2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge

Tell that to all the companies trying to get oil & gas out of the North Atlantic.

Apart from natural difficulties this country is choosing to shut down a profitable industry. An industry it needs for energy.

I've had surgery to fix a broken finger and smashed teeth fixed on the NHS with no particular complaints on either. I've also worked in a hospital. Experience of GPs - the semi-privatised part of the NHS - has been more patchy. I've no experience of other health services to compare, but it seems pretty clear that other countries spend more and see some benefit for that.

France, Belgium and Germany tax their citizens and businesses significantly more than the UK on top of asking for additional insurance. I'm not sure I see any proof that UK governments can't put taxes up - we've just collectively elected a government that will almost certainly raise the tax burden and the previous government did the same.

And an insurance model inherently has to provide some enhanced service to those willing/able to pay more, which somewhat flies in the face of the principle of universal healthcare.

I would be extremely sceptical that insurance providers don't lobby to have that bar adjusted and you can certainly vote out the people who set the bar.

20% of my tax currently goes to the NHS, and I also already have private health insurance, I don't want to think about what number that actually is as a household that goes towards healthcare currently.

I don't see tax coming down considerably as a result of a restructuring of the health care system, and the evidence from the care system is that the government is not willing to pay market rates, so it's just going to be massively more expensive overall isn't it?

Or is the message that it's going to be massively more expensive whatever happens, so get this done and people might notice it less?

I suspect if you drilled down to most complaints about the NHS, they would largely come down to GP's and A&E treatment, or more specifically waiting times. I would guess that, whilst not perfect, most people's experience of actual treatment for illness or injury is largely positive (having had numerous treatments and surgeries over my life so far, mine has certainly been overwhelmingly so).

I agree with a lot of what has been said above about funding models and the need for greater efficiency in how the money is spent, but my guess is the most pressing issue is capacity and recruitment. As in any industry, it is difficult if you cannot staff such a huge organisational structure sufficiently.

Don't know about Denmark but Norway's politicians took the decision that to invest their oil windfall so that it would continue to benefit future generations and is currently worth something like $1.5 trillion.

If I was a school leaver now I'd love to have a chance to go to university in Norway and then build a life over there although they now charge tuition fees for those outside the EU/EEA and Switzerland and it is expensive (it is free for those inside and was for others until last year I believe). The lifestyle over there very much suits me.

I think people are unrealistic about the levels of efficiency that can be achieved in a large organisation. It's also worth noting that having greater capacity - more beds, more equipment, more staff - is better for health outcomes but inherently less efficient.

There are some relatively easy wins with the NHS - a moderate increase in people, And a way out of hospital into care. (The care system bar is so low at the moment I class doing more than feck all as an easy win.) This would reduce delays and additional costs caused to the NHS and the wider economy by those delays. Progress achievable, just about, in a parliamentary term.

There are then some much harder wins, such as per head staff costs, staff retention. Possibly making T&C's more in line with private sector. Staff pension costs. New hospital buildings. All the bucket with a hole in it stuff that RC is seeking a silver bullet to address.

So you're proposing a system that will cost more and be less efficient, based on the assumption that people will be happier to pay more in private health insurance than our current national insurance and income tax fudge.

One that would also require effective regulation, ala the water companies? Or the energy companies many of whom went bust?

It just feels like an expensive tweak that wouldn't actually improve things significantly.

Is this not just limiting your view to the last 14 years? Scroll back to the early 2000s and waiting times were much lower, to take one metric. I also think it's massively patronising to think that such an important decision should be taken out of the hands of the public.

Everyone is saying funding isn't high enough. And it is stupid to say based on what I ordered anyone has posted that I "tolerate worse health outcomes". I make no apology for calling that out.

But his fundamental point is, as usual, it's better elsewhere. Well, yes, funding is higher but the systems themselves appear to have pros and cons, and overall ours is pretty good. At the very least one can say that if you like the particular balance of pros and cons that the NHS model has, the system itself doesn't need replacing in entirety. In fact, I think based on a decade of scandalous government neglect, it would be reckless to do so before trying to fix that damage.

Glad the tour is back today

I don't really understand why you would want to change to a system that you admit is less efficient.

Changing to enforced private insurance will be incredibly unpopular for both people who don't want to pay more and people who worry about creeping privatisation of the nhs. I don't think it is the easy solution to getting more money into the system.

Post Cameron/Osborne UK

Private insurance for dentistry is already expensive but pretty much the only option. The only cost effective option for anything non-NHS and not insurance covered seems to be to go to Turkey.