To ask you to choose between the NHS and subsidising energy bills?

[PersonaNonGarter]

We all know that our DCs are going to be paying off all of this government borrowing until the end of time. The country’s in debt and Liz Truss is about to borrow more.

So if you had to choose, would you borrow more for the NHS?

YABU - the NHS has enough, deal with energy crisis
YANBU - the NHS is the priority always

Correct.

The OP is guilty of the False Dilemma Fallacy which means the thread is built upon an error in logic.

Waste of time.

Neither, limit consumption through smart meters to a sustainable level, provide interest free loans for solar panels and air/ground source heat pumps.

Aim to become a net producer through nuclear power, which we can then export to Europe either through increased gas exports (we won't need it thanks to nuclear energy and lack of demand) or as electrical power under the North Sea.

Allow the NHS to generate its own income through top ups and ability to bypass waiting lists or get in demand times for appointments by paying. Introduce a system similar to dentists for GP's where you pay a appointment charge, also use more physician associated and nurse pracs as first point of contact. PA is a two year course so upping numbers is a lot quicker than recruiting and training GPs. Maybe have calls screened by PAs before appointments are given and allow them to say no you must go to a pharmacy, could also use them the screen out A&E attendance. We really really don't need to see a GP/doctor every time for minor issues that require a simple prescription yet our local surgery included doesn't make use of PAs at all and only has one nurse practitioner 🤯.

Provide tax incentives to business to provide income protection insurance and private healthcare covers

@jetadore, do you think there should be any limit to how much deficit/govt debt there is? Like, a certain %of GDP. Would you say it's absolutely fine if govt debt is running at 300% of GDP?

Do you think hospitals and other nhs buildings run on fresh air heating? NHS heating bills will cripple budgets and if not dealt with by HM govt, will collapse.

YABVU to frame the question in this way!

The only bottomless pit seems to be the amount of money the present Govt thinks it fair to award to their mates for everything from useless PPE to PFI contracts.

Instead of continually 'subsidising' energy costs (aka giving endless amounts of £ to energy companies for them to pass on as 'profits' to their already-wealthy shareholders), the Govt could make a one-off payment of around £2.8bn to bring the 'big five' energy companies into public ownership for ever more. Just to put that figure in context, £2.7bn has already been spent on bailing out UK energy companies since June 2021.

The same could be done for water in England (Water in Scotland is already a publicly-owned asset). And the rail network. And all the parts of the NHS (and education sector) which have been steathily privatised over the years. All that money currently being creamed off by shareholders could be used to (a) increase staffing, and pay; (b) improve services; (c) lesson the impact on climate change. etc.

Interestingly, many of the major shareholders in UK infrastructure are the Governments of other countries, who understandably see our trains, water companies etc as a safe investment that's guaranteed to bring in lots of money for them every year.

So British train tickets are the most expensive in Europe (and those profits go to Deutsche Bahn, SNCF Nederlandse Spoorwege, TrenItalia etc, meaning that we subsidise everyone else's national train systems) and all that spilt sewage is propping up regimes like China, Kuwait etc.

More reading for anyone who's interested:

^www.resilience.org/stories/2022-08-19/what-nationalising-energy-companies-would-cost-and-how-to-do-it/^

^www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/17/green-party-calls-for-nationalisation-of-big-five-energy-firms^

^corporatewatch.org/who-owns-your-water-and-how-theyll-try-to-keep-it/^

^weownit.org.uk/^

^www.gmb.org.uk/news/more-70-englands-water-industry-owned-foreign-companies^

^www.dropbox.com/s/gszr22gnd5ihvjj/Energy%2C%20rail%20and%20water%20privatisation%20costs%20UK%20households%20%C2%A3250%20a%20year.pdf?dl=0^

Defund the armed forces you must be mad at this time!!! We need massive increase in defense spending and less woke vanity projects.

We could put all our GDP into the NHS and it would still want more imo.

As to the poster who advocated defunding HM Forces; the first duty of the government is to keep the population safe. All the rest doesn't matter if you can't defend yourselves. There is a very clear example of this going on in Ukraine at present if you care to look.

At one point the NHS was the fifth largest employer on the planet; I could never understand why.

Do you actually know how much is spent on 'defence' every year, and what it's actually spent on?!
The amounts are HUGE, and if we -for example- just got rid of nuclear weapons, we'd save enough money to fund the NHS and everything else.
It's estimated that the costs of replacing the Trident system are going to be over £205 billion, with operating and decommissioning costs on top of that, plus an additional £20bn being spent on the Atomic Weapons Establishment between 2020-25.
I can't imagine any of you seriously think that letting off nuclear weapons is a good idea, or would contribute anything positive to the 'safety' of the world (for humans at least), so why not at least remove ourselves from that particular crazy arms race and use that money for something else?
There is now an international Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021, which 86 countries have signed up to. The UK hasn't, but could.
South Africa is one example of a country which used to have nuclear weapons, but voluntarily gave them up.

I don’t think it’s an either or thing.

Although More money from our government won’t suddenly magic up more natural gas, or get Putin to turn the pipelines back on will it.

Yep 👆🏻

What they should do is nationalise energy - it'll probably cost them less than increasing hand outs. Or change legislation or tax for UK companies selling the energy wholesale - they're the ones making the ridiculous profits. It won't cost the government much to redirect this money to customers rather than more debt increasing handouts. So I guess I don't agree with the idea of making it a choice. Letting them make these ridiculous profits will push inflation up for everyone and ultimately many businesses will close and many people will freeze in the winter. They are reluctant to do this because the tories like to let companies make their profits, but its going to cause such devastation they absolutely must step in. Borrowing to give everyone more money to pay the bills will just fuel inflation so is the wrong choice

This is a stupid question, as if the only two things the U.K. Government spends its money on is the NHS or subsidising energy bills. The NHS is less than 25% of the total budget.

@Longtimelurkerfinallyposts that's fine for countries such as South Africa, but not for the likes of the UK and USA who like it or not as part of the G7 form a deterrent for less stable countries to become nuclear and attack us. The whole argument of why Russia hasn't used nuclear weapons on Ukraine is the fact that we would be able to destroy Russia aswell it's known as a nuclear deterrent.

The armed forces also provide many jobs high quality both directly and indirectly through the supply chain.

The NHS is an abused over used service that is trying to do too much and is expected to cover everything even lifestyle related conditions free at point of use. Even removing the burden caused by lifestyle choices would drastically cut its bill over the long term.

As a country we have come to expect the government too bail us out of every mess we as humans create (even COVID hit those with lifestyle conditions harder) instead of looking for ways to help ourselves. I'm beginning to turn into a broken record but if you divide what we have just spent on solar panels by 8 years it locks our electric bill at todays prices and in 8 years time will mean we basically have free power, they have a 15 year guarantee! Yes we may have to import some power over winter but I expect a bill of £100-200 a year vs 1-2k pre solar. Many people could fund this investment which would drive down demand and lower prices if done on a large scale! Maybe it's time to force people to go green by mandating smart meters and caping the amount of power/gas we are allowed to buy as consumers we could then generate any excess we want through sustainable methods.

To me the help should be going to businesses by introducing a price cap for them as they are unlikely to be able to generate enough sustainable energy for their operations where as domestic customer can and should. This could also apply to the rental sector as landlords would be entitled to funded panels which are paid back for by increasing rent to tenants.

You've set up a straw man. You're probably also labouring under the misapphrension that the national finances are like a household budget, too.

Make big tax avoiding corporations pay their fair share of tax first and then come back and ask the question.

Thanks, no, I know how macro-economics work and understand government borrowing.

The irony in this statement, you clearly have no clue what the defence budget is spent on, or the wider value of having a nuclear capability.

Are you just generalising or do you actually have any experience of this.

The research shows that the biggest problem in the nhs is the press moaning about managers and if you had more managers it would be more efficient. It would then be run more like a business with the same infrastructure and it would be easier to hold people to account .

This - and to be honest, this is how the Tories want people to think, that you can't have both so dismantling and privatisng the NHS is a necessity that can't be helped rather than something that is their end goal anyway.

We shouldn't have to make that choice, both need funding. But if I had to pick I would always pick the NHS. MOST people are not going to die from the energy crisis, it will be miserable, some will get into debt, but we will cope. However, if my child gets into an accident, my DH gets cancer or my dad has a heart attack it is vital there are nurses, ambulances, short wait times, beds etc. Otherwise people will die including the young, old, rich, poor, healthy.

The nhs is so badly run. I wouldn’t give a penny to it given it’s being wasted

we are all being driven by sympathy yet they throw our hard earned money down drain

eg how many people like me, get free prescriptions for life because we need one drug to survive. I get free prescriptions for anything because I need thyroxine. However I can manage perfectly fine to pay for prescriptions yet nhs gives me them free and I’m on good wage. That’s bad management - by all means give me thyroxine free but I get them all free!

we allow people to get 29p paracetamol on prescription etc - that’s ridiculous!

We all understand that public funds are finite. That’s why we are still querying the cost of Brexit, track and trace, the huge expenditure on unsuitable ppe and the Dyson ventilators that used a ridiculous amount of public money but never actually materialised.

I agree that difficult financial decisions should be taken, but they should involve taxing energy companies on their huge profits and perhaps clarifying the purpose of the NHS in terms of what we should expect from it going forward. It should not be a choice between providing adequate basic NHS care and people freezing to death in what is still a wealthy country.

There is plenty of money. The Government just need to stop pissing it away in their mates hairbrained schemes and start putting it to use where it will do some bloody good.

YABU in the sense that we should not have to chose. Poorer countries do both, so can we.

Of course we have to choose what governments spend the money on. There is X available - what to spend it on. Do we borrow more?

You could offer to pay if you wanted, you're entitled to them for free but they will absolutely not say no to you paying (even though the prescription fee is a drop in the ocean to many meds anyway). People prescribed paracetamol generally have it as part of a larger script/dossette box so the cost of processing is negligible or require a dose everyday and generally wouldn't be permitted to buy x amount in one shop.