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?

@HandforthParishCouncilClerk

No. But then, I work for the NHS do I get paid fuck all already!

You need to change trust DW used to be a staff nurse and my sister works in admin for NHS for lancashire trust

DW if she would still be a staff nurse with evening and weekend allowances and on top of her band 6 would be on around 40K

My sister works in admin 23k in the private sector admin job would be minimum wage about 17k

There recruiting healthcare assistants 21k in the private sector care would be minimum wage 17k

Radiographer TBF does like her overtime is on 50k+

you need to change trust

Pure corruption MercyBooth. Unfortunately the current electorate doesn’t think corruption is a serious issue for government.

SilenceIsNotAvailable There are some flaws in your comments.
Gordon Brown did promise a tax hike to improve the NHS, which you use to say it’s worse than ever. Remind me when Gordon Brown left office? If memory serves me correct that was in 2021. David Cameron then introduced stringent austerity measures. There has been an overall cut of 0.4% of GDP since Gordon Brown despite increased demand, staffing challenges and more complex demographics.

I’m not convinced by your comparison with other developed nations either. Your analysis is very superficial and a Tory dream when it comes to undermining what we have. A few facts;

The number of hospital beds (per 1,000 people)
U.K. 2.7. EU average 5.2
That’s half the number of beds compared to the average and worse when compared to richer EU nations. Hardly marginally less.

In terms of outcomes, were not too awful but yes, we don’t do the best on cancer care.....but early diagnosis is key to good outcomes, no? The funding differences aren’t marginal. They have a very real impact on availability of services.

CT scanners (per million population)
U.K. 8 EU average of 21.4

MRI scanners (per million population)
U.K. 6 EU average of 15.4

Perhaps surprisingly for many, access to healthcare is better in U.K.

Percentage of people who have gone without a necessary medical examination in the past year because it was too expensive, too far to travel or too long to wait.

UK 2.1 EU average of 3.6 per cent.
Unlike most other countries in the survey, in the UK there was very little difference in the experiences of people with high and low incomes.

Waiting times? Shocking aren’t they?
UK waiting times for cataract, knee and hip replacement are better than the average, among the 14 countries for which OECD have data.

There is still much work to be done. Infant mortality is worse than average - but that is likely linked to a number of factors including closure of many maternity units and reduced antenatal oversight due to lower staffing levels. It is complicated by demographics and health inequalities.

There’s far more, of course.I think people need to understand the Daily Mail and popular mythology doesn’t present an accurate picture. Most people receive very good care in the NHS despite their lack of funding and poor resourcing.

Imagine how fantastic it would be if we reinstated some of the support services, addressed healthcare in early years, recruited sufficient staff and treated them well. Perhaps if we had enough staff and hospital beds, plus good community provision, we would see a step change that put us back at the top of the outcome tables too. You don’t get much for nothing.

We can afford HS2, we’ve squandered on track and trace and corruption. We can pay to put up Nightingales to impress a gullible public. We can pay for ridiculous adverts and a media room with a thousand flags. We should be able to pay for an NHS that is funded at the same level as other nations with comparable wealth.

The number of hospital beds (per 1,000 people)
U.K. 2.7. EU average 5.2
That’s half the number of beds compared to the average and worse when compared to richer EU nations. Hardly marginally less.

But that’s a good outcome. People have poorer health and psychological outcome the longer they are in hospital. It’s been long demonstrated that care in the community is much more efficient and beneficial. We have a much better community healthcare than many other EU countries. Our low population density helps.

@vivainsomnia

*The number of hospital beds (per 1,000 people) U.K. 2.7. EU average 5.2 That’s half the number of beds compared to the average and worse when compared to richer EU nations. Hardly marginally less.*

But that’s a good outcome. People have poorer health and psychological outcome the longer they are in hospital. It’s been long demonstrated that care in the community is much more efficient and beneficial. We have a much better community healthcare than many other EU countries. Our low population density helps.

I think the pandemic has shown us that’s not the case. Yes, PJ paralysis and iatrogenic disease can be a thing, but we’ve do have fewer beds than essential. Community care is excellent, if properly resourced but psychiatric crisis is not managed well in the community, for example. That’s about funding. Elderly people recovering from fractured NOF do better with supervised rehabilitation rather than rapid discharge. Step down isn’t always available. There is a real lack of community beds that avoid acute admissions. It use daily to be that GP oversight with nursing care in ‘cottage hospitals’ meant the frail elderly avoided the complications of acute admission, but were afforded the holistic care needed for recovery. The cottage hospitals have now mainly closed for a few reasons including funding, not enough GP time to provide cover and, of course Gosport.

Sorry. It used to be that.....

Anyway agree high quality community care can be excellent but only if properly resourced and not as an efficiency measure.

As far as I know the NHS does very well with emergency care.
Other stuff, like most health care systems is rationed in some way. In the US, it is rationed by price (only the rich get certain treatment, or the poor cannot always afford the best). In the UK it is rationed by time, with long waiting lists.
When old hospitals are replaced, the new hospitals will often have fewer beds.
Also, on a county comparison, The UK has fewer ICU beds, ordinary beds, and GPs per population compared to other western countries (eg France and Germany).
Obviously these days many operations can be done as day surgery, and people stay in hospital a lot less than they did in the past, but there does seem to be a bit of a mis match compared to other western countries.

@LemonRoses

SilenceIsNotAvailable There are some flaws in your comments. Gordon Brown did promise a tax hike to improve the NHS, which you use to say it’s worse than ever. Remind me when Gordon Brown left office? If memory serves me correct that was in 2021. David Cameron then introduced stringent austerity measures. There has been an overall cut of 0.4% of GDP since Gordon Brown despite increased demand, staffing challenges and more complex demographics.

I’m not convinced by your comparison with other developed nations either. Your analysis is very superficial and a Tory dream when it comes to undermining what we have. A few facts;

The number of hospital beds (per 1,000 people)
U.K. 2.7. EU average 5.2
That’s half the number of beds compared to the average and worse when compared to richer EU nations. Hardly marginally less.

In terms of outcomes, were not too awful but yes, we don’t do the best on cancer care.....but early diagnosis is key to good outcomes, no? The funding differences aren’t marginal. They have a very real impact on availability of services.

CT scanners (per million population)
U.K. 8 EU average of 21.4

MRI scanners (per million population)
U.K. 6 EU average of 15.4

Perhaps surprisingly for many, access to healthcare is better in U.K.

Percentage of people who have gone without a necessary medical examination in the past year because it was too expensive, too far to travel or too long to wait.

UK 2.1 EU average of 3.6 per cent.
Unlike most other countries in the survey, in the UK there was very little difference in the experiences of people with high and low incomes.

Waiting times? Shocking aren’t they?
UK waiting times for cataract, knee and hip replacement are better than the average, among the 14 countries for which OECD have data.

There is still much work to be done. Infant mortality is worse than average - but that is likely linked to a number of factors including closure of many maternity units and reduced antenatal oversight due to lower staffing levels. It is complicated by demographics and health inequalities.

There’s far more, of course.I think people need to understand the Daily Mail and popular mythology doesn’t present an accurate picture. Most people receive very good care in the NHS despite their lack of funding and poor resourcing.

Imagine how fantastic it would be if we reinstated some of the support services, addressed healthcare in early years, recruited sufficient staff and treated them well. Perhaps if we had enough staff and hospital beds, plus good community provision, we would see a step change that put us back at the top of the outcome tables too. You don’t get much for nothing.

We can afford HS2, we’ve squandered on track and trace and corruption. We can pay to put up Nightingales to impress a gullible public. We can pay for ridiculous adverts and a media room with a thousand flags. We should be able to pay for an NHS that is funded at the same level as other nations with comparable wealth.

Gordon Brown raised NI claiming the increase was sufficient to fix NHS funding issues "once and for all". That tax increase was not reversed by any subsequent Government, we still pay it now but service is no better, no. So I'm not convinced more funding now would fix it either, for the many reasons detailed on this thread.

Other comparable countries do mostly spend only a marginal percentage difference to us on healthcare but have vastly better outcomes that far outstrip the funding difference demonstrating that there are structural as well as funding issues at play. I'm not sure what your point is?

Not for the NHS, as it needs complete reform as others have said; loads of waste, inefficiency and lots of senior wages unreasonably high, toxic work culture from what I hear, needs sorting out.
I do think we need a separate tax for social care however. Japan & Germany have it. You start paying once you hit 40.

I think pensioners who can afford it (not pensioners who struggle) should continue to pay national insurance on their taxable income. For a pension of 20k national insurance would be under £50 per month. Even if pensioners in the 40% tax bracket only paid NI this would still be a reasonable amount of additional income.

But that’s a good outcome. People have poorer health and psychological outcome the longer they are in hospital. It’s been long demonstrated that care in the community is much more efficient and beneficial. We have a much better community healthcare than many other EU countries. Our low population density helps

It’s not a good outcome at all. It’s why there are horrendous waiting lists. It’s why you have to be nearly at death’s door to be admitted and it’s why every hospital in the country is on red or black alert in the winter.

If we’ve got better community care than many other countries, it’s because they’ve got vastly better hospital provision and anybody who’s ever used it will testify to it being utter crap. When people are ill they need nursing 24/7, not a couple of times a day.

Other comparable countries do mostly spend only a marginal percentage difference to us on healthcare but have vastly better outcomes that far outstrip the funding difference

My point is that isn’t true.

Is anyone else old enough to remember when the national lottery was still at the discussion stage? The proposal was for it to fund the NHS and then it was to be split between the NHS and Education, but that was rejected.
As soon as austerity came in, doctors said that SS, the justice system and health would cost more than the cuts were meant to save and they were proved right. People living in relative poverty does society no good and the poor outcomes cost a fortune. We need austerity and UC to go.

@CloudofRain

I think pensioners who can afford it (not pensioners who struggle) should continue to pay national insurance on their taxable income. For a pension of 20k national insurance would be under £50 per month. Even if pensioners in the 40% tax bracket only paid NI this would still be a reasonable amount of additional income.

I already pay TWICE the amount of tax on my wages than I paid in tax and NI combined when I was working age due to my pensions being taxed how much MORE do you want me to pay, I paid it for the best part of 51 years and any NICs I paid between April 2016 and April 2021 didn't increase my pension due to the new flat rate pension rules, and as the NHS is largely funded by general taxation I am still paying into it plus my employer still pays employee NICs on my behalf, you want me to pay NI then I want the years I lost paid back to me and an increase in my pension for the years I pay it - and that will never happen

Well, my husband who is an immigrant, pays a £1600 health surcharge every 2 and half years, that's on top of the taxes he already pays.
If immigrants pay a surcharge (regardless of using the NHS or not, and also are not entitled to public funds,) not sure why higher earners can't.

There is so much waste. I'd like to see it run much more efficiently and then I would.

@OldsuI already pay TWICE the amount of tax on my wages than I paid in tax and NI combined when I was working age due to my pensions being taxed

Tax rates/allowances are the same so if you're paying more tax than when you were working, you must have a higher income now in "retirement" than when you were working.

There's no employee NIC on wages when you're over state retirement age nor on pensions.

@womaninatightspot

There is so much waste. I'd like to see it run much more efficiently and then I would.

And it's not just the inefficiency either. My OH is on long term cancer medication. He gets a huge carrier bag of the stuff every month but uses very little of it. He can't get his oncologist to stop issuing the full prescription. First time he asked, he was told it was "too much effort" to change the pre-determined regular prescription. Second time he asked, he was told if they didn't issue the full prescription every month he could lose the "permission" for him to be on long term treatment. Some of his chemo drugs are hundreds of pounds per tablet and he's got a cupboard full of the damn things as they issue 21 per 4 week period (3 weeks on, 1 week off), but the oncologist only wants him to take the main chemo tablet every other day, so he only uses 10 (half the packet per month). Then there's all the other "optional" tablets on a take as needed basis such as anti-sickness, anti-diarrhea, etc that he's got boxes of unopened. It's criminal the amount of wasted money. Oncologist doesn't care because her dept gets funding to buy the drugs - she's not interested in the "bigger picture" of the cost to the NHS/taxpayer.

There's no employee NIC on wages when you're over state retirement age nor on pensions

That’s because of the explicit link between years of NIC and qualification for state pension. I paid NIC for 44 years and get the same pension as someone who paid for 35 years. Anyone suggesting I should continue paying for a benefit I already receive can just fuck off.

I would, however, be more than happy to pay more tax as long as the increase was ringfenced for the NHS.

Don't we already pay for the NHS separately anyway? We all pay NI which pays for the NHS and our pensions, almost like we're buying private health insurance and a private pension?!?!?

[quote user1497207191]**@Oldsu*I already pay TWICE the amount of tax on my wages than I paid in tax and NI combined when I was working age due to my pensions being taxed *

Tax rates/allowances are the same so if you're paying more tax than when you were working, you must have a higher income now in "retirement" than when you were working.

There's no employee NIC on wages when you're over state retirement age nor on pensions.[/quote]
user1497207191 Sorry didn't make myself clear my employer still has to pay NIC for me as I am still an employee I don't pay any, and I would like to point out that yes I get a higher income however, if I was working age and my state pension was UC or tax credits I wouldn't be paying as much tax as both those benefits are tax free my state pension is deducted from my tax free allowance so I pay more tax on my wages that does not happen with working age benefits they don't have their tax free allowance reduced at all. I have no problem paying tax on my private pension BTW I got tax relief when I paid in

@Littledoodles90

Don't we already pay for the NHS separately anyway? We all pay NI which pays for the NHS and our pensions, almost like we're buying private health insurance and a private pension?!?!?

No, it comes from general taxation.