To wonder why the government don't increase taxes to fund the NHS better?

[Smolgoose]

From a lot of threads on here recently about lack of being able to access healthcare, and my own anecdotal experiences, it seems like the NHS is in a worse crisis than ever, and not able to cope with the demands upon it.

This thread is definately not about individual NHS staff, but about the whole system generally.

Why don't the government increase taxation to increase NHS funding? It wouldn't solve some issues such as the shortage of staff, but funding could be also funneled into increasing the number of people trained.

A lot of people think we are heading down a privitisation route, but as far as I know the government have not yet floated the idea of changing free at the point of service.

No, thanks, I don't want to pay more taxes for the money pit called NHS. Happy to pay more for a system that actually works.

I would happily pay more tax when the NHS have addressed the vast amounts of waste they incur and I can see a GP face to face. Until then, no.

The NHS is a black hole for money, it doesnt need more, it needs efficiency, as do many public services.

@skirk64

There's nothing to stop all the people who say they would be happy to pay more tax from making extra payments to the state. It can't be taken as direct taxation but you can make ad hoc voluntary contributions to the reduction of national debt, which in turn would free up money to be spent in other areas.

A quick scan of Google suggests that this is not a very popular activity, 200 such donations being made in the period 2000 to 2017. Many of them Mumsnet posters, no doubt.

There was a tv documentary a while back where they stopped people on the street and said would you pay more tax for the nhs. A % said yes. The reporter then got their tablet out, loaded up the gov website, and said 'there you go, just pop your details in, you can make a voluntary cobtribution'. Unsurprisingly, zero % did it.

The government don’t need us to pay more tax to fund the NHS better - they need to prioritise it.

If you’ve paid any attention to public discourse about the NHS over the last decade (eg. “It doesn’t work now, we need something else) you’d see that this government’s plan of underfunding the NHS is working perfectly.

@SeasonFinale

And when Labour were in power they overspent on other areas rather than choosing to fund the NHS properly so it is not only a Tory issue. Even when the Liberals specifically had in their mandate that an extra 1p would be added to tax and ringfenced specifically for education that didn't get them anywhere.

I think if it came straight down to privatisation -v- an extra couple of pence tax ringfenced for NHS there will still be people who would complain.

Errr that wasn’t my experience as a nurse in the NHS under Labour Government. We saw unprecedented investment in health services. The specialty I worked in (cancer diagnosis) received loads of new money with which we trained more staff, bought new equipment, and as a result were able to launch Bowel Cancer Screening. Our waiting lists for suspected cancers went from 6 months to 2 weeks. Our routines went from 18 months to 6 weeks. We couldn’t have done it without the cold hard cash.

Because people will moan.
I try to avoid tax avoiding companies to maximise the tax I can pay.

@skirk64

There's nothing to stop all the people who say they would be happy to pay more tax from making extra payments to the state. It can't be taken as direct taxation but you can make ad hoc voluntary contributions to the reduction of national debt, which in turn would free up money to be spent in other areas.

A quick scan of Google suggests that this is not a very popular activity, 200 such donations being made in the period 2000 to 2017. Many of them Mumsnet posters, no doubt.

Why would anyone pay extra money to a government pushing ideological austerity and underfunding public services? Does anyone actually believe that if we all chucked in 5% more it would get anywhere near the NHS?

@SeasonFinale

And when Labour were in power they overspent on other areas rather than choosing to fund the NHS properly so it is not only a Tory issue. Even when the Liberals specifically had in their mandate that an extra 1p would be added to tax and ringfenced specifically for education that didn't get them anywhere.

I think if it came straight down to privatisation -v- an extra couple of pence tax ringfenced for NHS there will still be people who would complain.

www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/nhs-performance-and-waiting-times#:~:text=Under%20the%20NHS%20Constitution%2C%20patients,being%20referred%20by%20a%20GP.

www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/general-election-2010/waiting-times

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50397856

Literally every source I can find shows that waiting times decreased from 1997 to their lowest point in 2010, which coincides with the last labour government. Since 2010 waiting times have steadily increased, exactly when the Tories took over, and long before brexit and covid were issues....

Anecdotally I once saw a gentleman, around 2010 a week after he had been referred by his GP with hip pain, in an orthopaedic clinic. Did his hip replacement 2 weeks later, and discharged him home 22 hours after that. We genuinely were in a position where we looked at waiting lists in weeks and months, whereas now its months to years.

For years now, at general elections, people have voted for a cheap NHS. So that's what we've got.

@millenialblush

The NHS is a black hole for money, it doesnt need more, it needs efficiency, as do many public services.

That's like saying my ferrari isn't fast enough.

£ for £ the NHS is one of the most efficient health services on the planet, and has been for a long time. The kings fund do detailed annual statistics on this and it constantly ranks in the top 2 or 3.

the issue is we spend less money per person than a lot of other countries, around £2500 per person per year last time I checked. some countries such as belgium and the USA spend more than double that. If you take into acound the wealth of the country and look at health spending per GDP capita, we still spend much less than many similarly developed countries.

The problem is not money, It's ideology. There's plenty of money to spend on nuclear missiles, HS2, a new British state cruise ship, but none to spend on the NHS, apparently.

If the extra tax was spent on services and not just used till fill the pockets of executives etc then yes, but how much is enough? It’s like a black hole for money,
I think it’s about time people who participate in dangerous activities or sorts, should have medical insurance and maybe drunken revellers that take up A&E time should pay for the service, etc etc
We should also have a grown up debate about end of live care, to many people are dying without dignity, perhaps we should be able to leave our life on are on terms instead of a long slow painful undignified death at great expense to the NHS

@SinkGirl

The government don’t need us to pay more tax to fund the NHS better - they need to prioritise it.

If you’ve paid any attention to public discourse about the NHS over the last decade (eg. “It doesn’t work now, we need something else) you’d see that this government’s plan of underfunding the NHS is working perfectly.

Completely this.

The tax argument is a bit of a red herring really. There is always money for whatever projects various ministers which to undertake. The Government chooses where to invest and where not to. If a public service is underfunded (and I do think there are savings to be made in the NHS), it is because the Government has chosen to underfund it.

nocoolnamesleft
We’re would the government get the extra money from to fund the NHS (140 billion and rising) what other service would suffer to fund the NHS, How much money Pa does the NHS need ?

people have voted for a cheap NHS

Tax burden is at a 50 year high.

The Department of Health and Social Care Budget for 21/22 is £159bn with a further £22bn on top for COVID.

In 2017 it employed 1.5million people and was the worlds 5th largest employer.

I’m not sure where the idea that people have voted for a cheap healthcare system has come from.

The NHS has plenty of money. It’s just wasteful and people are fed up of paying into a system and getting poor outcomes. People want choice and flexibility e.g. being able to speak to a GP at a time that’s convenient to them not being told to ring at 8am for a game of faster finger first to get an appointment.
Or being able to access specialists rather than have to beg their GP who acts a gate keeper to the rest of the ‘system’.

In fact I would imagine most people wouldn’t be against an extra penny on income tax if it was clear it was going to support a health care model fit for the 21st century.

I look at the french, German and Australian systems with a bit of envy to be honest.

The problem is not lack of funding. It’s the fact they’re spending money on stupid things. Too much bureaucracy, too many “managers”, paying stupid prices for meds that are available cheaper off the shelf, and providing unnecessary treatments that are cosmetic and not related to saving life or limb.

I wouldn't increase funding unless and until there was a massive overhaul of the NHS. There's an incredible amount of money wasted at present. This would be a herculean task which neither of the main parties have felt able to tackle so far.

The problem with tax isn't really how much we should pay, but who shoulders the burden. Almost everyone wants tax to be "fair" but we don't agree on what that means - a fixed amount per person? a flat % of income? a tiered system (as we have now) - but what tiers/thresholds? only the richest x% of people to pay any at all?

'Who shoulders the tax burden'
Usually peoples ideas involve 'everyone else', with your own particular situation being unaffected.

People always say they want to pay more tax for better services, but in UK, a party running on a manifesto of increased public spending never wins.

However, having had to use the NHS a lot over the last year (so I'm very grateful it exists) I don't think chucking more money at it will help. It needs to use what it has more efficiently and cut out all the atrocious waste. Give it more money, as things stand and it will just waste more IMO.

Most British people don’t want pay more taxes if they can help it.

I do wonder whether a European style contribution system would improve patient experience (make the NHS patient focused instead of staff focused) and drive up standards. Total public funding has limitations even in equality of access and care.

Because actually if the NHS got it’s act together it wouldn’t need more money

They need to go back to central procurement for the basic items, bulk buying better. Lots of stories on for instance being charged shedloads for buying and putting a blind up, a member of staff did it for £20 including buying the blind. It’s cheaper to buy paracetamol via Wilkos than who they but it through at the moment.

Staff should be encouraged to review processes and help with stream lining them, they could shift work, cutting down waiting list

They can make sure those who are not entitled to free healthcare from abroad pay for it

They need one matron again, cleaners allocated to wards under ward sisters, nursing staff trained as they were, not going to get a university degree as the only criteria the old ways, in this case are best

There is absolutely shedloads they could do to help themselves and frankly until they do I don’t see why we should have to pay more taxes with so much waste seen

To wonder why the government don't increase taxes to fund the NHS better?

Because they’re Conservatives

Staff should be encouraged to review processes and help with stream lining them, they could shift work, cutting down waiting list

This. A recent example. DH needed a scan, one where he has to have the coloured drink. Waited a while for the appointment which was then confirmed by telephone text and letter (twice).

He was taken to the hospital by ambulance (bed bound) but on the day they wouldn't do the scan because he should have had a blood test beforehand to check he was OK to have the dye, although no one had mentioned that to us.

So, wasted ambulance, wasted appointment, loads of admin to rearrange it.

If the blood test is important, why on earth isn't there a system for checking patients have had it ahead of time?

Because it wouldn't be a vote winner, is the answer, I'd guess.

The NHS is a god in this country. So it's in this very odd position where at a personal level you might have a pretty poor experience - delays, redundant processes, IT systems that don't speak to each other, whatever - but the average person's mindset still seems to be "Ah, the good old NHS". And then "Ah, the hard-working doctors and nurses" (no doubt they are). And then possibly "Oh, those interfering middle managers that just don't know what they're doing". It's political suicide to criticise it.

Whereas really the whole thing needs to be thought about differently. We're not here to serve the whims of the NHS. It's not a cuddly aunty, it's a huge bureaucratic organisation that swallows up a lot of talent and money and if either resource isn't being deployed effectively it's appropriate to expect change and efficiency.