Income tax must rise 3p to stop NHS 'staggering from year to year'

Freakbro · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:19

A lot of money drained out from the NHS is by these damn agencies charging eye watering amounts for staff.

Also, what really annoyed me was listening to the Nurses etc moaning about the lack of money in their departments and under staffing, then themselves finishing their contracts, signing up to the agencies then immediately working in the same dept for 3x the pay as an agency worker

They weren't moaning then, in fact I would more use the term gloating, and they couldn't see how damn hypocritical it was when I was pointing that out to them.

The Geezer · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:20

chris_h said:
What? I said migrants.

Also, I believe if you are British and leave the country for than 6 months you loose your entitlement to free NHS care. Correct me if I am wrong.

You did walk into it - a net contributor is a net contributor. You ring fenced a few immigrants and then forgot to apply your logic to all potential users of the NHS.

Dis86 · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:20

Tunney said:
I'd be happy to pay an extra 3p income tax if I meant a sustainable healthcare system that's free at the point of delivery for all and free from privatisation. I'm a great believer in investment in = results out.

I'm a great believer that people are naive. Especially those that think throwing money at something solves problems.

I'll give some examples here...a good friend of mine works in IT support for the nhs and most of these come from him.

Doctor calls up because his mouse has stopped working. The surgery he works at has no spares of basic IT equipment such as mice, keyboards or kettle leads. My friend then has to drive 60 miles from his hq to the surgery, on expenses as he's using his own car, to take a mouse. He then has to plug the mouse in because the gp doesn't know how and 'because it's not part of my job anyway'.

Manager within a certain north east hospital decides all staff should be issued with iphones. Policy is implemented whereby if staff lose phone they get one replacement before being moved down to a Nokia. Staff who move down to Nokia complain it can't receive emails - staff get iphone.

Staff who have back problems are issued with an ipad rather than desktop pc. Entire departments now seem to have staff with back problems!

Surgery complains printer will not switch on. Friend drives 50 miles (expensed) with replacement printer. Turns up at surgery to find original has been unplugged. Plugs it in, turns on fine.

These are just basic examples of the kinds of stupidity and inefficiencies prolific in the nhs.

Richdog · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:21

The Swiss model of mandatory health insurance works very well, but then again it doesn't have the society and culture of leeching that the UK has, through its own fault, gradually built up over the decades. Everyone pays their way.

Trifid · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:21

George Hincapie said:
I expect it's more popular than you think; particularly among middle and upper earners.

I'm not exactly scraping the barrel (nor left wing) and would rather not have people dying on our streets even if it costs me more.

I would happily pay £20 to see my GP if I get the same level of service as my dentist (plus weekend/evening appointments being available). But once in the NHS system, I don't want to see top up services. I want everyone to be providing the best service possible to everyone.

Skeeter said:
I'd actually gladly pay an extra 3% to the NHS if I knew they would use it to buy more non emergency/elective services from private companies..

Why not let the NHS do these? The elective work is what is profitable to NHS trusts.

Freakbro · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:22

George Hincapie said:
Then just die. You're clearly a drain on the rest of society and we are better off without that sort.

What, the poor? What an utterly ridiculous thing to say

drakioned · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:22

Skeeter said:
What would you consider as good use?

I'd actually gladly pay an extra 3% to the NHS if I knew they would use it to buy more non emergency/elective services from private companies. But thats because I'm not a retard and understand how that would help the NHS, rather than go "OMG Privatization!!" at the sheer mention of someone outside the NHS doing anything NHS funded.

Recruiting/retaining more doctors, nurses, dentists, other medical staff.

Cutting back-to-back shifts. I don't want to be treated by a doctor on his/her 16th hour of their working day.

More preventative care in the community to ease the strain in A&E.

chris_h · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:23

The Geezer said:
You did walk into it - a net contributor is a net contributor. You ring fenced a few immigrants and then forgot to apply your logic to all potential users of the NHS.

My point here was you can pay for years into a system, leave the country for 6 months and then be entitled to nothing.

But a migrant can walk in and claim from day one.

datalol-jack · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:25

Haggisman said:
Whilst I agree in principle, what's the alternative - letting people die in the street if they can't afford it? Is that really the kind of country we want to live in?

The Yank system will save you... it'll just kill you with the bill when you come to!

The Geezer · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:26

I am happy to pay another 3% NI for a fully supported NHS - free at the point of use.

I'm sure there are efficiency gains to be had which I would love to see implemented but as long it does not dilute the 'free at point of use' model.

EddScott · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:27

Stelly said:
What worries me more is the amount of money that goes into the 'NHS Black Hole' as in no one knows where it has gone... now in any other company/organisation that would not be tolerated!

Stelly

I've seen some fairly idiotic spending by the NHS. Whilst struggling to make ends meet I noticed that some bright spark, for every ward, has purchased Dyson fans - the fancy ones with no fan. What for? A £200 Dyson compared to a £15 traditional jobbie.

Right there is where the money is going - the wrong place.

National Insurance was supposed to pay for NHS and benefits etc. Majority of people don't really understand NI so it's ignored. No government is going to raise income tax as that will be a sure fire way of losing an election. However, getting rid of NI and having one tax for everything would make it much simpler and little more transparent. Plus, the public saving by removing the need for the the whole NICO department.

Rroff · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:29

Its a shame that as one of the most advanced nations on this planet we still can't make something like the NHS work.

datalol-jack · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:30

I'm for a hybrid system personally. But the government, and thus ourselves via tax, must be able and willing to put in our fair share if required.

Tunney · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:32

danielanthony said:
My point is that not everyone can afford to loose thousands of pounds per year due to a large rise in income tax, its great that you have a large amount of disposable income but not everyone else has. Different cirumstances and all that.

If this did happen - and it won't - it would be brought in gradually to give people time to adjust. You spoke in your original post about the next step up being in the 60% marginal tax band. That's between £100-120k a year. Even in the south east, you're living dangerously if you earn that much and 3% additional tax tips you over the edge.

Dis86 said:
I'm a great believer that people are naive. Especially those that think throwing money at something solves problems.

Throwing money at problems does solve problems. Money is exactly what problems need most of the time.

There's an 80:20 rule here. 80% of the time, money in = results out. The remaining 20% is split evenly between unexpectedly good results and unexpectedly bad results.

Just look at the Premier League. 80% of the time, the clubs who spend the most on wages get the best results.

drakioned · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:34

chris_h said:
My point here was you can pay for years into a system, leave the country for 6 months and then be entitled to nothing.

But a migrant can walk in and claim from day one.

Would you be for:

1. The same logic being applied to Brits that move abroad, they get nothing until they paid into whatever system they joined

and

2. Migrants getting a refund if they leave and haven't used the NHS?

Haggisman · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:35

datalol-jack said:
The Yank system will save you... it'll just kill you with the bill when you come to!

But then you end up with the same problem - lack of funding.

If someone can't afford to pay, they won't pay.

Then what do you do the next time that person is sick but they haven't paid their last bill? Treat them again for free?

Rroff said:
Its a shame that as one of the most advanced nations on this planet we still can't make something like the NHS work.

I disagree, I think the fact that we even have a system like the NHS (even with it's flaws) is a testament to how advanced we are as a nation.

Dis86 · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:36

Tunney said:
If this did happen - and it won't - it would be brought in gradually to give people time to adjust. You spoke in your original post about the next step up being in the 60% marginal tax band. That's between £100-120k a year. Even in the south east, you're living dangerously if you earn that much and 3% additional tax tips you over the edge.

Throwing money at problems does solve problems. Money is exactly what problems need most of the time.

There's an 80:20 rule here. 80% of the time, money in = results out. The remaining 20% is split evenly between unexpectedly good results and unexpectedly bad results.

Just look at the Premier League. 80% of the time, the clubs who spend the most on wages get the best results.

No. What problems need is smart, efficient solutions.

Leicester would also pee all over your theory

Skeeter · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:40

Trifid said:
Why not let the NHS do these? The elective work is what is profitable to NHS trusts.

Because if its profitable to the NHS, then it will be profitable to other people too.

And if its profitable, lots of people will want to do it. That generates competition and also has the benefit of you (the NHS) not having to fund setting up those services.

It might not sound glamorous, but at the end of the day the NHS should be there to do the **** jobs that no private company wants to do, and that doesn't make any money.

Semple · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:41

They've been throwing money at the NHS for years and it's still not "fixed".

The two big problems i see...
- Too many people are using it
- Costs of medicines/treatments/surgeries/staffing etc is too expensive.

When both of these issues have been addressed we may finally have a sustainable health service.

The bigger question is can either of these problems be fixed.
- A growing population can't really be used as a negative, whilst it does put more burden on the NHS, in theory the larger the population results in more tax = funds for the NHS
- You can't restrict peoples use of the NHS, some people are just more healthy than others, that's a way of life.
- Medicines are generally expensive to pay for the R&D that went into them, and to fund the R&D for the next thing.

Tunney · 18 Feb 2016 at 12:41

Dis86 said:
No. What problems need is smart, efficient solutions.

Why not both? Using one of your examples: if your GP surgery had more money, it might have kept a store of spare peripherals.

Competent management is needed no matter how much money is put into the system.

Leicester would also pee all over your theory

As I said, it's a 80:20 rule. Leicester are in that 10% that overachieve.