How much would you pay for the NHS

Frank the tank

I would happily pay 5% more NI to fund the NHS.

I Would, any of this lot seeking election have the balls to propose such a thing? I think not. I've been fortunate in never having had to pay for GP visits or take out private medical insurance, long may that continue and if paying 5% more NI was the cost I'd pay it.

Over the last five years we've been told the austerity has been required and there has to be more post 7/5/15 yet they're all promising to spend billions on this that and the other without apparently costing any of us any more........................load of bo11ocks.

FFS be honest (errrr, no chance).

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

I would happily pay 5% more NI to fund the NHS.

I Would, any of this lot seeking election have the balls to propose such a thing? I think not. I've been fortunate in never having had to pay for GP visits or take out private medical insurance, long may that continue and if paying 5% more NI was the cost I'd pay it.

Over the last five years we've been told the austerity has been required and there has to be more post 7/5/15 yet they're all promising to spend billions on this that and the other without apparently costing any of us any more........................load of bo11ocks.

FFS be honest (errrr, no chance).

I too would be happy for you to pay an extra 5% whilst I paid nothing, as you earn more than me and as such are a fat cat.
See Frank, you've converted me to socialism. Well done.

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I would happily pay 5% more NI to fund the NHS.

I Would, any of this lot seeking election have the balls to propose such a thing? I think not. I've been fortunate in never having had to pay for GP visits or take out private medical insurance, long may that continue and if paying 5% more NI was the cost I'd pay it.

Over the last five years we've been told the austerity has been required and there has to be more post 7/5/15 yet they're all promising to spend billions on this that and the other without apparently costing any of us any more........................load of bo11ocks.

FFS be honest (errrr, no chance).

I too would be happy for you to pay an extra 5% whilst I paid nothing, as you earn more than me and as such are a fat cat.
See Frank, you've converted me to socialism. Well done.

Very witty my friend, if only I had converted you.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I would happily pay 5% more NI to fund the NHS.

I Would, any of this lot seeking election have the balls to propose such a thing? I think not. I've been fortunate in never having had to pay for GP visits or take out private medical insurance, long may that continue and if paying 5% more NI was the cost I'd pay it.

Over the last five years we've been told the austerity has been required and there has to be more post 7/5/15 yet they're all promising to spend billions on this that and the other without apparently costing any of us any more........................load of bo11ocks.

FFS be honest (errrr, no chance).

I too would be happy for you to pay an extra 5% whilst I paid nothing, as you earn more than me and as such are a fat cat.
See Frank, you've converted me to socialism. Well done.

Very witty my friend, if only I had converted you.

You'd have more chance converting Cyclesport1 and Mr Goo to Islam, Frank.

VTech

The NHS is funded well, there is however stacks of waste.

My sister who is now a radiographer used to be in a team that checked payments for private work paid for by the NHS, her team alone rarely found less than £100,000/week in wrong payment requests and that was from her hospital only.
There is, according to her, huge wastage of money and from talking to several people in the past who she worked with, they were of the opinion that millions is wasted weekly.

I honestly don't think more money would help, we would simply see more waste.
We need contacts like the singapore government make. I have said this before and been slated for it but ill say it again.

MAKE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.
Contracts should be kept too, if companies fail in delivery for the NHS, they should pay. In this day and age, there is no excuse for wastage, we have more than enough capability of tracking every penny and every section of the NHS.

secretsam

Shock, horror! "Large multi-billion pound organisation with hugely complex workload demonstrates some inefficiency".

Could the NHS be better run? Possibly. Is it as good as it should be? Not always, but the general standard is high. Is it inefficient? Certainly no more than any private company, in my experience. We're just talking different types of waste.

Biggest area of waste in the last parliament (ie the Tory/Lib Dem government): the unnecessary and massively complex reorganisation under the Health and Social Care bill, which cost £3Bn and probably set the NHS as a whole back 2-3 years in terms of progress and improved service delivery.

Would I pay 5% more NI (etc)? For a better-funded and more complete health system - including social care, primary care, mental health, public health, health promotion, illness prevention, long-term condition management - yes. But it needs to be thought through and well-targeted funding. Throwing money at the NHS will just see it used up fighting fires.

sungod

pfi has landed the nhs with debt and service fees far above what it'd be facing on direct public build/operation of hospitals etc.

agency fees squander a huge amount more

the old boy/girl network of senior management caps it off

all result from political interference - labour and tory

fix those and i'd happily pay more

but no government has the guts to admit the mess they've caused let alone start fixing it, the pfi leeches will continue gorging, the revolving door will carry on spinning, the nhs will sink deeper into debt

VTech

sungod wrote:

pfi has landed the nhs with debt and service fees far above what it'd be facing on direct public build/operation of hospitals etc.

agency fees squander a huge amount more

the old boy/girl network of senior management caps it off

all result from political interference - labour and tory

fix those and i'd happily pay more

but no government has the guts to admit the mess they've caused let alone start fixing it, the pfi leeches will continue gorging, the revolving door will carry on spinning, the nhs will sink deeper into debt

Exactly.
And can you imagine the size of the pile of s7it the americans are walking into with obama care :shock:

My honest opinion to anyone who can afford it is to get private healthcare. If your company doesn't provide it, see if they will get a company package that you can pay into yourself (often much cheaper).
I wouldn't be without it.

finchy

If well used, an increase in NHS spending would pay for itself. For example, when I was going in for check ups on my broken leg a few years ago, I had to turn work down because I didn't know how long I was going to be sitting in the waiting room. It could be 2-3 hours, which would have affected my ability to meet deadlines. Overall, those 10 appointments probably cost me about £900, so the government also lost on revenue (as I compete for trade in an international market). There were many other people of working age also in the waiting room, sitting around for ages. Same with A&E which was next door to fracture clinic - people just sitting in the waiting room for hours.

A couple more doctors and nurses in there could have cut down on waiting times, workers could have gone back to generating wealth and paying taxes and everyone would have been better off.

Similarly, when I was in there after the break, I had to stay in an extra night because they didn't have a doctor available to give me the green light to go home. That meant the NHS had to pay for 3 more meals (I didn't get out until the following afternoon) and nurses to look after me.

So a more efficient NHS could be a net gain. Just like a better education system, transport system, etc.

verylonglegs

johnfinch wrote:

If well used, an increase in NHS spending would pay for itself. For example, when I was going in for check ups on my broken leg a few years ago, I had to turn work down because I didn't know how long I was going to be sitting in the waiting room. It could be 2-3 hours, which would have affected my ability to meet deadlines. Overall, those 10 appointments probably cost me about £900, so the government also lost on revenue (as I compete for trade in an international market). There were many other people of working age also in the waiting room, sitting around for ages. Same with A&E which was next door to fracture clinic - people just sitting in the waiting room for hours.

A couple more doctors and nurses in there could have cut down on waiting times, workers could have gone back to generating wealth and paying taxes and everyone would have been better off.

Similarly, when I was in there after the break, I had to stay in an extra night because they didn't have a doctor available to give me the green light to go home. That meant the NHS had to pay for 3 more meals (I didn't get out until the following afternoon) and nurses to look after me.

So a more efficient NHS could be a net gain. Just like a better education system, transport system, etc.

You've just outlined why companies provide private healthcare for it's employees. My employer provides it and I'm not under any illusion its because they like me or care about me but because having invested time and money in training me they want me fit enough to work, they don't want people signed off for ages whilst stuck on waiting lists. I've known people with back issues keeping them off work being told they'll have to wait months for a scan where private healthcare will get you seen in a week. The funny thing is private healthcare from the company is classed as a perk so you it changes your tax code, you pay more tax despite the fact you'll be using the NHS less! It doesn't bother me, I'm not complaining, just one of those odd things you have to smile at.

mr_goo

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I would happily pay 5% more NI to fund the NHS.

I Would, any of this lot seeking election have the balls to propose such a thing? I think not. I've been fortunate in never having had to pay for GP visits or take out private medical insurance, long may that continue and if paying 5% more NI was the cost I'd pay it.

Over the last five years we've been told the austerity has been required and there has to be more post 7/5/15 yet they're all promising to spend billions on this that and the other without apparently costing any of us any more........................load of bo11ocks.

FFS be honest (errrr, no chance).

I too would be happy for you to pay an extra 5% whilst I paid nothing, as you earn more than me and as such are a fat cat.
See Frank, you've converted me to socialism. Well done.

Very witty my friend, if only I had converted you.

You'd have more chance converting Cyclesport1 and Mr Goo to Islam, Frank.

Praise be to Allah the all merciful.

I would be happy to pay an extra 5% contribution but only if my current NI burden was reduced by 20%. Thereby giving me a sizeable monthly fund into which I can pay for private medical insurance for my family. What an excellent idea of mine. Surprised nobody else thought of it.

VTech

The ironic thing is, private health care is cheaper than most peoples current national insurance contributions anyway.

sungod

VTech wrote:

The ironic thing is, private health care is cheaper than most peoples current national insurance contributions anyway.

hmm, this is only because uk premiums are based upon the nhs picking up most of the load and risk

try getting private health with 24x7 emergency response, gp service, essentially unlimited lifetime treatment, free for oap, etc. etc.

mamba80

Report on Radio 4 this morning re nhs directors pay, many on total renumeration packages of a £1m per year, many more on 5k per day and many of these are managing failing trusts.
amazing in times of austerity!

Private health is cheap because the private system does not have to provide an emgergency service, an AE dept, do you call bupa when your nearest and dearest has a stroke? or your involved in a car accident?

they also do not have to pay for 10 or 20years of consultant and doctors training, some would say they little more than parisites, living off the tax payers investment over decades into a public service.

Get complications in a private hospital and it ll be the nhs that comes to the rescue, recently happened to a friends parent.

GP visits should be chargeable, already happens with eye and dentistry, so we have already departed from free at the point of treatment! but ultimately, the nhs will need to go to an insurance based system, such as most of europe has, with the state providing the safety net for those who cannot afford it.

ballysmate

VTech wrote:

The ironic thing is, private health care is cheaper than most peoples current national insurance contributions anyway.

This may well be true, but only because as Sungod and Mamba point out, the big risks and costs of developing new treatments are borne by the NHS.
I have no problem with anyone using private health care. It is their money and their choice. It also frees resources for the rest of us poor folk.

davis

I'd pay more for the NHS.

I know there's inefficiency (lots of; I've worked for them), but I'd still pay in - I don't want to judge the NHS on efficiency; patients come first. Sure efficiency would be nice, but the ideals are more important to me.

rick_chasey

VTech wrote:

The ironic thing is, private health care is cheaper than most peoples current national insurance contributions anyway.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

With the NHS, the UK health spending (combined private and public) is almost twice as efficient as the US.

The floor level of healthcare quality in the UK is one of the highest in the world, and pretty exceptional given the diversity in income.

That it because, fundamentally, everyone can receive it free at the point of use.

You don't get illnesses or injuries getting worse because people can't afford healthcare, so there is more preventive medicine etc etc.

bernithebiker

Why pay 5% more to support people that smoke, drink, and eat like crazy?

If those people didn't do the above to excess, we wouldn't need another 5%.

ballysmate

bernithebiker wrote:

Why pay 5% more to support people that smoke, drink, and eat like crazy?

If those people didn't do the above to excess, we wouldn't need another 5%.

You may be onto something.
Perhaps we could scale back A&E if people didn't ride bikes, drive cars, play competitive sports, have dangerous occupations...
Only joking, I get your point. But we are at where we are at. Any healthier lifestyle changes would take years to show benefits in the healthcare system. It is a gradual thing.
Life expectancy is rising, new treatment are being developed, so the present model is perhaps unsustainable. The healthcare system needs to be taken out of the political arena and we must stop using it as a political football. A consensus is needed on the best way forward. The situation where the state picks up the whole tab may need to be rethought. It is no longer 1948 and things need to change.

bernithebiker

Ballysmate wrote:

bernithebiker wrote:

Why pay 5% more to support people that smoke, drink, and eat like crazy?

If those people didn't do the above to excess, we wouldn't need another 5%.

You may be onto something.
Perhaps we could scale back A&E if people didn't ride bikes, drive cars, play competitive sports, have dangerous occupations...
Only joking, I get your point. But we are at where we are at. Any healthier lifestyle changes would take years to show benefits in the healthcare system. It is a gradual thing.
Life expectancy is rising, new treatment are being developed, so the present model is perhaps unsustainable. The healthcare system needs to be taken out of the political arena and we must stop using it as a political football. A consensus is needed on the best way forward. The situation where the state picks up the whole tab may need to be rethought. It is no longer 1948 and things need to change.

Totally agree; I love the idea of the NHS, and it's something to be proud of, but it can't go on like this; costs increase dramatically year on year as we live longer and something has to give.

Maybe charge for basic health, such as GP visits for coughs and colds and grazes, but keep the NHS for anything more serious and emergencies?

MountainMonster

I would not be open to paying more for the NHS, as my tax burdens are already enough to cause my wife and I financial problems. With such a high tax rate here in the UK, we end up paying nearly 30% of our income out. The fallacy of having a good job has finally hit us.

When i'm paying such an extortionate tax rate already, I have no interest in giving them more for a service my wife and I don't use except once every 2 years anyways.

RideOnTime

So we're all in this together and end to free prescriptions...