentistry for gods sake.

That's because the mandarins who negotiate the contracts are either grossly incompetent or on the fiddle. If the contracts are properly negotiated and properly checked, then you'd avoid most of the problems.

Take dentistry as you say. Who on Earth allowed dentists to pick and choose who they treat on the NHS? My dentist "went private" - fair enough, but they kept on their "exempt" patients to treat under the NHS. So you were basically punished for having a job or not being exempt. You shared the same waiting room, used the same surgery, same dentists, same staff, etc. Then, even worse, if you were employed and paid privately, then when your circs changed, i.e. you became pregnant, they'd transfer you to being NHS exempt and start claiming from the NHS for your treatment again until you lost your exemption when they put you back as private! Who decided that dentists could have their cake and eat it. If they wanted to go private, then they should be wholly private and have their NHS work taken off them. As it was, they were just cherry-picking and charging more for those who they thought could pay. Absolute travesty they were allowed to get away with it.

They wont be able to get money from the Googles and Starbucks.

Which is why, past and previous governments, have moved towards employment and consumption taxes instead of profit taxes. Google and Starbucks WILL be paying the 20% VAT on their sales and 13.8% national insurance on their wages payments, not to mention climate
change levy, waste disposal taxes, insurance premium tax, etc. In the past, companies will have paid far less VAT and NIC and none of the other taxes I mentioned, but more tax on profits. It's swings and roundabouts.