If everyone was taxed an extra pound, would that save the NHS?

[EddyF]

Might be a silly question but if you don’t ask, you don’t learn!

I have just a post elsewhere (not MN) where people are discussing their wait time to be seen at A&E and it’s quite shocking.

I think people would be In favour of paying a slight tax increase of a minimal amount such as £1/1.50 from tax to try and fix the NHS. Is this unrealistic?

I have attended a hospital in the US, and the experience was such a stark contrast to the feel of hospitals here. I know obviously because the US is not ‘free’ like the NHS. I just remember it being like a spa service.

@LexMitior which is why I have been banging on about the HMO element in US healthcare, which does work efficiently and effectively, quietly where it exists. It is a robust model that serves the population well, without promising unicorns. Doubt it covers gender reassignment or more than minimal IVF, but cancer, heart disease, diabetes and orthopaedic surgery are all well within the remit, plus childbirth and paediatric medicine. However, you need to be employed by an organisation that subscribes to a socialised medicine model -- like a university.

It really isn't the fault of people. People have always acted the same way. The problem isn't the number of NHS managers either.

The problem is we have had for some time a steadily increasing population, an ageing population, and the elderly often have very significant health needs but as social care is so underfunded they aren't getting the care they need at home, they aren't getting residential places either, so they're stuck in hospital.

There is also the issue of training staff, now that bursaries have been all but done away with, and retaining staff when working conditions are so much better elsewhere.

These problems have been evident for decades, but governments rarely create a long term plan - they plan to do what they can to achieve their goals, until the next election.

Totally agree with you @Blocked. There are probably ways the NHS could save money. I definitely don't think that if everyone went to the pharmacy instead of GP it would solve the crises of the NHS. The government are pretty hopeless and nobody wants to be "the party who raised taxes" so just stick a plaster over the problem until it's someone else's problem.

Not true many people develop dementia and it's not because they live unhealthy lives it's because of aging. Care home ratios women outnumber men because we are less likely to die of heart attacks etc. You can live for 10-15 years with it because pneumonia for example which previously killed can be treated with antibiotics. Stopping eating can be treated with special drinks/thickened fluids. Many elderly people are ill because they are old not because of lifestyle choices and we can extend their physical lives with treatment sadly it doesn't work very well on the mind. You can live healthy your entire life and still develop dementia and have a long drawn out death. Your body starts to fail as you get older.

Women outnumber men by at least 3-1 in care homes, often much more. Women are simply more robust than most men, so grow old in larger numbers. I do sometimes wonder whether antibiotics should be prescribed at all for people over 80. I think I would rather fade out with pneumonia than be kept afloat on a raft of drugs just so a small child can say bye bye to granny.

It's been a priority for me this autumn as DMIL was hospitalised. When DSIL visited, she wanted her children and GC to say farewell, but DMIL was not well enough to enjoy seeing them, definitely not well enough to engage with LOs, or even to make it worthwhile for a much loved grand daughter to plan a flight home from Europe. As soon as the hospital discharged her as medically well, she died six hours later. I do think the hospital were being slightly cynical about getting her to die off their premises.

Good points. It's clear that a lot of people posting with trite and simplistic solutions have never managed substantial resources.

There's also this notion that money spent on management is inherently wasteful, and that any extra money has to go to the front-line.... of course there'll be some waste in bureaucracy and management, but you need good bureaucracy and management to make things efficient! Who is doing the procuring and the planning if there's no one to manage?

Imagine an army with only infantry in the front line.... no officers, no logistics, no training, etc. It wouldn't last a week. And yet that's what people seem to expect the NHS to do. People should be demanding good management, and expect the costs that are required for that, rather than let's cut management because managers are useless and wasteful.

@Blocked & @billyt

I was more than happy to pay the extra NI payment knowing it would be ring-fenced (supposedly)When that was removed I was surprised.

The NI rise was principally to fund charging reform, to reduce the amount people would have to contribute for their social care. It was not (at least in large part) to support existing social care services.

However... despite the removal of NI, the funding earmarked for social care has remained and the charging reform has been postponed.... with the result that all the extra money (and it's many billions) is now available to actually support social care, and help facilitate hospital discharges.

Council budgets will increase significantly next year as a result.... And yet this is something that has largely gone unnoticed!

DH is rather looking forward to retiring and volunteering with the NHS. He's been a patient and a supplier/contractor. They will either make use of his skills to save money or shunt him off. But he won't be the one directing traffic and giving directions. I fear he will become very very unpopular.

Plus the cost of increasing chronic illnesses like diabetes. There are a lot of people receiving a lot of medication and appointments for lifestyle based illnesses. Unless we do anything about this, the NHS will be crippled.

Unpopular with the top brass, because DH will not mince words or tiptoe around egos. He's trained to deliver, and to train people to deliver, and he doesn't like waffle.

Are you arguing that poor lifestyle choices have little effect on care for older people? If so, that's crazy. And ignorant.

The tax take would be around £60m (£1 × no. of adults in the UK), which is the square root of bugger all in the context of NHS funding requirements.

@EmmaDilemma5 the NHS is already crippled if you're approaching middle age, when health issues emerge.

I don't think what you're saying is the compliment you clearly think it is!

I am not paying compliments. Or even trying to @AreOttersJustWetCats

I agree, as a former NHS employee

@AreOttersJustWetCats DH is a logistician/business/entrepreneurial type who won't second guess clinical judgements. The delivery process that enables doctors to deliver top notch medical care knowing the back office and support processes work smoothly behind the scenes would be the focus.

No but I work in elderly care, we are facing a massive boom in dementia rates. Obesity costs money yes but obese people are more likely to drop dead of heart attacks etc younger Vs living for 10 years in a care home until 100 bed bound doubly incontinent. It's good to live a healthy lifestyle but will it's not going protect you from a long protracted death in old age. I would rather die quickly I hope they have assisted dying when I reach that point.

Posters talk such bollocks about inefficiency in the NHS compared to other systems. The NHS is ranked as extreme efficient and excellent value for money compared to most others systems in the world. This isn't to say improvements couldn't always be made but the 'tear it down and start again' 'not fit for purpose' lot sound like Tory puppets, either that or just thick.

www.statista.com/statistics/1290426/health-care-system-administrative-efficiency-ranking-of-select-countries/

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-rank-rating-world-top-first-b1897008.html

healthcare-digital.com/hospitals/most-efficient-health-systems

www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d5143

UK has a massive shortage of Pharmacist's

Brexit cost the UK around 3000 dentists and similar number of pharmacists too.

More pressure on NHS & GPs.

To a large extent, we voted to make the NHS worse.

Yes @Kendodd People go on about efficiency but they don't really know what they are talking about, any inefficiencies are made 100 x worse because of staff shortages.

I think there are multiple issues (sorry if repeating haven't RTFT)
Firstly the NHS was set up for a smaller population with a much lower life expectancy.
With each advance in treating previously untreatable conditions that adds more people needing NHS treatment.
Babies surviving from a much more premature age and people living longer means more people relying on NHS treatment as above.
The longer someone lives the more health problems they are likely to acquire or need full time care.
The expectation and burden on the NHS is far greater than when it was first set up.
But there is also a lot of waste eg letters/paper trails where in any other situation an email or text would suffice

Mine and my children's lovely NHS dentist was one of them. I don't blame her for leaving. We now have to pay for dentistry and theres no dentist for 50 miles taking NHS patients.

Go us!

Everyone pays the same NIC rate on the first part of their earnings. It only drops to a lower rate for that part of income over the 40% income tax band level. Those in the 40% tax band effectively pay 42% on the highest part of their earnings when the NIC is taken into account. The highest earners pay 47% (45% plus 2%). Bear in mind as well that higher earners don’t get the benefit of any personal allowance. Lower earners get over £12,500 entirely free of tax. Higher earners pay tax on every single penny they earn.

Given that income tax goes up by twice the drop in NI at the same point, it's hardly a discount.