The NHS fiddle the waiting times in A&E

[remoaner]

I agree - the NHS is in

> an absolute mess, but the staff have shouted long

> enough. We are heading to an insurance based

> system, and it is in the interest of the

> destructors to make it look like it doesn't work.

> It does work, it did work, and it can work. It is

> chronically underfunded and the staff are broken.

> If you work with us, we can pull it back.

Brilliant post from someone who's able to draw from his / her broad experience of the NHS rather than extrapolating from one or two isolated incidents. And echoing others here, if you look at any breakdown of cost pressures on the NHS it's aging population, costs of new technologies and new types of treatments which hugely outweigh any cost pressures from immigrant patients. Immigrants coming to the UK tend to be young....

[Loz]

I think everyone would go for option 3, provided they are not the person paying extra tax.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think many would pay more tax if it were hypothecated.

[Loz]

As I said above, 1p extra on income tax raises ?4.6 billion. We're talking 4-6p extra just to keep the NHS's nose above water, if you believe current reports, so I don't think hypothecation would really be an issue.

Usually the conversation goes like this:

We need more spent on the NHS

If you want more spent on the NHS, taxes will have to go up.

Why should I have to pay more tax? Why aren't we taxing [insert name of any famous multinational here]?

Some people, like you and me, would be happy to pay more, but most want someone else to pay.

[????]

To fix it with tax we are talking -realistically - a several percentage point increase in the basic rate of tax.

The problem with more tax is in reality a smaller and smaller amount of people pay a larger and larger share of tax in reality (especially when transfers are put in) - they are probably less keen and we are getting to a point where the social contract would start to break on this, I feel. Frame it as say - more tax into the NHS but your tax credits will be cut I'm not sure you'd get such support. High rate tax much past 40Ish% starts to be counterproductive (ask Hollande).

People's income are squeezed as is - some more tax at a general level, especially in the 'squeezed middle' will reduce this further

The multiplier effect of public spending is generally below private expenditure - our economy is doing just about OK spurred largely by Consumer Spending...take several % points out of people's income and this grinds to a halt.

I don't (genuinely) think tax is the answer here as it won't 'fix it (NHS)' in the long term. We have to cut spending elsewhere; operate within existing budgets; do health better........or fund via some self-funding of sorts direct or contrinbutory/insurance (as is the case in much of Europe) . But, you know, national religon

[JoeLeg]

But if you ask people to fund their healthcare directly they will reasonable expect their tax payments to go down. Otherwise what's the point?

And then it's a choice between the same level of service, just paid differently, or a better service that costs more, or a worse service if you can't afford it.

[Pugwash]

When I was studying Social Policy for my degree many moons ago, the Welfare State was set up to address the chronic health needs of the country and was originally based, if I recall, on the German system. The aim was that raising the status of people's health over a generation, would then see the gradual introduction of an insurance based system. The idea being once that people achieved a high standard of health and were able to work, they could afford to pay insurance via their employers/insurance schemes which would cover medical expenses. This is certainly the norm in most European countries.

[JoeLeg]

A viable idea, if you have enough people earning enough money to support that.

A quick glance at wages and cost of living in this country will rapidly dissolve the idea that private healthcare schemes are affordable to the majority of families, and probably to many individuals too.

[Loz]

Austria works this way, and works very well indeed. As far as I could work out, there was a percentage levy paid by both employees and employers that went into an 'insurance' fund. Free at the point of delivery like the NHS, but more complex in its underlying funding.

[Pugwash]

The idea was a national scheme I believe ( I suppose an extension of the existing NI scheme) and contributions graded according to income bands. Not really a 'private medical scheme' as all workers would be enrolled into it.

[JoeLeg]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Austria works this way, and works very well

> indeed. As far as I could work out, there was a

> percentage levy paid by both employees and

> employers that went into an 'insurance' fund.

> Free at the point of delivery like the NHS, but

> more complex in its underlying funding.

Interesting. I overheard on conversation the other night which described how Austria is the hardest country to get a passport from - the speaker was a man with an Austrian mother who said that he had been unable to obtain one, and that they hardly ever give them out.

I'm unsure of how immigration in Austria affects their health service (obviously they have some very right wing politicians), but if they're already very picky about who they let in it must make it easier to control a scheme like that surely?

[Loz]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting. I overheard on conversation the other

> night which described how Austria is the hardest

> country to get a passport from - the speaker was a

> man with an Austrian mother who said that he had

> been unable to obtain one, and that they hardly

> ever give them out.

> I'm unsure of how immigration in Austria affects

> their health service (obviously they have some

> very right wing politicians), but if they're

> already very picky about who they let in it must

> make it easier to control a scheme like that

> surely?

I didn't have an Austrian passport, but I did work there and was covered under their system. You get issued a card by the government when you start work, which has health system details on one side and the EHIC card on the other.

I had a (UK) friend who did his ACL there. Within a week he'd been operated on and started physio, all under the health system. You'd be lucky to have had all that in the UK in three months.

But it is a contradiction of a country - Austrians are generally lovely and welcoming people, but they are also really quite religious, conservative and traditional.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Austria works this way, and works very well

> indeed. As far as I could work out, there was a

> percentage levy paid by both employees and

> employers that went into an 'insurance' fund.

> Free at the point of delivery like the NHS, but

> more complex in its underlying funding.

Kind of like National Insurance then, only hypothecated.

[sabrina79]

I m not impressed . I have been to the emergency in Lewisham and the 3 times I waited for 3 hours .....while I was waiting an old man waiting like me pass out .

Is not only in the UK , in my country is the same .Unlucky I have spend lots of time in Hospital, had surgeries and accident (I m an very active person , less now tho), and always had the problem to wait for so long ......the problem is the same , not enough staff working , staff under paid , staff tired and sick .... I don t have any idea what we can do for get a better service ....maybe everyone should pay the tax and NIN ?!?!?!?

[teddyboy23]

Interesting report in sun today concerning the NHS.regarding dyson fans vacuum cleaners .the cost to the NHS ?1.2m.enough for another 65 nurses.not hundreds you might say but its a start also ?130million is wasted each year .on admin according to a freedom of information request from England's 236 hospital trusts. 2 previous posts Angelia and johnL might find it interesting.

[Loz]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting report in sun today concerning the

> NHS.regarding dyson fans vacuum cleaners .the cost

> to the NHS ?1.2m.enough for another 65 nurses.

The quote in the Sun was "The ?1.4million spent in total on Dyson gear over the past five years would pay for 65 nurses."

Not defending the purchasing, but I hate statistical stupidity like that. That sentence is just complete and utter bollocks.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I really wouldn't take any notice of anything published in the Sun.

[teddyboy23]

The bit about the fans is true .made a post back in February 16th.

[Loz]

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The bit about the fans is true .made a post back in February 16th.

Oh, I'm sure they spent lots on Dyson fans, but saying that the money would 'pay for 65 nurses' is the bollocksy bit.

And sadly, it's not just the Sun wot does it. Even the broadsheets' use of stats is rather dubious sometimes.