NHS fallen to 31 in the world since Tories took over.

The NHS budget is £134 billion. The population of the UK is about 66.6 million. That means that there is just over £2000 available for each person in the UK.

A very high proportion of that is spent on the elderly, especially in the last few years of life, so much less is spent on people of working age. Pregnant women and young children are the next most expensive.

We all have different healthcare needs, but I know I'd be pushed to pay for what I've had, if I'd had to pay for it on a PAYG system and I've never had expensive cancer treatment or a complicated op.

The NHS does need more money if it's going to deliver what people want. The big question is whether people should pay for everybody to have better treatment or whether individuals should pay for the better treatment they and their families want (and nobody else).

I completely agree MaizieD. The NHS was acknowledged as one of the cheapest and most efficient internationally whilst the last Labour government was in power.

This was because there was a huge financial investment in it.
Of course they did not get everything right, but if we think moving to an insurance based system will improve things I think we will be very disappointed.

The US system is the cruellest system in comparison to ours, where the main beneficiaries are the insurance companies, not to mention drug companies, and the many other tiers involved. The losers are poorer people who are unemployed, those whose insurance runs out, or those who can’t afford insurance. No wonder poor people are sicker and die sooner.

Some European insurance based systems look attractive, but when you look at them they are still more costly than our (properly funded) NHS system.

EllanVannin

Growstuff, I've never been a teacher ? Where did that come from ?

Sorry! My fault! I mixed you up with somebody else.

I was a nurse, then latterly did office work for two consultants.

Callistemon

Re the Swiss system, one of our erstwhile posters had said, I think, that it was quite costly. They had to pay quite a lot per month for healthcare.

I think we do need to pay a separate, set amount to fund our healthcare system or pay more in income tax which should be ring fenced for the NHS.

The problems with some systems arise when people are just above the level of earnings to receive free healthcare but struggling to pay essential bills. Someone on a slightly lower wage would receive free healthcare.

Some of the financial problems of the NHS could be solved overnight by charging everybody, including the economically inactive such as pensioners, a health tax, which is what happens in many other countries.

How much would you be prepared to pay?

Growstuff, I've never been a teacher ? Where did that come from ?

Whitewavemark2

So if there is so much wrong, the question is: does our health service need a complete re-think and what do we want, and what do we not want.

I am firmly against the American system.

In would always like a system free at the point of need.

I would not like to see a two tier system in the U.K.

I believe that there are certain principles that I would not like to lose. One is that everyone regardless of wealth is entitled to a comprehensive , quality health care system.

I believe the NHS always will be free at the point of need. However, what it provides will reduce. We're already witnessing that.

So you've worked in the NHS and as a teacher EllanVannin? You certainly got about!

EllanVannin

Shouldn't the hospitals themselves come under question as to what government funds are spent on ?

They are. That's why foundation trusts were introduced.

It still comes down to big questions. Which would you fund? Hundreds of cataract ops or one heart transplant?

Would you spend money on trying to prevent illness? Is it worth keeping people with poor outlooks alive?

We can't prevent some conditions, but we could certainly prolong life and relieve suffering for many, if there were more money.

In the past we've read about bad management to the point of fraud/embezzlement in one or two areas.
Hospitals are only as good as those who manage them. Successive governments have always poured millions into the health system which has been commensurate with the incremental/ economic and financial
situation at the time.

I've always been interested in wanting to sift through the inventories of some of these hospitals, out of curiosity. I say this with having worked for the NHS and witnessed a lot of wastage such as hiring staff from the private sector when they haven't been needed, costing the NHS thousands !

Each department is responsible for their own budget and certain areas of a hospital such as clinics can manage to work within a budget because it's pre-forecast/ numbered as to the amount of patients attending.

A&E for instance can never work within budget for obvious reasons and invariably go over any allotted amount/ estimate. Not their faults, nor the government's either.

It's a huge job for those concerned in the finance department as well as those responsible for wards etc. in balancing their budgets. Various charities also help to fund the NHS.
This year has been unprecedented because of Covid so I imagine that the much argued £10bn will come to fruition in covering health costs until 2021.

As for waiting times for non-urgent ops, Essex is 100% Conservative and I can assure you that waiting times are the same here. I've also noticed the service for chronic conditions become progressively worse over the last decade.

The Blair government used to pay for private operations when waiting lists in certain procedures became too long.

MaizieD

Sorry, Wwmk2, you were replying while I was typing.

I kind of get your point about taking it out of government hands, but the government is the only body that can create the necessary funding. Anything else would sooner or later encounter the problem of having a finite amount of money, surely?

Yes I am aware of that regarding funding, particularly in times of emergency like now, but there must be a way of deciding what we as a nation want or don’t want from the NHS and the way it is run, and act accordingly.

Sort of a constitution, that governments can’t overrule without national consent, and I don’t mean because they are temporarily in government and putting their own slant in it.

Imo we are where we are because the NHS has be subject to government whims and vagaries, and I don’t think it is what we signed up for.

EllanVannin

Shouldn't the hospitals themselves come under question as to what government funds are spent on ?

Nothing wrong with that . EV. No institution, public or private, should go unscrutinised. But it shouldn't be left short of funding for ideological reasons.

Shouldn't the hospitals themselves come under question as to what government funds are spent on ?

I refer you to How To Lie With Statistics, basically it says Tell what you want to 'ptove' and I will 'prove' it!
I am amazed at how unquestionning people are regarding figures but if they fit their personal agenda...........

Sorry, Wwmk2, you were replying while I was typing.

I kind of get your point about taking it out of government hands, but the government is the only body that can create the necessary funding. Anything else would sooner or later encounter the problem of having a finite amount of money, surely?

Why are you so fixated on the financing aspect, Wwmk2?

There's plenty to be overhauled in the structure, but there is no need to change the government funding.

The government cannot run out of money and public spending is entirely beneficial for the economy. It directly supports the private enterprise which it buys goods and services from and it indirectly supports private enterprise by its employees spending the money it pays them.

Waiting times for operations such as hip replacements etc were so inordinately long in Wales that even the then Labour First Minister's father paid for his to be done privately
Those living on the border were sometimes lucky enough to be sent to England to have treatment free of charge in a combined NHS/private facility.

MaizieD

The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.

Subsequent tory governments have systematically starved it of funding. While what it has been given each year looks impressive it has not been sufficient to keep pace with inflation or an increasing population. Health services have had to make cuts to keep going. The breaking of the NHS into 'markets' hasn't helped, with the resultant increase in administration.

One thing we do not need is an alternative method of funding it. I know I keep banging on about this, but as the government is an issuer of money it cannot run out of it. It can issue enough money to fund whatever it wants (this being the key word, wants). In the case of public services it doesn't want to fund them. It wants to privatise the lot.

I agree that the whole area needs an overhaul, but it doesn't need any sort of alternative funding arrangements.

My post should have included Maizies post not mine!

Whitewavemark2

So if there is so much wrong, the question is: does our health service need a complete re-think and what do we want, and what do we not want.

I am firmly against the American system.

In would always like a system free at the point of need.

I would not like to see a two tier system in the U.K.

I believe that there are certain principles that I would not like to lose. One is that everyone regardless of wealth is entitled to a comprehensive , quality health care system.

So would you be prepared to look at the various systems in Europe and give them consideration.

What I have real difficulty with is that ever since it’s inception, the NHS has been at the mercy of the vagaries of the government. Look at the present government. Regardless of what they say, we know that they are relaxed about parcelling out piecemeal the various parts to private enterprise to be run for a profit.

I think that it should be entirely taken out if the governments hands and run by not for profit charities or something similar.

Funding can be governed by legislation etc.

Anyone who thought healthcare was good under Blair

Did Not Live in Staffordshire!!!

Re the Swiss system, one of our erstwhile posters had said, I think, that it was quite costly. They had to pay quite a lot per month for healthcare.

I think we do need to pay a separate, set amount to fund our healthcare system or pay more in income tax which should be ring fenced for the NHS.

The problems with some systems arise when people are just above the level of earnings to receive free healthcare but struggling to pay essential bills. Someone on a slightly lower wage would receive free healthcare.

So if there is so much wrong, the question is: does our health service need a complete re-think and what do we want, and what do we not want.

I am firmly against the American system.

In would always like a system free at the point of need.

I would not like to see a two tier system in the U.K.

I believe that there are certain principles that I would not like to lose. One is that everyone regardless of wealth is entitled to a comprehensive , quality health care system.

The reason that the NHS was good under Blair's government was that it was given enough money to be good.

Subsequent tory governments have systematically starved it of funding. While what it has been given each year looks impressive it has not been sufficient to keep pace with inflation or an increasing population. Health services have had to make cuts to keep going. The breaking of the NHS into 'markets' hasn't helped, with the resultant increase in administration.

One thing we do not need is an alternative method of funding it. I know I keep banging on about this, but as the government is an issuer of money it cannot run out of it. It can issue enough money to fund whatever it wants (this being the key word, wants). In the case of public services it doesn't want to fund them. It wants to privatise the lot.

I agree that the whole area needs an overhaul, but it doesn't need any sort of alternative funding arrangements.

My DH has had a similar experience Pantglas . Messed about by 2 hospitals in the same trust . Operations booked and cancelled 3 times until he was so ill he ended up in intensive care . Then COVID happened and no one gets any treatment at all . What a rubbish non system .