Would you pay an additional tax for the NHS?

[Whatisthis543]

I’m torn on this one, surely our taxes should cover a well funded NHS but it seems that they don’t...

Is that systematic I.e too much bureaucracy and poor allocation of resources (within the trusts and elsewhere) or is there genuinely not enough money with an ageing population and rapid growth?

@BackforGood

I agree with so many here - ComtesseDeSpair BillyElliotsLeftShoe Griselda1 emilybrontescorsett 1FootInTheRave arethereanyleftatall TheDoctorDances littlebillie Bathroom12345 natalienewname Horseyhorsey3 Xyzzzzz Canwecancel2020

The whole system needs a massive overhaul, and that needs to be done in conjunction with social care, care for the elderly, and mental health provision in the country.
The NHS is such a wonderful ideal, but there are so many inefficiencies that I'm sure all of us could list. Pouring more money in to it isn't the answer on its own.

Absolutely. More money is needed but also modernisation and greater transparency.

No

Am reminded of a piece Danny Finklestein wrote in his Times column referencing a poll that asked the question, 'Would you pay an extra penny on your Income Tax to fund the NHS ? Most people answered yes, but further investigation revealed that a large proportion of them thought that it meant just that - literally one extra penny a week/month out of their pay packet.

what kind of medically unnecessary treatment does the NHS provide?
IVF and cosmetic surgery. Neither of which are essential to health or survival.

No. I pay an enormous amount of tax like everyone else in this country

I bet that you don’t, even though you think that you do. Income taxes in the U.K. are relatively low compared to most European countries but you still hear people whining that they pay too much or ‘an enormous amount’, as in this example. For those people, any tax at all is too much. Until they themselves need public services, of course.

I'd like to see many changes and tweaks before I did..

I’d happily pay tax if it was streamlined and the pen pushers and bureaucrats were removed

Here we have the type (and there are many more on this thread: I’ve just picked two examples from this page) who think that they should be allowed to redesign the NHS, from a position of zero knowledge of how large complex organisations work, and cannot see that a service serving a common need cannot be personalised to suit the individual wishes of every selfish person who wants world-beating care but doesn’t want to pay for it.

Thank god for @camoflaguesocks. She’s the poster who actually works in the NHS as a senior nurse and has given us a sensible, balanced view.

IVF and cosmetic surgery. Neither of which are essential to health or survival.

oh yes, the myth of the breast enlargements which are undertaken usually up and down the country on a tremendous scale so flat chested women can wear a DD.

Infertility is an illness. why should we not treat it?

Am reminded of a piece Danny Finklestein wrote in his Times column referencing a poll that asked the question, 'Would you pay an extra penny on your Income Tax to fund the NHS ? Most people answered yes, but further investigation revealed that a large proportion of them thought that it meant just that - literally one extra penny a week/month out of their pay packet.

Christ! That is terrifying.

The NHS had masses of money over last couple of years and the huge debt written off. Too many executives paid too much salary. Too much paid on buying stuff like loo rolls. Stuff like this should be supplied cheaper by central contracts. Some trust are paying ludicrous prices. Needs sorting out. Patients should pay for their own meals not be given free food. They should be charged for food just like they are when living at home. There is still a lot of waste to be cut out before throwing more money at NHS. However if waste was sorted out, contracting dealt with and executives salary reduced a lot so not over paid then I would be happy to pay more. Every time they get more money they put up executive salaries instead of using it for running cost and front line staff.

I think the taxing of 'benefit in kind' of private health care should be stopped or diverted directly to the nhs. We pay a fortune each year for private healthcare as do many many others and we save the nhs a fortune / time / waiting lists by using it.

My DH is currently in a hospice with terminal cancer and the cancer treatment we've recd during COVID hasn't changed at all for that I am grateful but there is so many systems that just do not work together which wastes so much time and money. He needs reg blood tests fir different departments - there seems to be no way (or at our trust anyway) for the doctors to put a request on and just have one set of tests for all. Last month he needed bloods fir kidney doctor, diabetic doctor and oncology. Because of the system he needed 3 trips to the gp for three lots of blood in 4 weeks. Madness ! Some repeats in there - logic says the doctors could put on what was needed and they got consolidated when he went.

It’s impossible to discuss any kind of paid-for system without people getting hysterical and shrieking about people dying in the USA though, as most people can’t seem to get their thick little brains around the idea that it isn’t a binary choice.
This. This is why it will never change.

Look at the Irish system. Introduce token charges for appointments and people will take care to avoid missing them. Medical cards for those on low incomes so that they can still access free healthcare. Stop paying a fortune to pharmacies to dispense cheap over the counter medicines such as paracetamol. A flat rate for inpatient stays. The internal market needs to go, it has been the source of many of the management non-jobs.

How often do we hear tales of old ladies lying on the floor for hours on end waiting for an ambulance? That ambulance has likely gone to attend someone with a stubbed toe (or something equally trivial) but who knew the right things to say to the call handler to get it graded a Cat A.

To answer the OP's question, no I don't want a new tax. If I wanted to pay extra contributions towards the NHS, I would take up smoking. Spend the existing budget more wisely.

No of im going to pay extra I'd rather it being additional specific private cover

Labours pfi schemes abuse has also left hospitals crippled.

Any extra money won't go on care but just serving these insane pfi debts

No, I would support a fine system for people missing appointments.

I also feel they need a new way to manage their money, there are a lot of ways they waste huge sums of cash even in just admin tasks.

I would. The nhs has evolved to include things like ivf and other treatments as medicine has developed. I do t think it is fit for purpose now and needs as much an overhaul if anything by else. I think the nhs should charge and actively chase those not entitled to treatment, or work with govt to offset foreign aid against those who abuse the system. And I think there should be more education on surgery and outcomes ie if you are 30 stone a hip replacement will have a better outcome if you lose ten stone etc.

And yes to pp about people missing appointments etc. One miss and you revert to the back of the queue.

Too many executives paid too much salary.

How many excess ‘executives’ are there at a typical trust? Do you mean executive board directors? Which would you dispense with? The medical director? The finance director? The director of IT services?

What would you cut their salaries to? What do you think is a suitable salary for an NHS finance director, for example?

Patients should pay for their own meals not be given free food. They should be charged for food

If so, they will want to choose exactly what they eat. A great new market for McDonalds and KFC on hospital premises, eh? I am not joking.

However if waste was sorted out, contracting dealt with and executives salary reduced a lot so not over paid then I would be happy to pay more. Every time they get more money they put up executive salaries instead of using it for running cost and front line staff.

Ill-informed whining about senior salaries is always a common theme on threads about taxation. Somebody will always say, if the MPs declined their pay rise then the NHS could be fully funded.

Eh? 650 people each disclaiming a pay rise of a couple of grand, and that’s going to sort out funding shortages of hundreds of millions?

Similar short-sightedness applies to complaints about ‘pen pushers’ and the like. Does anyone genuinely believe that hospital trusts use ALL of their funding increases on increasing the salaries of board directors, and that none of it is used for any other purpose? Where is your evidence for this claim?

@Oldsu

MaskingForIt you do know that 1000s of retired people actually pay tax you don't need to be in employment to be a tax payer

I don’t think I said they didn’t?

Everyone pays tax - even the reviled benefits-for-life crowd pay tax on their cigarettes, petrol and “massive tellies”. Tax doesn’t just mean income tax.

If taxes were increased for those earning over £100K and continued to rise progressively, wealthy people would still be wealthy and our healthcare system could be better funded.
@WeWantTheFinestWines you do not appear to understand how the world works. If you have some kind of escalating top rate of tax as you seem to be suggesting, you will not get more out of the rich. They will instead bugger off abroad and take everything they were already paying with them. The 45p tax band brought more money in than the 50p one did.

Oh goodness I'd better add that after 10 years of Blair my local hospital was at one point called the worst in the UK!

In my experience hospital care during the Blair years was fairly terrible with long waiting lists and problems missed, and has been considerably better during the last 10 years, but I know I’ll get flamed for saying it.

We do already

We need to look at other ways of funding our healthcare system (look to France/Germany as examples)

But we shall be paying more from our wages for such a system

Well I think first there needs to be a focus on public health. Brit’s have some of the highest rates of obesity which leaves them at high risk to some of the most common diseases - coronary artery disease, female cancers as diabetes to name a few.

Next the alcohol culture- again predisposes the population to all sorts of morbidity.

If the Government would help people take some responsibility for their health we would be in a better position.

Next, they need to be more competitive with their contracts and stop wasting money on things like management consultancy such as McKinsey.

I think those running it should be Medics, nurses or other HCP’s that are also commercial. Run programmes that allow them to go and work in McKinsey etc so they can gain skills in running organisations while having a Medical background.

In Scotland, and up and down the U.K, prescription charges should be means tested with a maximum amount e.g £7 a month. So it subsides prescriptions, but those who are the poorest and those with chronic conditions don’t suffer.

I think the T&Cs of Nurses and Doctor’s contracts need to change to make the profession more attractive. E.g flexibility in working hours and financial incentives or even just a remuneration package.

I also think the regulators of HCP’s need to start working together not against so they stop living in fear that the most minor misdemeanours could cost them their career.

Bring back bursaries for nurses and make the career more compatible with raising a family.

In short, I don’t think more tax! It’s just mismanaged.

Infertility is an illness. why should we not treat it?

It is not an illness. No-one is going to die from it. It is something that exists within the normal variability of the human condition, like differing levels of physical prowess or mental ability.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t terribly sad for those involved, but that is part of life.

@MaskingForIt

Infertility is an illness. why should we not treat it?

It is not an illness. No-one is going to die from it. It is something that exists within the normal variability of the human condition, like differing levels of physical prowess or mental ability.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t terribly sad for those involved, but that is part of life.

So your definition of something being an illness is whether you will die from it?

I have endometriosis, which doesn’t really kill people. Should that not be treated?

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome?

I’ve broken limbs before - that won’t kill you either, should they not be treated?

That’s a bloody weird definition of illness.

There are thousands of illnesses we treat because of the massive impact on quality of life, not just to avoid death.

My twins are autistic, should they not receive speech therapy? One is also visually impaired, should he not receive therapy and support?

Where are you drawing the line exactly?

No-one is going to die from it.

well, on that basis, we can scrap as well most of the treatment offered as most conditions will not lead to death! problem sorted