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

Skeeter said:
So nobody would be able to use the NHS free at the point of delivery until they are about 19, at the earliest?
Click to expand...

Ideas like that mean I graduate next year as planned (@22), I will be 25, closer to 26 providing I get a job lined up, with no breaks, gap years, etc. and finally be free to use the NHS as I do now.
 
Richdog said:
By easing the remaining days of people suffering with a non-curable terminal disease, as opposed to spending a grossly disproportionate amount of money on treatment extending their lives by a mere matter of weeks or months. I of course understand why people want their loved ones to live a few month longer, I would do, but should it be allowed when the money needed to do so could pay for the medical care of tens, possibly even hundreds of other people?
Click to expand...

It's easy for me to say this now as a healthy 26 year old. But I view it as 'Would I pay for that out of my own pocket?'

If I had an illness which was terminal, and my quality of life wasn't great, but there was a drug costing £10k a month which could keep me alive for another 6 months. Would I pay £60k to do so? Nope.

I'm sure £60k could be better spent elsewhere in the NHS.
 
Cancel ALL private healthcare operators in the UK. This will put overpaid consultants back in the system and nurses.

Make all non uk passport holders take out medical insurance

Stop all translation services these should not be free same as all literature.

3 for starters it is also very very interesting on how many tory MPs are on boards of private medical companies.....
 
balky12 said:
It's easy for me to say this now as a healthy 26 year old. But I view it as 'Would I pay for that out of my own pocket?'

If I had an illness which was terminal, and my quality of life wasn't great, but there was a drug costing £10k a month which could keep me alive for another 6 months. Would I pay £60k to do so? Nope.

I'm sure £60k could be better spent elsewhere in the NHS.
Click to expand...

Well, objectively speaking, the vast majority of people can not afford 10k a month from their own pocket without seeking additional financial support (family, fundraising, charity) anyhow, thus removing the choice to a large extent.
 
leaskovski said:
Ouch! Oh god no then! I wouldnt be happy to pay that extra.
Click to expand...

Well it could add up to £0 or £1000's to you depending on how much you earn.

With all the other cuts in disposible income for higher earners (pension, NI, dividends tax changes), is the incentive to earn more being eroded?

The top 20% are an easy target, doctors are already leaving the country due to the current tax regeme (see OP).
 
Last edited:
wnb said:
No, I would not be willing to pay an increase in taxes to spent on the NHS. One is assuming that more money=more benefit, apparently 2003\2004 spending was 64 billion for 2014/2015 spending was 116 billion. Have outcomes nearly doubled to match the extra spending?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you are not aware of the many factors why the costs have gone up:

We have a aged population
People are living longer due to advances in medicine
Cost of pharmaceuticals
etc
 
Doctors moving abroad after a quick Google:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...nments-proposed-junior-contract-a2953646.html

The DoH said the contract changes will provide a higher rate of basic pay with a significant salary increase but medics say their take home pay will be less because of an increase in tax, national insurance and pension contributions.

Not saying that the pension limit is the only reason, its one of a number of factors/kicks in the teeth.
 
drakioned said:
Yeah, I know, but that's the point, isn't it?

OP said that well-paid professionals would vote with their feet and leave.

Should set the bar at "well-paid professionals", something 95% bracket (£68k+ according to HMRC)
Click to expand...

Well there's no point having a poll if only 5 here can vote for it without looking greedy! What's the wage where you are a net contributor? It's something like £35k isn't it? It would make sense to set it there 'I am a net contributor and don't mind paying more for a decent NHS' sounds better. Or you could have several options but it's not as tidy a poll then.


People should remember that having a healthy workforce is good for the country.
 
Richdog said:
Well, objectively speaking, the vast majority of people can not afford 10k a month from their own pocket without seeking additional financial support (family, fundraising, charity) anyhow, thus removing the choice to a large extent.
Click to expand...

True, but hypothetically. If you could afford it would you spend that, just to prolong your bad quality of life just a bit in the grand scheme of things?

I just view it as, IMO, the money could be spent better elsewhere. Would it actually be spent better elsewhere? Well it's the NHS. But that's another debate entirely.

But like I said I don't know the figure so can't comment accurately. But if the NHs is spending tens of millions on drugs for terminal ill people just to extend their life a small amount I would deem that a waste. Cold hearted maybe. But if pain relief is a fraction of the cost.. I'm not saying people should in anyway suffer.
 
We could also start making nhs more efficient.
Seen several studies showing pro active health care, would save billions. Due to catching stuff early
Also think everyone data should be computerised and analysed. Imagine if they slowly started DNA analyses, not only would research speed up massively, would vastly help pro active health care. Not to mention targeted drugs.

Don't like it, get private health care.
 
I say people pay £20 to book an appointment with their GP.

If they are time wasters then no refund. If they genuinely needed to see a GP then £20 gets refunded.

Same goes for ambulance use £100 call out charge. If genuinely needed it gets waived otherwise fined.

Bet that would cut the bill by quite a lot.
 
chris_h said:
before increasing taxes, they should charge the immigrants to use the NHS until they have paid in for several years.

My partner has worked in the NHS for years, and is currently working in a hospital. The shear amount of foreign borns has gone beyond what we can afford.
Click to expand...

No, this is a terrible idea. By the same argument, anyone under the age of, say 20, should also be charged to use NHS services. After all, they haven't been paying taxes for very long either. The whole point of something like the NHS is that it's free for everyone.
 
Some very short sighted comments here,

Firstly charging to see GP's has a negative side effect, for one if it dissuades an individual from seeking medical help early (when most serious conditions are far quicker & cheaper treated) this will have its own financial impact.

Secondly, having a healthy population free free from a myriad of illnesses is beneficial for everybody - it enables us to have a stronger workforce. It also ignores the very real prospect that the people they know & may love in life may end up needing free medical care. If you have children you won't be around forever, neither do you know how their life will end up or if they have a child of their own in need after you're long gone.

Frankly those wishing to have this rug removed from those less able to look after themselves I genuinely hope they suffer a series of unfortunate events (end up with no money & with a highly expensive terminal illness). The country would be better off without you.

As somebody who would get hit significantly harder than the average earner I'd happily pay the additional if it was required - but I would also want to ensure that those who benefit most from our society pay the most, with bottom rate earners being shielded from any tax rises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom