FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Can labour save the nhs?
Can labour save the nhs?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
I was reading an article about it and it comes after keir starmer has marked the 75th birthday of the nhs by pledging to get the service "off life support and back to a clean bill of health".
They celebrated the 75th birthday on 5th july.
I think that labour would do much better job than what the torys have done under these 12 years, asa result have brought the nhs to its knees.
What is your view about it, can labour save the nhs?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In it's present form, the NHS is unsustainable. With an aging population, and expensive new treatments, a state funded 'free' healthcare system is unaffordable. Some element of privatisation is inevitable, probably with the NHS split into smaller, more manageable units. In future, people will have to have supplementary insurance for healthcare, just as we have for pensions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues. "
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more."
The funding is a secondary issue for me. We can't keep just throwing money at something which clearly has so many other failures. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The NHS needs to reduce the huge wastage and inefficiency; concentrate on the basics (treat people quickly to stop minor ailments deteriorating); stop unnecessary and expensive treatment and finally, the other parts of the system (councils, care system, families etc.) need to step up and do their jobs so that the NHS can get on with the above. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was reading an article about it and it comes after keir starmer has marked the 75th birthday of the nhs by pledging to get the service "off life support and back to a clean bill of health".
They celebrated the 75th birthday on 5th july.
I think that labour would do much better job than what the torys have done under these 12 years, asa result have brought the nhs to its knees.
What is your view about it, can labour save the nhs? "
The nhs is doomed for failure as it end up eating more and more of the uk budget.
It doesn't work well. And never has worked well in my entire time on this planet whenever I have used it.
A switch to any other model would be preferable ( and no that doesn't mean the usa model) there are about 200 other countries with functioning health services around the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was reading an article about it and it comes after keir starmer has marked the 75th birthday of the nhs by pledging to get the service "off life support and back to a clean bill of health".
They celebrated the 75th birthday on 5th july.
I think that labour would do much better job than what the torys have done under these 12 years, asa result have brought the nhs to its knees.
What is your view about it, can labour save the nhs? "
I do not see any change coming at the next GE, as Labour are already saying that things will be tough due to x amount of tory rule.
I think a two party system is a joke and I wouldn't put my vote to it.
So in short I do not think labour will change anything and they will blame the tories for any situation that may occur.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"In it's present form, the NHS is unsustainable. With an aging population, and expensive new treatments, a state funded 'free' healthcare system is unaffordable. Some element of privatisation is inevitable, probably with the NHS split into smaller, more manageable units. In future, people will have to have supplementary insurance for healthcare, just as we have for pensions."
Yes, you are right there, it is unsustainable right now. I also think that the nhs might split up into smaller units as it would be more manageable then  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more."
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K."
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it "
I don’t believe I said the NHS shouldn’t change, did I? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it "
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
I don’t believe I said the NHS shouldn’t change, did I? "
You didn’t say anything to be fair, other than stating we need healthcare on mass. I responded to the model we have, so my bad.
What do you propose? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can. "
Ah, Tony and Gordon with the magic PFI credit card.
Have theose bills been paid off yet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
I don’t believe I said the NHS shouldn’t change, did I?
You didn’t say anything to be fair, other than stating we need healthcare on mass. I responded to the model we have, so my bad.
What do you propose?"
As I’ve said previously, I’d look at other models from Europe, France, Germany etc. they seem to be something of a happy medium where all have access to healthcare, which is well funded, without pricing the poorest out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
I don’t believe I said the NHS shouldn’t change, did I?
You didn’t say anything to be fair, other than stating we need healthcare on mass. I responded to the model we have, so my bad.
What do you propose?
As I’ve said previously, I’d look at other models from Europe, France, Germany etc. they seem to be something of a happy medium where all have access to healthcare, which is well funded, without pricing the poorest out. "
It’s the how.
How do we go from what is basically a service intravenously attached to the largest money machine in the world, to a working service that is fit for the 21st century |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can.
Ah, Tony and Gordon with the magic PFI credit card.
Have theose bills been paid off yet?"
How did PFI reduce waiting lists? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I was reading an article about it and it comes after keir starmer has marked the 75th birthday of the nhs by pledging to get the service "off life support and back to a clean bill of health".
They celebrated the 75th birthday on 5th july.
I think that labour would do much better job than what the torys have done under these 12 years, asa result have brought the nhs to its knees.
What is your view about it, can labour save the nhs? "
I hope they can improve it though it seems to need drastic change. Maybe they will look into more privatization as they did before. Looking at alternatives from around the world needs to be done. The other question is would you trust SKS to actually do what he says or perform a U turn |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can. "
I am sorry but it wasn't.
It consumed more and more money, hidden by pfi contracts, while it lost more and more beds and the service got poorer and poorer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It can't and won't be sorted until people take off the rose tinted specs. It's an absolute cash drain. It's poorly run and managed. Look at some of the private run wards for the way to do it and adopt it into the NHS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can.
I am sorry but it wasn't.
It consumed more and more money, hidden by pfi contracts, while it lost more and more beds and the service got poorer and poorer."
Looking at satisfaction ratings you are wrong
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
With the NHS we are stuck in a time warp and failed to move with the times.
With people living a lot longer than when the NHS was created we have to face reality with regards to funding. Only one other country provides the servive free of charge .
A mixture of private and public funding works well in other counties. We need to adapt a model similar to that used in France or Germany . Once you start having to pay for services or make a contribution you adapt a much more responsible attitude. Why should the servive be free. ? There will always be a fall back for those who cannot afford to pay.
We need to break up the NHS into various specialist divisions and have a much greater degree of accountability. Service to health tourists should be refused. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can.
Ah, Tony and Gordon with the magic PFI credit card.
Have theose bills been paid off yet?
How did PFI reduce waiting lists?"
Labour opened up the NHS to using the private sector in order to bring waiting lists down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With the NHS we are stuck in a time warp and failed to move with the times.
With people living a lot longer than when the NHS was created we have to face reality with regards to funding. Only one other country provides the servive free of charge .
A mixture of private and public funding works well in other counties. We need to adapt a model similar to that used in France or Germany . Once you start having to pay for services or make a contribution you adapt a much more responsible attitude. Why should the servive be free. ? There will always be a fall back for those who cannot afford to pay.
We need to break up the NHS into various specialist divisions and have a much greater degree of accountability. Service to health tourists should be refused. "
Some element of payment might even be a good thing. It might encourage people to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing - a prerequisite of an efficient health service. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner "
The most certain vote loser of all is admitting the NHS isn't fit for purpose and needs reform. So we are stuck in a death spiral of a failing healthcare system that we are supposed to believe is a National Treasure. It isn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner "
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner"
"this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year."
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hagTonight OP Man
over a year ago
From the land of haribos. |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can. "
Yes, it did work perfectly as well under labour till that time, as I see it, labour had the winning formula |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Can Labour fix the NHS? No, not a chance. And neither can the Tories.
This thread is a good illustration of why it will never be "fixed".
To Labour supporters it is some kind of sacred cow that must never be reformed. Political dogma will always drive Labour policy on the NHS.
Tories can see that it need serious, nay drastic, reform (including some form of privatisation or semi privatisation) but it has become such a political hot potato they are shit scared of even whispering the dreaded "P" word.
Both parties will tinker around the edges with new initiatives, new deals and yes, chucking more and more money into a bottomless pit. But it will never change. Not while politicians are in charge anyway.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year."
You could get good health insurance for that money - you might even get to see a Doctor too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year."
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?"
Careful what you wish for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for."
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax."
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
"
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy 
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note."
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t. "
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
Everything looks great, until it isn't. Although 'isn't' doesn't always happen.
If I opted to go private with my tax pounds coming back, that's surely my risk to take?
Fuck I'm even leaving some in the pot for those who can't afford it, how thoughtful of me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t.
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
"
But not for all. And that’s the danger of a fully private system - which is why, once again, we should look to other European models with part payment schemes in place.
A 100% private healthcare system leaves the poorest at risk of bankruptcy, or living with ailments they can’t afford to cure, placing increased burden on welfare and forcing families into poverty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t.
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
But not for all. And that’s the danger of a fully private system - which is why, once again, we should look to other European models with part payment schemes in place.
A 100% private healthcare system leaves the poorest at risk of bankruptcy, or living with ailments they can’t afford to cure, placing increased burden on welfare and forcing families into poverty."
Who said anything about a 100% private healthcare service??
Pretty sure I've repeated said 'leave money in the pot' for those who can't afford it. People can opt to go private and get their tax dollars back (partly) or stay with public.
Imagine the burden removed. The public system may even function properly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t.
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
But not for all. And that’s the danger of a fully private system - which is why, once again, we should look to other European models with part payment schemes in place.
A 100% private healthcare system leaves the poorest at risk of bankruptcy, or living with ailments they can’t afford to cure, placing increased burden on welfare and forcing families into poverty.
Who said anything about a 100% private healthcare service??
Pretty sure I've repeated said 'leave money in the pot' for those who can't afford it. People can opt to go private and get their tax dollars back (partly) or stay with public.
Imagine the burden removed. The public system may even function properly."
Some are in favour of a 100% system. Some indeed on this forum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t.
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
But not for all. And that’s the danger of a fully private system - which is why, once again, we should look to other European models with part payment schemes in place.
A 100% private healthcare system leaves the poorest at risk of bankruptcy, or living with ailments they can’t afford to cure, placing increased burden on welfare and forcing families into poverty.
Who said anything about a 100% private healthcare service??
Pretty sure I've repeated said 'leave money in the pot' for those who can't afford it. People can opt to go private and get their tax dollars back (partly) or stay with public.
Imagine the burden removed. The public system may even function properly.
Some are in favour of a 100% system. Some indeed on this forum."
Maybe some are, not me. You're replying to my posts  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t.
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
But not for all. And that’s the danger of a fully private system - which is why, once again, we should look to other European models with part payment schemes in place.
A 100% private healthcare system leaves the poorest at risk of bankruptcy, or living with ailments they can’t afford to cure, placing increased burden on welfare and forcing families into poverty.
Who said anything about a 100% private healthcare service??
Pretty sure I've repeated said 'leave money in the pot' for those who can't afford it. People can opt to go private and get their tax dollars back (partly) or stay with public.
Imagine the burden removed. The public system may even function properly.
Some are in favour of a 100% system. Some indeed on this forum.
Maybe some are, not me. You're replying to my posts "
Sorry I forget sometimes that it’s your forum and conversation can’t stray from that. My bad |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"you get what you pay for. successive governments have underfunded the NHS & that has led to inefficiency, unfortunately putting up tax to pay for healthcare is not a vote winner
this must be a tongue in cheek comment? Somewhere in the region of £180 billion a year spent on the NHS.
To put this into a context we can all understand as just saying big numbers is easy...
£180billion a year is £342465 every minute of the year.
Or to put it another way, there are about 32.2 million tax payers in the UK, so the NHS costs them each about £5,600 per year.
Can I just take 5k/year back and I'll sort myself out?
Careful what you wish for.
Why? An extra 10k in my household and we sort our own health? I'd be more than happy.
It leaves 1200 to go towards those who don't pay tax.
You’d be more than happy until your health insurance doesn’t cover certain things, or you can’t get any because of historic ailments, or it doesn’t cover the full cost of horrendously expensive treatment for a long term condition.
I'd be more than happy if you didn't tell me when I'd be happy
Seriously though, why do you always jump to extremes? Not everyone encounters those things you note.
The extremes are the risk - that’s why I said be careful what you wish for.
Private health insurance looks great, right up until it isn’t.
For many, private health insurance works perfectly.
But not for all. And that’s the danger of a fully private system - which is why, once again, we should look to other European models with part payment schemes in place.
A 100% private healthcare system leaves the poorest at risk of bankruptcy, or living with ailments they can’t afford to cure, placing increased burden on welfare and forcing families into poverty.
Who said anything about a 100% private healthcare service??
Pretty sure I've repeated said 'leave money in the pot' for those who can't afford it. People can opt to go private and get their tax dollars back (partly) or stay with public.
Imagine the burden removed. The public system may even function properly.
Some are in favour of a 100% system. Some indeed on this forum.
Maybe some are, not me. You're replying to my posts
Sorry I forget sometimes that it’s your forum and conversation can’t stray from that. My bad "
Of course it can stray but when you're replying directly to me I'd prefer we keep with what we're actually talking about rather than 'some people' who aren't involved in the conversation.
You were replying to me as if I had said the things you're straying to. How delusional of me to think that a reply to me was a reply to me  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The NHS will never be fixed until they sort out the structure and staffing issues.
And funding properly with an integrated IT system that works!
The private sector needs to be kept out of the NHS. Private business needs to make a profit so will either cut costs by reducing staffing and service levels or by charging more.
A functioning healthcare system that delivers treatment for all (regardless of their age, sex, wealth or any other factor) is a basic function of any civilised nation.
The notion of a privatised system that some would be priced out of (and they would, undoubtedly) would be an enormous step backwards for the U.K.
The model does not work, the evidence is in front of you and no amount of romantic notion will fix it
It was working perfectly well up to 2010 at which time waiting lists were at an all time low. Just because it is not working now doesn’t mean that it never can.
I am sorry but it wasn't.
It consumed more and more money, hidden by pfi contracts, while it lost more and more beds and the service got poorer and poorer.
Looking at satisfaction ratings you are wrong
"
Looking at all the data.
I am right.
Labour privatised the nhs tonreduce waiting times and took out large debts.
So your solution then is to privatised the nhs to reduce waiting numbers?
Beds reduced at the nhs, costs increased considerably, privatisation grew particularly gps, satisfaction has stayed roughly the same from when Labour left government until covid.
Kf your idea of.improving the NHS is privatised methods. The good for you for standing up for your point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you wish to know more abut privatisation is suggest reading the "nhs plan" from 2000 which goes into great detail about how waiting lists and satisfaction were not great.
Then new Labour thought it fantastic to bring in private providers and change the way GPS operate and many other functions we see now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Public satisfaction in the NHS in 2010 was 70%. In 2019 it was 60% but had fallen as low as 53% in 2018.
In 2022 it was 29%"
Would you like to give us a link to where those figures are being reported? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Public satisfaction with the NHS in 2001 was 38% then large parts were privatised
As privatisation increased public satisfaction went up to 70% by the time the tories cam into power it was at 58% as the tories took over in September 2010 effectively post election.
You have to take the rough with the smooth.
If you enjoyed satisfaction surveys under private healthcare providers working for the nhs increasingly from 2000-2009. Maybe you champion nhs privatisation after all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I was reading an article about it and it comes after keir starmer has marked the 75th birthday of the nhs by pledging to get the service "off life support and back to a clean bill of health".
They celebrated the 75th birthday on 5th july.
I think that labour would do much better job than what the torys have done under these 12 years, asa result have brought the nhs to its knees.
What is your view about it, can labour save the nhs? "
I think initially you would have to decide what it needs saving from. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Public satisfaction in the NHS in 2010 was 70%. In 2019 it was 60% but had fallen as low as 53% in 2018.
In 2022 it was 29%
Would you like to give us a link to where those figures are being reported?"
they're on the Kings fund website. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Public satisfaction in the NHS in 2010 was 70%. In 2019 it was 60% but had fallen as low as 53% in 2018.
In 2022 it was 29%
Would you like to give us a link to where those figures are being reported?"
Statista:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/696342/public-satisfaction-with-the-nhs-united-kingdom-uk/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Public satisfaction in the NHS in 2010 was 70%. In 2019 it was 60% but had fallen as low as 53% in 2018.
In 2022 it was 29%"
Do these stats explain the cause for such % drops?
Longer waiting lists as an example are not just about money spent, it could be a surge in appointments through an uplift in population numbers.
It’s all relevant and it would be nice to understand rather than under this government statements.
No government is going to make it work as someone else mentioned, and I would love 5 minutes of the NHS funding in my bank account, never work again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Public satisfaction in the NHS in 2010 was 70%. In 2019 it was 60% but had fallen as low as 53% in 2018.
In 2022 it was 29%
Would you like to give us a link to where those figures are being reported? they're on the Kings fund website."
Seeing as we are quoting The Kings Fund (not sure we are allowed that as a link) they published a report back in June this year called:
How does the NHS compare to the health care systems of other countries?
* Comparing the health care systems of different countries can help politicians and policy-makers assess how the UK health care system is performing and where it could improve.
* For our research, we reviewed the academic literature on previous attempts to compare health care systems, analysed quantitative data on health system performance, and interviewed experts in comparative health policy.
* We found the UK health care system has fewer key resources than its peers. It performs relatively well on some measures of efficiency but waiting times for common procedures were ‘middle-of-the-pack’ before the Covid-19 pandemic and have deteriorated sharply since.
* The UK performs well on protecting people from some of the financial costs of ill health, but lags behind its peers on important health care outcomes, including life expectancy and deaths. The latter could have been avoided through timely and effective health care, and public health and preventive services.
* There is little evidence that one particular ‘type’ of health care system or model of health care funding produces systematically better results than another. Countries predominantly try to achieve better health outcomes by improving their existing model of health care, rather than by adopting a radically different model. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
