Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We're being told that the NHS is short of 30,000 trained medics and that limits on visas is starving the NHS of suitable overseas recruits.  So, providing work visas are time limited, I see no reason for not recruiting the shortfall from abroad, in order to solve the shortage issue and allow these recruits to improve their expertise for service back in their homelands.   Meanwhile,  HMG tell us that 10,000 indigenous medical students are currently in training to fill the void.   But then we discover that an older cohort of Doctors are due for retirement creating more vacancies.  We're also being told, that 40% of newly trained Doctors leave after their training,  which costs the tax-payer £500,000 a pop.  So, why aren't medical students contracted to the NHS on the basis of serving for 25 or 30 years for the privilege of their free education and training,  to be repaid should they leave early ?     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now, a fuss over the proposed increase in funding for the NHS, asking where the money is coming from.   Well surely, where it's always come from - the tax payers.  Whether from NI or from our contribution dividend from the EU (which the tax-payer is still funding).   If we want public services, we have to pay for them.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HS2 would be the best project to fund the NHS from. £50 billion + & rising, the NHS  would be a drop in the ocean.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been said before, the NHS is a black hole. Any additional funding goes in wage rises and increased bureaucracy as well as things that shouldn't be under the NHS budget like campaigns against lifestyle choices e.g. smoking, drinking and eating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something in that Asp, and no doubt there is scope for a better managed system, that confines itself to clinical need, National entitlement and extends to social care.  But, as with any public service it relies on tax-payer funding, which perhaps should now be ring fenced to NI contributions and not used as a political football by the politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it seems the powers that be, within the NHS, have finally started to look at cutting non-essential treatments; which will hopefully include IVF, gender reassignment, botched private cosmetic surgery etc.  Perhaps while they're in the mood, they'll put an end to health tourism, with no payment (in advance) - no treatment. Sure there's more savings to be made, but at least this seems a start.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2018 at 3:43 PM, Davy51 said:

HS2 would be the best project to fund the NHS from. £50 billion + & rising, the NHS  would be a drop in the ocean.

Cutting journey times by 30 mins London/Manchester.

Or

Cutting hospital waiting list would be an infinitely better way to spend this money

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the birthday celebrations of the NHS; it's worth remembering the circumstances in which it was created. The UK was physically devastated and bankrupt in 1945; enforced austerity was the name of the game, with rationing continuing into the peace.  The £billions lent by the USA had to be paid back, and it took 60 years to do it. But despite the dire state of the nation, the NHS was created, as well as the provision of social housing.   So the question is, if we could do it then, in far more dire circumstances, why can't we do it now ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the snippy answer is that we are borrowing billions like last time and it still has to be paid back but now the fraction of GDP going on the NHS is colossally more than it was then and the money we might spent on housing is going on foreign aid and in work benefits. Remember that after the war we were spending on the armed forces pretending we could retain an empire (so it probably isn't down to defence spending growth) as well as throwing money away supporting an unsupportable pound dollar exchange rate after being forced to support convertibility, thereby frittering away Marshal Aid of which we got the largest share. The starting positions are vastly different and your comparison is a false one. The great time you relate to also had continued rationing and not rebuilding industry as I recall.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, who's responsible for ring fencing "foreign aid" and who's responsible for the process of de-industrialisation, that produced mass unemployment, which was converted into permanent benefit reliance.   The only difference is one of "political will";  an extremely rare factor in today's politicians. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent find Asp. So one might express that as doctors appointments numbers cut back by life-style choices of new GPs who are paid so much they don't need the hours.

Shocking because the calculations of doctors needed are based on the mix of patients ages and sex giving a number of appointments divided by the number of appointments per doctor based on heuristics for each group practice but the doctors are undermining that and effectively bribing the government to employ more of them on the inflated pay that caused the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like a contract of employment issue, undermined by "modern" work-life balance considerations.  Again, a issue of political will on behalf of the many v the individual wants of the few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Observer II said:

......  Again, a issue of political will on behalf of the many v the individual wants of the few.

So the Government via NHS England should be harder on the GPs and their Union the BMA is what you suggest. Well Gordon Brown put their pay up to the point where they could afford to work part time and when Jeremy Hunt tried to tighten up the contract all hell was let loose. The situation was made worse by George Osbourne pandering to the fat cat pension complaints and seizing the opportunity of capping the Pension Lifetime allowance, after that all of those GPs over the new limit of 1.00 million ( a pension of 50k pa ) started to retire rather than pay extra tax on their pension savings if they carried on working.

All this listening to soundbites does the public no good at all does it? Your comment about political will makes no sense when viewed in the light of what has actually happened because it has been political will that got us here. It was high taxation on the rich and idolising the NHS that caused our current problem and all that is on offer is more of the same!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Burnham negotiated the GPs contract it was political surrender or expediency, rather than will, giving them more money for less hours. As for "higher taxation of the rich" it's never been tried for the last 60 odd years, hence the continuous rise in the wealth gap, such is the lack of political will.     If you don't know to which port your sailing, no wind is favourable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know the last time it was tried that it was a disaster though don't know. On the principle of if you don't learn from history it will repeat itself why would you propose doing it again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The last time" what "was tried"?   A tax system on a par with the Scandanavian model has never been tried. But as far as the NHS is concerned, it merely requires a ring fenced tax (NI) based on ability to pay, which I believe would be well supported by a majority of the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax rates under Wilson and Callaghan were over 90% for the so called "rich" and that was less than 60 years ago Obs, and if you've never heard of the Laffer curve well now is the time to look it up before you spout any more nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you'll find it was 84% prior to Thatcher, who reduced it to 60% and we now down to 50%; assuming of course HMRC are capable of farming it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wiki:

The highest rate of income tax peaked in the Second World War at 99.25%. It was then slightly reduced and was around 90% through the 1950s and 60s.

In 1971 the top rate of income tax on earned income was cut to 75%. A surcharge of 15% kept the top rate on investment income at 90%.[18] In 1974 the cut was partly reversed and the top rate on earned income was raised to 83%. With the investment income surcharge this raised the top rate on investment income to 98%, the highest permanent rate since the war. This applied to incomes over £20,000 (£191,279 as of 2016),[7].

The Government of Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[19] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[20] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets – to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[21] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget. The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

 

Had a look at the Laffer Curve yet Obs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, asperity said:

From Wiki:

 

The Government of Margaret Thatcher, who favoured indirect taxation, reduced personal income tax rates during the 1980s.[19] In the first budget after her election victory in 1979, the top rate was reduced from 83% to 60% and the basic rate from 33% to 30%.[20] The basic rate was also cut for three successive budgets – to 29% in the 1986 budget, 27% in 1987 and to 25% in 1988.[21] The top rate of income tax was cut to 40% in the 1988 budget. The investment income surcharge was abolished in 1985.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't income tax only brought in as a short term measure to finance the  Napoleonic wars ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxation has been the source for common funding throughout the history of civilised states - hence civilisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is wonderful is that soon the NHS will be awash with cash, I saw it written on a bus lol

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×