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.

@NumberTheory I would be up for paying out an extra £50p a day, or say £35 a month, as long as those on the very highest incomes should contribute an equivalent percentage of income.

Pay their full degree including maintenance loan in exchange for a few years of service could work. Right now student nurses are effectively paying to go on placement and work for free. There's no incentive many don't feel they owe the NHS anything , paying for the degree has backfired on the government.

Another example of an easily solved inefficiency. I had a blood test, they caught a nerve. A week later I'm still in a lot of pain and have 2 numb fingers. I've no idea if this is normal, rang surgery to try and find out if I need to see someone. Can't help, you'll have to talk to the doctor.

So, I've just wasted a GP appointment to be told it happens sometimes, it will resolve in 6-8 weeks. So why couldn't the plebotomist have told me what to expect and save the surgery reception time, the congested telephone system and the GP appointment? Shouldn't it just be normal to explain what to expect when something relatively common happens?

@Fadedpicture So how would have felt if you'd been told, over the phone "oh thats a pinched nerve, will go soon" but it turned out to be a clot and you then had a stoke?

Isn't it better someone sees you face to face by a Doctor or Consultant?

People aren't being seen face to face though, are they? GPs will only see you if they think there's a clinical need. So all the GP could say in this case was "wait and see" which is exactly what the HCA taking the blood should have said. Even better would have been for the HCA to tell the patient what warnings signs to look out for which may indicate a need to see a GP, i.e. it lasting longer than a few weeks, other side effects etc. The HCA explaining what may happen would have taken a few seconds and saved a GP consultation.

Do you seriously think that an A level student is going to chose NHS if they are stuck there for 5 or 10 years, unable to move jobs otherwise they will owe 50 or 60k?

Do it for all degrees and no one will go to Uni.

UK has the most expensive tiuton fees in the world & you pair think this will work?

Here's an idea, increase pay, improve working conditions and make the job attractive again?

So far its take take take by the employers and the public.

The OP said they were seen by a GP & 65 to 70% of appointments are F2F, maybe stop reading the 'Mail?

HCA's are not paid to make clinic diagnosis, they refer up and rightly so.

It was over the phone with GP. I'm not surprised the receptionist couldn't answer, but if it's something that happens fairly often surely the phlebotomist at the time could have said "sorry about that, it does happen sometimes, it could be sore with some numbness for 6-8 weeks, but don't worry, it will pass"?

The NHS is hideously inefficient, seen numerous posts on here from people who have worked there. There are huge numbers of highly paid none jobs, huge numbers of highly paid managers. They have followed every current fad, even if dangerous for patients, putting trans women in woman’s wards and denying there was a problem when a woman was raped. The Tavistock scandal which will probably end in them paying £millions.

Th NHS is not the envy of the world and has huge amounts of money thrown at it and does not improve. We need a German/French model in which people pay insurance.

To be honest nicking a nerve drawing blood isn't common, bruising perhaps, didn't you feel something at the time? they are supposed to put the needle in a vein.

A 'phone conversation with a GP is hardly inefficient and its now on your med records, maybe next time they'll read that and be more careful?
Maybe the GP will speak to the person who did the blood test?

There some very real issues with the NHS, most of which are human error and or lack of staff.... things go very wrong in the private sector too and in other countries health systems.

I don't see how anyone can expect a problem free NHS.

She also didn't ask a single question that might have established if it was something else.

Neither myself nor OH have been able to see a GP face for face for the past two years. OH has cancer and numerous complications, but it's always phone consultations. Same with his haematologist who he's only seen once F2F in the past 3 years, all other "consultations" are by phone. He even had a video consultation with the orthopaedic surgeon re a broken bone in his foot and a video appointment re damage to the 3rd vertibrae in his neck. By the way, we don't read the Daily Mail. Being unable to see a doctor/consultant face to face around hear is the norm.

I would rather just be allowed to opt out of the NHS and my income tax bill be 20% less.

@Badbadbunny

That's bad, and certainly hasn't been my experience since Spring of this year.

I didn't think you could get emergency care from private hospitals in the UK? They would usually transfer you to an NHS hospital if anything went wrong I thought, so I am not sure how this would work - what would happen if you were in a car crash?

For a start, I've always thought the NHS should bill the car insurance company for the medical costs resulting from an accident. Yes, it'll increase premiums, but that's just a cost of owning/driving a vehicle. If they did that, I'm sure the private sector would start building A&E units in the bigger towns and cities where demand would warrant it.

Haven’t rtft but one thing that other systems do is have nominal charges. It’d probably change behaviour so you have to check what impact - too many waiting longer, or more valuing what they get and not wasting time - but I don’t think any party could get voted in with it in the manifesto.

When people say they want French / German do they envisage they’ll be paying more in or someone else will?

Not sure if it’s linked to level of care or just income. I assume just income? Although private insurance here is linked to usage

They do.

That does rather presume the NHS is funded solely out of income tax. Which it isn’t.

Income tax is only about 20-25% of government receipts.

@MarshaBradyo the French system is means tested and the private component is modest

This is by no means a dig at the OP's suggestion - more money is part of it but I think sometimes there is a tendency to look at one solution to a problem whereas it's definitely not an issue that can be solved using one method. The idea of free medical care for all, regardless of means is one that I would never want to see disappear but the health service doesn't seem fit for the challenges of today and neither does social care.

Haven’t rtft but one thing that other systems do is have nominal charges. It’d probably change behaviour so you have to check what impact - too many waiting longer, or more valuing what they get and not wasting time - but I don’t think any party could get voted in with it in the manifesto

When people say they want French / German do they envisage they’ll be paying more in or someone else will?

We were in France in the summer, chatting to our host and she explained the range of charges for medical services, though it is largely refunded, which does seem a waste of time and money = inefficiency.

There are also caps on what can and cannot be done, this can be quite proscriptive, her partner lost his leg, he could not get the latest prosthetics unless he paid '000s of euros - how did he lose his leg? hospital acquired infection, after a routine op - things are not always as pink n rosy as we might believe.

But it worked relatively well for many years.

What has changed? just a few years ago, social care packages could be obtained within days, now its 6 to 8 weeks.

@helford

But it worked relatively well for many years. What has changed? just a few years ago, social care packages could be obtained within days, now its 6 to 8 weeks.

What's changed? Quite a lot....

1. An aging population - fewer working age adults per pensioner
2. The ill health legacy of Covid
3. Brexit, with the associated departure of large numbers of health and social care workers
4. Our success in developing medical treatments that improve and save lives, but are very expensive!..... all coupled with the fact
5. a weak economy meaning there's less tax to support health and social care

THIS!!!