The NHS does work. Its better (when viewed collectively) than any other nations system.
It could work much better though.
Income tax must rise 3p to stop NHS 'staggering from year to year'
- Thread starter danielanthony
- Start date
The NHS does work. Its better (when viewed collectively) than any other nations system.
It could work much better though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,345
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
NHS loses much money from its inefficiency. Cut the waste and they'd have enough, that itself is work and nobody is willing to do
I'll just leave this here for you so you might learn something, as a group they pay for everything they use and more.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study
While I completely support that people that just move to another country within EU (not just UK) should be restricted to claim benefits for a period of time, healthcare isn't one of them. Ideally healthcare should be free whenever and wherever you need it in EU overall.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 12,957
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.
Exactly. Money thrown at a problem with no solution. All it ended up with was a lot of very wealthy contractors.
As I said, there's an 80:20 rule.
The very largest NHS IT projects do seem to fail more often than not but I would argue it's due to the outsourcing of the work. Continual outsourcing has meant that there's no-one left in the NHS who can properly define and manage large IT projects. Poorly scoped projects are then outsourced to large companies who maximise their profits by populating teams with enthusiastic but inexperienced graduates and offshore workers.
If the NHS was better funded, it could bring these projects in house.
It's similar to the problem that the NHS has with agency staff. If the NHS had the funds to hire enough permanent staff, it could actually save money in the long-term.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2015
- Posts
- 234
My wife too works for the NHS and has done for best part of a decade. Top level bureaucracy, too many layers of management and middle management costing the department and hospital a fortune on salaries.
People who use to work for the private sector and have no experience dealing with the health care and well-being of patience. Justifying there own positions with half thought through schemes, stigmatising the workforce and crushing moral in the process.
There need to be a cull of these "Management" figures, a serious talk to the pharmaceutical industry for the best drugs at the right prices and something needs to be done regarding the obscene costs of the PFI scandal.
However the Conservative and subsequent Labour party all rolled over for the private companies who wanted to have a slice of the cake from the NHS, you will find most of these deals done by the politicians who now stand on the board of the private companies who supply services to the NHS.
People who use to work for the private sector and have no experience dealing with the health care and well-being of patience. Justifying there own positions with half thought through schemes, stigmatising the workforce and crushing moral in the process.
There need to be a cull of these "Management" figures, a serious talk to the pharmaceutical industry for the best drugs at the right prices and something needs to be done regarding the obscene costs of the PFI scandal.
However the Conservative and subsequent Labour party all rolled over for the private companies who wanted to have a slice of the cake from the NHS, you will find most of these deals done by the politicians who now stand on the board of the private companies who supply services to the NHS.
Is that so?
It requires long-term thinking and investment rather than one big bang. A successful NHS IT project needs leaders who understand both the NHS and IT. That's difficult to hire in.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
NEWS FLASH : All organisations stagger from year-to-year. If you're not pushing what possible with a given resource, you're doing it wrong.
What the NHS seemingly want, is enough money to do everything they wish, without any pressure in the system. Well, that's never going to happen.
What the NHS seemingly want, is enough money to do everything they wish, without any pressure in the system. Well, that's never going to happen.
The profitable work subsidises the parts that run at a loss, and as we all know, NHS Trusts are recording record deficits. If all the elective work went to the private companies to pocket that profit, what remains will be completely unworkable to the lower budgets. Either the tariffs would need to be realistic or we will end up full private like the US. Either way it will cost us more.
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
Can we have a poll to see who would pay an additional 3% tax to fund the NHS?
Perhaps have some sort of banding to show who it'll cost <£1000 per year vs those it'll cost >£1000 per year.
Perhaps have some sort of banding to show who it'll cost <£1000 per year vs those it'll cost >£1000 per year.
Isn't that the plan? Public pays it not Government.
I would happily pay to see my GP as others have said. a charge of around £20, it would prevent most of the missed appointments and make people think twice as to whether they actually need to go to the doctors or just have a cold and can buy over the counter medicine.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 11 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 10,909
- Location
- Darkest Norfolk
why the hell call it "3p" or even "3 pence in the pound" when its 3%?
I wouldn't mind paying £0.03 a month, or even week but 3% increase in income tax is a pretty big chunk.
I wouldn't mind paying £0.03 a month, or even week but 3% increase in income tax is a pretty big chunk.
Like the dentists.