D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
I would happily pay 40 a month, but for that I want a 1st class service.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Plans have been put forward to cut hospital services in two-thirds of England
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
I would happily pay 40 a month, but for that I want a 1st class service.
I was more thinking £40 a month on top of what we already pay, but for that, yes, a first class service.
WonderingSoton
New member
- Dec 3, 2014
- 287
The larger, older, and fatter our population becomes the more and more money the NHS is going to cost keeping us all going.
I'm a pretty average Joe Bloggs on a pretty average wage with average outgoings. I could certainly afford a tenner a month more to help the NHS. Some could afford to pay more than that, others couldn't afford any extra at all. I'd be happy to do so if it might help the NHS today.
What about 10 years time though? When the population is even larger, fatter, older, and medical technology progressively more complex and expensive. It's a real headache. Will the funding model of the 1970s still work in the 2020s?
Not that the funding model is identical I suppose. As even Labour saw the need to bring in private money 20 years ago because the public purse strings couldn't cover it. The public purse has only shrunk since. As such more private sector involvement seems inevitable.
I certainly don't profess to have many answers, but it's good to talk about the problem. Bumbling along reporting crisis after crisis to the press for as long as I can remember suggests the current situation doesn't work.
I'm a pretty average Joe Bloggs on a pretty average wage with average outgoings. I could certainly afford a tenner a month more to help the NHS. Some could afford to pay more than that, others couldn't afford any extra at all. I'd be happy to do so if it might help the NHS today.
What about 10 years time though? When the population is even larger, fatter, older, and medical technology progressively more complex and expensive. It's a real headache. Will the funding model of the 1970s still work in the 2020s?
Not that the funding model is identical I suppose. As even Labour saw the need to bring in private money 20 years ago because the public purse strings couldn't cover it. The public purse has only shrunk since. As such more private sector involvement seems inevitable.
I certainly don't profess to have many answers, but it's good to talk about the problem. Bumbling along reporting crisis after crisis to the press for as long as I can remember suggests the current situation doesn't work.
- Aug 8, 2005
- 26,567
Even if this was the case, £350m is a drop in the ocean when you look at the demographics of the country.
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
not as though I would not disagree with this
but who is going to collect this money..............
another pile of cash for someone to skim their share of
finding someone to make sure its a first class service will cost a fortune
my suggestion for what it is worth............prune the managers and get in the old style matrons
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,314
probably in the same place it is, as apparently government and DoT is driving the reform to DOO most problems on the network come from lack of funding in the publicly owned rail infrastructure.
back to the subject, how about we stop having an instant aversion to non-publicly owned healthcare services, bearing in mind those health services in Europe people like to compare to are part private? or providers like Nuffield, BUPA like are not-for-profit? it also worth noting market could be internal within the public sector, though they tried that with NHS, perhaps it doesn't suit the institutions culture. the really important thing to consider is that market does not mean nasty profittering. in its essence its about the efficient allocation of economic resources to where most required. if a hospital bed costs £400p/d can an organisation provide an alternative service for less, freeing up the bed to the Hospital and costing less? the bottom line is we need to start seriously considering this sort of scenario to find real solutions, otherwise in a decade we'll be with the same old problems.
You think an extra £350m A WEEK, would be a drop in the ocean?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,314
1% NI currently raises about £10bn, but you look at some estimates and there needs to be 2-4 times that. dont know what they means to your income, maybe be more or less than £40. £40 would be an awful lot for many. 1% on NI would be fair too all, probably about time upper earnings had higher rate too (or dare i say, scrap it and simply have a flat tax). put it to the wider population though and its apparently a vote loser. maybe we could have a referendum on it, but look how they work out.
Successive governments have run our NHS into the ground. Simply put, they don't want poor people to have access to medical care.
GOM
living vicariously
and will you also contribute extra to make up for those that cannot afford the £40 per month (160 / month for a family with 2 kids). Then next year £45 per month plus the extra....and so on
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,588
This where the sweet deals given to large corporations who have avoided paying UK corporation tax have killed the Exchequer.
We were already a low tax economy, the big companies took the piss and the gullible HMRC managers allowed them to get away with it.
I think HMRC should be looking at ways of simplifying tax - you could afford to pay a bit more if you spent less time and money on the process of keeping records and filing Returns. The vast majority of accountants would rather be doing less tax compliance work and more business development and advisory work.
We were already a low tax economy, the big companies took the piss and the gullible HMRC managers allowed them to get away with it.
I think HMRC should be looking at ways of simplifying tax - you could afford to pay a bit more if you spent less time and money on the process of keeping records and filing Returns. The vast majority of accountants would rather be doing less tax compliance work and more business development and advisory work.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
Who says kids would be 40 per month, they would be free up to the age 18. Whether we like it or not if you want a better NHS then we all need to pay more. By the way I'm not loaded either, but I would find the money. I also have a two year old.
At the moment the NHS is just being used a political football, nothing is being solved, and quite frankly people are fed up with hearing political parties moan about it. Makes me sick the way the labour party gets off because the NHS is supposedly failing. They have all fckd it up over the years and nobody wants to take responsibility. They all need to stay away from it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Washie
Well-known member
With my seriously low wage, and after all my bills, I'm usually left with about £50 after everything. I would be perfectly happy to spend 40 of that to ensure i could be healthy when anything bad happens.
Whilst I agree that for some people £40 would be difficult, I think it is a figure which begins to demonstrate just how expensive healthcare is, and how difficult it will be to get back to a quality free at the point of delivery NHS. Of course the highest earners should pay way, way more than an extra £40 per month, but those on average incomes should not believe that if we were to all pay an extra £5 per month that the health service will be cured. There was one comment earlier asking simply 'why can't the government just put more money in?', the naivety is staggering at times.
Which chip on your shoulder came up with that idea then?
ferring seagull
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2010
- 4,607
Have given you a thumbs up on that but the problem is the many who don't recognise it as anything other than a divine right to receive a 100% effective NHS without paying even a little bit more. Then, of course, there as those who can't.
This is something which needs to be addressed as a cross party issue in a major debate - because it can no longer be ignored.
There are many, no doubt as I, who would be prepared to pay more for a better service but who could not possibly run to private health care, but again many who would be unwilling. The fact is that, as with other headline projects, they cannot be funded out of thin air and would have to be resourced one way or another without turning the UK into some sort of latterday banana republic (or monarchy)
A two tier system would of course be politically unacceptable !
drew
Drew
So a hospital or trust doesn't need senior management. There is an argument about how much they are paid but the job still needs to be done. BSUH has about 8,000 members of staff which probably makes it a bigger employer than most in Sussex. The danger is that you get rid of managers and the tasks are then outsourced and cost even more.
Let's be honest, the changes are just a step along the way to the dismantling of the NHS which is probably want the Tories want all along but they have to do it carefully as it is a sacred cow, and rightly so.
RexCathedra
Aurea Mediocritas
Welcome from the US to our wonderful world of co-pays, deductables, and co-insurance.
I'm sure our method of financing health care will be every bit as popular as our way of financing post-secondary education, which we seem to have exported.
I'm sure our method of financing health care will be every bit as popular as our way of financing post-secondary education, which we seem to have exported.
GT49er
Well-known member
Oh for heaven's sake read properly! Of course it needs senior (and junior) managers. Just ten percent less (for starters). There are vast swathes of bureaucracy that could be managed without.