Associate
Efficiencies before funding increases is fine if you are working in a business where lives aren't at stake. I work in such a business and my job is creating efficiencies. I wouldn't be so hasty to apply the same rule to the NHS.
I want the NHS to have as much funding as it needs to operate as intended. The efficiencies can be worked out later, which can then mean lower taxes, taxes being spent elsewhere, or the NHS being able to more with the same funding.
If the NHS needs more funding, I as a tax payer would be happy to pay more tax. However, I would want that tax burden to be on fellow higher earners who can afford a hit to their disposable income vs lower earners where it is more likely to hit living expenses. I'm not talking about a 90% tax on earnings over 45k for example, as that has clearly been shown in the past to not work and create a brain drain. Humans are naturally competative and we live in a capitalist society, therefore very high levels of tax on higher earners doesn't make sense. OcUK translation - I'd happily wait a few more months for a pc upgrade If I thought my tax money was being spent well funding the NHS, but I would still want the ability to upgrade If I were lucky enough to earn a decent wage.
My fundamental belief is that one of the main reasons for having a government is the protection and representation of the masses, and to make the decisions that best suit society as a whole. The idea of a publicly (government) funded health service is completely in line with my beliefs. I believe corporate social responsibility is much more prevalent now, but the reason for that is not just good will from senior management but also due to governmental legislation and the desire to be seen to be doing their bit for society to investors and customers. I think independent charities are great and I donate accordingly, but I do not think they and businesses should be relied upon solely for health care or other socially beneficial efforts.
Doing so would for example mean that you would run the risk of the most popular charities prevailing over those that may still be in need. For example, pet charities having more funding vs a charity for a particular disease (note, I love animals so this is just an example rather than me saying I hate doges).
It also would run the risk of putting social care in the hands of senior management who may not be accountable to anyone, and may not be democratically chosen by those they are helping. Therefore their help may not correlative with what society needs.
I want the NHS to have as much funding as it needs to operate as intended. The efficiencies can be worked out later, which can then mean lower taxes, taxes being spent elsewhere, or the NHS being able to more with the same funding.
If the NHS needs more funding, I as a tax payer would be happy to pay more tax. However, I would want that tax burden to be on fellow higher earners who can afford a hit to their disposable income vs lower earners where it is more likely to hit living expenses. I'm not talking about a 90% tax on earnings over 45k for example, as that has clearly been shown in the past to not work and create a brain drain. Humans are naturally competative and we live in a capitalist society, therefore very high levels of tax on higher earners doesn't make sense. OcUK translation - I'd happily wait a few more months for a pc upgrade If I thought my tax money was being spent well funding the NHS, but I would still want the ability to upgrade If I were lucky enough to earn a decent wage.
My fundamental belief is that one of the main reasons for having a government is the protection and representation of the masses, and to make the decisions that best suit society as a whole. The idea of a publicly (government) funded health service is completely in line with my beliefs. I believe corporate social responsibility is much more prevalent now, but the reason for that is not just good will from senior management but also due to governmental legislation and the desire to be seen to be doing their bit for society to investors and customers. I think independent charities are great and I donate accordingly, but I do not think they and businesses should be relied upon solely for health care or other socially beneficial efforts.
Doing so would for example mean that you would run the risk of the most popular charities prevailing over those that may still be in need. For example, pet charities having more funding vs a charity for a particular disease (note, I love animals so this is just an example rather than me saying I hate doges).
It also would run the risk of putting social care in the hands of senior management who may not be accountable to anyone, and may not be democratically chosen by those they are helping. Therefore their help may not correlative with what society needs.
